We are taught to believe in the concept of checks and balances—a mechanism designed, we’re told, to keep power in check by distributing it across various branches of government.  Yet, this belief is not a safeguard against tyranny.  It’s a carefully crafted illusion that facilitates the very expansion of state power it claims to restrain.  The public is encouraged to trust this myth, unknowingly endorsing their own subjugation under its guise.

Consider what happens when one branch of government enacts an overreaching or unconstitutional measure.  Rather than intervening as a check, another branch often validates the act, cloaking it in the appearance of legality.  The judiciary might uphold legislation that clearly infringes on fundamental rights.  Instead of limiting power, this collaboration consolidates it, proving that the so-called separation of powers is more of a partnership than a rivalry.

The three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—are often portrayed as independent forces locked in a perpetual struggle.  Yet they all serve the same entity: the state.  Different uniforms, same team.  Each has a vested interest in the expansion of state authority, as their power grows in tandem.  Occasionally, a decision may be made to strike down a law or action, but this is largely theatrical—a token gesture to maintain the illusion of accountability.  Rarely is the state truly restrained.

Nietzsche once asked, “Do they only believe the stammerer?” suggesting that the political class often speaks in vague, illogical terms to obscure the truth, knowing the masses are more likely to accept confusion rather than challenge it.  Similarly, people are more inclined to believe in a system that seems to bicker with itself, mistaking the show for genuine resistance.  History and logic reveal the truth: power does not voluntarily limit itself.  The branches of government are more likely to cooperate in advancing their collective authority than to restrain each other.

The enduring myth of checks and balances persists because it appeals to a psychological bias.  People tend to believe the first narrative they are told, especially when it aligns with their desire for security and order.  The notion that the system is designed to protect them is comforting, even when reality shows otherwise.  Mark Twain’s observation holds true: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” The story of checks and balances is an effective deception, not because it is logical, but because it is palatable.

This system, marketed as a shield for liberty, more often serves as a weapon against it.  Each branch of government is not your defender but a collaborator in the expansion of state control.  Recognizing this is crucial.  The machinery of government operates not for your benefit but for its own perpetuation.  Understanding this is the first step toward dismantling the illusions that sustain it.

References

Michael Huemer; The Problem of Political Authority

Stanislav Andreski; Social Sciences as Sorcery