What does it mean when someone "authorizes" another person to do something on his behalf? - it means that the authorizer A appoints B to take an action he (A) has a right to do, but not necessarily the ability, the time or other resources.

B might be an employee, or a friend, or anyone else whom A can trust, and B might in turn pass on the commission, with the authority needed, down a whole chain of other people; C, D, E and so on. In a large organization, that's common.

The chain of authority in such a case comes from the owners of the firm - the shareholders - to the board of directors, perhaps to the sales director to the regional sales managers to the bright young representatives confidently representing the Great Monolithic Manufacturing Corp. They are authorized to act on its behalf. They have a right to do anything the owners have a right to do, within such limits as the owners may have set.

But the representative cannot take action he is not authorized to take, nor any that the owners have no right to take. So if a prospective customer hesitates to accept an offer, neither the sales rep nor the owners can hold a gun to his head and make him an "offer he can't refuse" like Luca Brasi and Vito Corleone once allegedly did, because neither has any right to initiate force upon the prospect; for the latter is a self-owner. He has the natural right to make all of his own choices without coercion - which Mafia guys have no right to apply.

This is not complicated! Perhaps I labored the above beyond need; it's rather obvious. But the implications are vast.

After reading the end of last week's ZGBlog we might begin by asking who authorized Agent Ross of ICE to shoot and kill Renée Good as she drove away: the US Government, of course. Did the USGov have the right to kill her? - no! So Ross acted without valid authorization. But we should probe a great deal deeper yet.

Properly, the first question to ask is, who authorized the USGov to exist? - and the usual answer is We The People did, by ratifying the Constitution. Sounds impressive, but wait; did We The People have the right to do any of the things the USGov was chartered to do?

I suggest that the answer to that is: emphatically, NO! The downward chain of rightful authority looks strong, but there's none at the top to hold it up. Guess what gravity will do. For slightly different reasons, Spooner called it The Constitution of No Authority.

You, I and our forefathers in 1788 do not have the right to take money from other people without their consent; therefore we can not authorize anyone else to steal it on our behalf (and call it "tax".) We do not have the right to borrow money collaterized only by our stealing skills; so we cannot authorize anyone else to borrow that way, on our behalf. We do not have the right to control what others buy and sell with overseas traders; so we cannot authorize anyone else to regulate such trading on our behalf.

And so on; those are just the first three of the eighteen powers listed in Article 1 Section 8, supposedly delegated to the USGov. We don't have the right to do any of them, so cannot authorize it or anyone else to do them for us. The entire structure is a fraud.

What's true regarding the Feds is true also for each of the separate State governments; initially 13, now 50. Each began in a different way at different times, but in each the facile theory was that The People somehow authorized the StateGov to write laws and do this, that and the other; yet none of the actions involved could rightfully be carried out by those allegedly authorizing them to do; so in every case the authorization was bogus.

What was so wrongfully done, must now be undone. The whole sorry pile of Federal, State and Local governments must and can be scrapped; the chain must fall. Here's how.