Who gave one human being the right to rule another?*

No Human is Born to Rule Over Others

Nobody is born with the right to control another person no matter how many degrees or what type of IQ level they want to hold over others.

A baby is not born with the right to wear a crown. Nobody comes into this world with a badge giving them the right to command others and make others do their will.

Yet some people grow up to make laws, collect taxes, and punish those who disobey.

How do they gain that right? When they are not involved with government insitutions, no human can morally do such things.

**Having political authoritive power and having the moral right are two different things.**

A robber can take your money. That does not make stealing right. Hitler can declare anything legal, that does not make it right.

So what makes government different?

## What Does Political Science Teach?

Political science is the study of government, laws, elections, and power.

Students learn how rulers are chosen, how laws are made, and why people obey authority.

According to the [American Political Science Association](https://apsanet.org/resources/for-the-public/what-is-political-science/), the field studies political institutions, behavior, and public policy.

But knowing how government works does not give someone the right to rule.

Consider these numbers from the 119th U.S. Congress:

- **96%** of House members had bachelor's degrees or higher.

- **99%** of senators had bachelor's degrees or higher.

- **47%** of senators held law degrees.

These figures come from the [Congressional Research Service](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R48535.html), using 2025 data. They are not percentages of political science graduates.

There is no reliable worldwide percentage showing how many politicians or members of royal families hold political science degrees.

And that raises another question.

**Does education make someone better at understanding power, or give them a right to exercise it over others?**

## The Philosophers Who Defended Government

**Thomas Hobbes** believed people needed a strong government to protect them from violence and disorder.

But if people can be dangerous, why trust a small group with even greater power?

**John Locke** believed people had natural rights to life, freedom, and property. He argued that government should rest on consent.

But when did you consent?

**Jean-Jacques Rousseau** believed people could govern themselves by making laws together.

But if you vote against a law and must still obey it, are you governing yourself?

**Robert Nozick** defended strong individual rights and a government with very limited powers.

**Philosophical anarchists** go further. They question whether any state has a general moral right to command peaceful people.

These debates are examined in the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/).

## From Subjects to Citizens

Kings once ruled over people called *subjects*.

In medieval Europe, many farmers were *serfs*, tied to land and bound by duties to landowners.

Today, governments call people *citizens*, *voters*, and *taxpayers*.

Modern citizens enjoy rights that many people in the past never had. These differences matter.

But does changing someone's title answer the question of authority?

**If a person cannot refuse a command without being punished, what makes that command morally binding?**

## Did You Ever Agree?

The [Declaration of Independence](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript) says governments receive their rightful power from the consent of the governed.

But were you ever asked?

You did not choose where you were born. You never signed a contract agreeing to every law.

Some argue that living in a country means accepting its rules.

The philosopher David Hume challenged that idea using a ship.

Imagine waking up on a ship you never chose to board. The captain says you agree to his orders because you have not jumped into the ocean.

Would staying aboard really count as consent?

Others argue that people owe something to their communities because they share roads, protection, and other benefits.

But if someone gives you something you never asked for, can they force you to pay?

## Taxes and the People They Pay

You work. You earn money. The government requires a portion.

In the United States, employers generally withhold taxes from wages.

If taxes remain unpaid, the IRS may eventually collect money through wage levies, bank levies, or other legal methods, subject to taxpayer protections.

The [IRS explains these powers](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/what-is-a-levy).

Tax money helps fund roads, schools, public employees, and government programs. The federal government also uses borrowing and other revenue.

Some public workers provide valuable services. Others write rules, collect taxes, and enforce laws.

But there is an important difference between a private business and the state.

A business usually cannot force you to buy its services.

Government can require payment even when you oppose the programs being funded.

**Can a system fairly decide how much money and power it needs when some of its decision-makers benefit from its continued funding?**

And does providing useful services justify collecting payment without individual consent?

## Does Voting Make It Right?

Imagine ten neighbors voting.

Six vote to take property from the other four.

The election is fair. Everyone gets a vote.

Does that make taking the property right?

Real public decisions are more complex. Voting can protect people from rulers who cannot be removed, and laws can protect individual rights.

But winning a vote does not automatically make every action moral.

**If something is wrong for one person to do, can a majority vote make it right?**

## The Question That Remains

A constitution can create legal power.

An election can choose who holds that power.

A degree can explain how power works.

But none of these alone proves that every use of power is morally justified.

The question is not whether people need safety, rules, or help from others.

The question is whether those needs give some people a special right to command everyone else.

**If no ordinary person is born with the right to rule another, what changes when that person puts on a government badge?**

Does the badge create a moral right?

Or does it simply give someone the power to act as though that right exists?