Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Government is the subset of society that has authority over and sets the rules for everyone else. It has existed in some form for as long as people have had to work/live together. Really, do you think you've set some logical trap here or something?
Nope, not trying to trap you. I just want to establish that the state is not society itself. There’s society, and then there’s a person or group with societal permission to initiate force (enforce legislation, tax, etc.) within a geographic territory.
Quote:
Where are you getting this notion from? Societal rules are set by the government, that is literally the definition and purpose for its existence. Property rights are a construct of the government and would not exist without it.
Yes and no. Legislation is written by the government, but societal rules exist outside of that. What matters is what the people in that society believe.
For example, if Congress said rape was legal, most people wouldn’t suddenly believe it was acceptable, or that rapists are no longer criminals. They wouldn’t allow their friends and family to be raped. If they passed a law saying everyone must give 100% of their income to Trump, people would resist that because it’s unjust.
I won’t go into a big paragraph on property rights and property theory, but I’ll point out that property can and is defended by individuals and non-state actors. You can be dropped on a desert island with no state and still stop thieves from taking your stuff, individually or collectively.
Quote:
Criminals are people who have broken the laws set by government. You are just redefining words to suite your individualistic take on life. But you can't co-op concepts created by government in an argument against the existence of government.
I’d say that definition is extremely convenient for the government. “X is a crime, but we define what a crime is, so it’s not a crime if we do it.”
The concept isn’t created by government, btw. You can call it whatever word you want, but the concept of crime/wrongdoing exists because people believe it does. The state could disappear overnight and people would still believe a murderer is a criminal.
Doesn’t the government have legal authority to tax?
Anyone possessing a monopoly on force and violence has the authority to do pretty much whatever they want.
The bully has the authority to tax the weakling's milk money. The mugger has the authority to tax the victim's wallet. The abusive parent has the authority to physical beat the child.
All majority agreement does for authority to commit violence against others is sanction it. It doesn't redefine it, change its nature or make it moral...it simply sanctions it. What you call "legal" is simply majority agreed upon sanction for some form of violence against others to be considered legitimate.
Taxation is violence, same as being mugged on the street, having your home burglarized, your car stolen, being defrauded in a contract, etc. SAME EXACT THING, minus one caveat - a long time ago, some number of people legitimized the violence of taxation with agreement between them, thus giving that violence sanction. Never, ever changed the nature of the violence, just gave it better marketing so they don't have to use the bullets in the gun they hold to your head when they tax you. Bullets are costly and the results messy, so it's way better if you just comply with their demands against you.
Bottom line, anyone with any sort of force/violence advantage over another possesses "authority." A monopolistic advantage gives complete/total authority. Only question after that is which kind of violence done to you or by you do you wish to have sanctioned. The violence doesn't change, only what you tell yourself after having perpetrated it or being victim of it.
And just how would all levels of government operate? Without taxation who would fix the pot holes? Supply your water, school your kids, fire department, police protection, military, border security etc.etc.
You know all those things people like you take for granted.
Well, how was it done before they started robbing the people directly, based upon your productivity and feeding yourself?
The first sentence of the Constitution might help answer that for you:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Also, sticking "at gunpoint" next to everything government related isn't fooling anyone. Supporting a government to oversee society isn't a radical liberal idea. Not supporting it is radical
Apparently, you are unaware of the REPUBLICAN form of government, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, wherein the American people are "sovereigns without subjects," and the president is merely the highest ranking public SERVANT, one step down in status from the lowest American sovereign.
But it is to be expected, since most Americans are victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, and are loathe to read their own laws and history.
REPUBLICAN FORM
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
". . . at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . ."
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
In this excerpt we see that sacred rights encompass natural rights, personal liberty, and the right to private property (i.e., absolutely owned by an individual).
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
Short review of the foundation of American law - - -
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776
CONTRAST THAT WITH THIS:
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
BUT if you consented, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
WHY?
BECAUSE Citizens are NOT sovereigns
"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
So which one are you?
[] One of the sovereign people who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?
[] Or one of the subject citizens who indirectly exercise sovereignty via delegation to representatives, and have surrendered endowed rights in exchange for civil and political liberties (i.e."rights") by consent to be governed?
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to define the laws (and collect taxes!)
Sucks when reality gets in the way of an otherwise great narrative though doesn't it?
You have a MASTER?
I don't.
You were not taught, that a great revolution happened for a bunch of Redneck's independence, over taxation.
The MASTERS come for the guns, so you cannot fight back.....
Anyone possessing a monopoly on force and violence has the authority to do pretty much whatever they want.
The bully has the authority to tax the weakling's milk money. The mugger has the authority to tax the victim's wallet. The abusive parent has the authority to physical beat the child.
All majority agreement does for authority to commit violence against others is sanction it. It doesn't redefine it, change its nature or make it moral...it simply sanctions it. What you call "legal" is simply majority agreed upon sanction for some form of violence against others to be considered legitimate.
Taxation is violence, same as being mugged on the street, having your home burglarized, your car stolen, being defrauded in a contract, etc. SAME EXACT THING, minus one caveat - a long time ago, some number of people legitimized the violence of taxation with agreement between them, thus giving that violence sanction. Never, ever changed the nature of the violence, just gave it better marketing so they don't have to use the bullets in the gun they hold to your head when they tax you. Bullets are costly and the results messy, so it's way better if you just comply with their demands against you.
Bottom line, anyone with any sort of force/violence advantage over another possesses "authority." A monopolistic advantage gives complete/total authority. Only question after that is which kind of violence done to you or by you do you wish to have sanctioned. The violence doesn't change, only what you tell yourself after having perpetrated it or being victim of it.
Apparently, you are unaware of the REPUBLICAN form of government, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, wherein the American people are "sovereigns without subjects," and the president is merely the highest ranking public SERVANT, one step down in status from the lowest American sovereign.
But it is to be expected, since most Americans are victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, and are loathe to read their own laws and history.
REPUBLICAN FORM
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
". . . at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . ."
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
In this excerpt we see that sacred rights encompass natural rights, personal liberty, and the right to private property (i.e., absolutely owned by an individual).
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
Short review of the foundation of American law - - -
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776
CONTRAST THAT WITH THIS:
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
BUT if you consented, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
WHY?
BECAUSE Citizens are NOT sovereigns
"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
So which one are you?
[] One of the sovereign people who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?
[] Or one of the subject citizens who indirectly exercise sovereignty via delegation to representatives, and have surrendered endowed rights in exchange for civil and political liberties (i.e."rights") by consent to be governed?
No, not a sovereign citizen argument. Were you on Youtube?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
