>the really worrying part was the just inherent "you follow the laws no matter what even if you don't agree with them and they can't enforce them." these are the people who would probably turn in their guns if some statesman told them to. >government exists at the consent of the governed vs. the government's capability to threaten the people. without the latter the laws are only followed at the whims of the people
this is from Mein Kampf Volume 2, Chapter 2: The State
Generally speaking, these various theorists may be classed in three groups: 1. Those who hold that the State is a more or less voluntary association of men who have agreed to set up and obey a ruling authority. This is numerically the largest group. In its ranks are to be found those who worship our present principle of legalized authority. In their eyes the will of the people has no part whatever in the whole affair. For them the fact that the State exists is sufficient reason to consider it sacred and inviolable. To protect the madness of human brains, a positively dog-like adoration of so-called state authority is needed. In the minds of these people the means is substituted for the end, by a sort of sleight-of-hand movement. The State no longer exists for the purpose of serving men but men exist for the purpose of adoring the authority of the State, which is vested in its functionaries, even down to the smallest official. So as to prevent this placid and ecstatic adoration from changing into something that might become in any way disturbing, the authority of the State is limited simply to the task of preserving order and tranquillity. Therewith it is no longer either a means or an end. The State must see that public peace and order are preserved and, in their turn, order and peace must make the existence of the State possible. All life must move between these two poles.
