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.
I did flirt with notions of 'anarchist' for a little while towards the end of my stint as a right-leaning libertarian. It IS kinda the logical next step of Libertarianism.
Problem is that it's also totally unrealistic seeings how humans naturally and spontaneously act with collective force in groups (that's largely what civilization IS). When I see anarchists and/or anarcho-capitalists relocating to the Promised Land of Somalia, I'll try and take them a little more seriously.
But isn't the whole "move to Somalia" thing a red herring?
What you are saying is this:
"I understand that you don't believe in the social contract but since others do it is you that has to do X or Y."
Renouncing citizenship because you don't believe in the legitimacy of the citizenship actually legitamises the very citizenship you are renouncing.
*MY* extortion?? I don't work for the government. Unlike most right-wingers I know, I don't receive any government hand-outs. So we're not talking about *MY* extortion here.
Nor did I imply that taxes are NOT extortion. You can make a very solid argument that they are- and I'm not disputing it.
Nor did I imply that taxes are "okay". I've offered no opinion on the 'ok-ness' of taxation. My point- which I think you're capable of grasping- is that in the face of overwhelming government force, it's pretty well irrelevant to say that taxes are 'right' or 'wrong'. They're just a fact.
Fact is that you WILL pay your taxes, or you'll end up in a cage. What good is being a 'sovereign' in a cage? Does it even MEAN anything at that point?
Looks to me like 'natural rights' are pretty well irrelevant compared to force. More on that in a bit.
What I meant was that if you support taxation, you're supporting agents of the government taking from me to fund whatever you think should be funded. I jumped to the conclusion that you supported taxing me, and that you were saying that I WILL pay because most people agree that I should. That's the argument I get all the time...so I apologize if that isn't what you meant.
I definitely agree that I'm not sovereign in practice. I actually don't believe I said I was or wasn't, but to be clear I don't think I am. I think every human should be sovereign because nobody has the right to own another person (directly and openly, or indirectly by way of the state), but I'll need more people in agreement with me for that to happen.
Quote:
Good for you for seeing your way clear of fundamentalism. You may not want to hear this, but 15+ years ago I could've written exactly what you wrote here. I meant it at the time and I understand exactly what you're saying.
You seem like a smart guy- and I think in time you'll examine those supposed "first principles". You may not like what you find. I didn't
I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong...that's half the reason I discuss this stuff with people. I just want the right answer to things. For me to change my views, someone would have to explain why the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights are invalid. That's the foundation that I base my logic on. It's okay to use force if someone else uses it against you first, but you are the bad guy if you're the one bringing violence into a non-violent situation. It's also wrong to steal, commit fraud, or any other violation of property rights. If you own a car, it's wrong of me to do anything with or to that car without your consent. Your body is also your property, so it's wrong to take your kidney or stab you in the leg, or rape you, etc.
Principles need to be universal. If it's wrong for me to do, it's wrong for anyone to do. That's why everyone generally understands the golden rule. If you wouldn't want somebody doing something to you, don't do that thing to others.
Since we don't know, the solution that seems most fair is to hold people living today accountable for what they have done personally and move on from there.
It's a tough situation because, ideally, past wrongs should be made right...but there's no way that I'm aware of to do that. Any redistribution of living people's property to pay for the mistakes of people long dead, who may or may not rightfully own that property, is very suspect. I legitimately wish there was a way to know what belonged to who.
To the first sentence referenced above.......that's why we have a criminal justice system, flawed as it is.
To the final paragraph of your post.......Perhaps this very "tough situation" is the well spring from which such concepts of a judgmental God, and "karma" (otherwise known as universal justice) comes from?
First I'm gonna assume you're a white guy. Considering the views you've expressed, I'd say odds are about 98% that it's a correct assumption.
Now... you may not know precisely which Native Americans own "your" land. But seeings how you're a white guy- and Native Americans literally owned all the land in North America before Europeans initiated force and took it- you know very well that *you* don't own that land if you're gonna be logically consistent and truly follow the notions of Natural Rights.
Assuming you own land, you're demonstrably in possession of stolen property. Are you willing to hold true to your 'principles' and give it up? Perhaps put it into a trust to be held in perpetuity unless and until the rightful owners according to Natural Law can be determined??
Now please don't fall back onto legal arguments. There are plenty of legal arguments saying that you must pay taxes. But it's still extortion, right? You can make legal arguments that you own your land... but you and I both know that it's stolen property, don't we?
I am a white guy, although I'm various types of "white". I wish I wasn't at times because it's often used to make me seem less objective, when I truly try to be as objective as I can be. I truly would rather give up what I have to make things right than do what I know is wrong even though I benefit from it. I got my degree in a field dominated by state jobs, and after becoming a voluntaryist I stopped applying for government jobs and was working for $10/hr for the next couple years. Luckily I found something in the private sector recently that pays well enough...but I'd rather do what I think is right than what benefits me.
I would never use legality as an argument, so don't worry about that.
My post kind of covered what you said, but I'll say it differently. The problem is that you can't go back in time and see how the Native Americans acquired that land. You have to go to the beginning of mankind. Looking at other groups throughout history, we can be pretty sure that there were battles and conquests between native tribes, there was theft...the chances that Native American tribes rightfully acquired their territories in a peaceful, non-violent way through trade or negotiation are almost 0.
So what it really comes down to is...we can't know who the rightful owner is, so unfortunately the most fair thing to do is judge people alive today based on their own actions and move on. It's tough because it'll just be a cycle. Current landowners will be upset because a) they're punished for things they never did, and b) there's no proof that Native Americans rightfully own it...but Native Americans will be upset because it's possible that they rightfully owned it and it was taken away. What do you do when nobody knows who the rightful owner is?
To the first sentence referenced above.......that's why we have a criminal justice system, flawed as it is.
I prefer some alternatives to law enforcement as it exists now, but I agree that there need to be consequences for theft and violent aggression if you want a free and prosperous society.
Quote:
To the final paragraph of your post.......Perhaps this very "tough situation" is the well spring from which such concepts of a judgmental God, and "karma" (otherwise known as universal justice) comes from?
CN.......
Possibly. Things do tend to balance out, so that can be a sort of consolation prize, at the very least.
The beginning we were sovereigns.
Then the Civil War, turned us all into subjects
With the Progressive Era, putting us well on our way to serfdom.
Not quite correct.
"In the Beginning" - under the republican form of government, the American people were sovereigns.
However, those who consented to be citizens, switched to the democratic form of government, and were subjects.
This has been part of the law, since 1777.
. . .
“ 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... ]
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.
If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.
The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
. . . . . . . . . .
"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, instituted 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 rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
Restating :
American people are sovereigns.
American citizens are subjects.
. . .
Still not persuaded?
“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... No such ideas obtain here; 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[.]
“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
American governments are servants of the sovereign people.
American citizens are servants of the government.
Did they ever inform you of your option to NOT volunteer to be a citizen?
First I'm gonna assume you're a white guy. Considering the views you've expressed, I'd say odds are about 98% that it's a correct assumption.
Now... you may not know precisely which Native Americans own "your" land. But seeings how you're a white guy- and Native Americans literally owned all the land in North America before Europeans initiated force and took it- you know very well that *you* don't own that land if you're gonna be logically consistent and truly follow the notions of Natural Rights.
Assuming you own land, you're demonstrably in possession of stolen property. Are you willing to hold true to your 'principles' and give it up? Perhaps put it into a trust to be held in perpetuity unless and until the rightful owners according to Natural Law can be determined??
Now please don't fall back onto legal arguments. There are plenty of legal arguments saying that you must pay taxes. But it's still extortion, right? You can make legal arguments that you own your land... but you and I both know that it's stolen property, don't we?
I stole nothing. Bought and paid for my land. As for the indians, they lost the war.
American Sovereigns?
==\==\==\==
In American law, under the republican form, the INDIVIDUAL American is a sovereign - not a subject.
. . .
From an early Supreme Court ruling :
“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... No such ideas obtain here; 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[.]
“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
. . .
However, citizens are subjects.
. . .
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
.....................
It is obvious that no sovereign can be a citizen, and vice versa.
In most other countries, men are subjects of sovereigns, bound to obedience. In countries like the USA, that ENJOY a republican form, sovereign men are not presumed to be subjects and citizens. Nor are they bound to OBEY laws (regulatory).
BUT if one is NOT in a republican form - such as those in a constitutionally limited indirect democracy - one is a subject and bound to obedience - by consent.
. . .
If you asked most Americans, they would be blithely ignorant of their lost heritage of sovereignty, freedom and independence - surrendered in exchange for socialist entitlements (via FICA/ Social Security) and participation in democracy.
More citations:
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
- - - Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
- - - Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
- - - Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
- - - Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)
These citations support the republican form of government, wherein the sovereign people have endowed rights and liberties, which include absolute ownership of private property, natural and personal liberty.
Sadly, Americans are victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry and are ignorant, apathetic and arrogantly proud of their lack of knowledge about American law and history.
You can change that.
Go read the law, available at any county courthouse law library.
Rediscover your heritage and birthright that was stolen from you by trickery and fraud.
. . .
Americans are indoctrinated to revere democracy, which is anathema to the republican form of government they were promised in their own constitution.
Not 1 in 100,000 Americans know of the republican form, nor can they accurately define it.
Here are THREE definitions that describe aspects associated with the REPUBLICAN FORM
. . .
COMMONWEALTH - ...It generally designates, when so employed, a republican form of government, - one in which the welfare and rights of the entire mass of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a class or the will of the monarch...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 278
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
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
. . .
In a republican form, the rights and welfare of ALL the people are the main consideration.
Unlike other nations, the American people are the sovereigns, not the government.
BUT.
Those who consent, descend to citizenship, and become subjects of their "sovereign" government - whatever its form (oligarchy, socialist democracy, constitutionally limited indirect democracy, parliamentary democracy, etc).
Service is a privilege, not a right, ergo, citizens and public servants serve at the pleasure of the sovereign people and must adhere to a higher standard of behavior as well as perform mandatory civic duties.
{Americans effectively abandoned the republican form in the 1820s, though their legislated statutes still conform to it. That few know of this is a victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.}
. . .
There is still time.
Read law.
You suffer from not understanding what you read, and from failing to read outside of it for context. The federal government is endowed with power in the United States Constitution, among them the powers to tax, spend, regulate interstate commerce, and conduct foreign relations.
At the risk of wading into your distorted semantics, the Constitution uses the term "citizenship" three times, once in the 14th Amendment and twice in Article II. Only citizens can be President, so I guess only subjects are eligible . The 14th indicates that all persons born in the United States are citizens. I guess we are all subjects.
American nationals who are sovereign do not need permission to exercise natural and personal liberty.
American citizens who are subjects do need permission (license) to exercise civil and political liberty, they lack natural and personal liberty.
This is wonderful news.
Does that mean as a "sovereign" the laws do not apply to me?
Does it mean I do not have to get any kind of license ... such as a Driver's License?
I guess that means I can build anything I want on my property as zoning regulations don't apply to me.
I can do anything I want because I am a "SOVEREIGN"!!!
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.
. The 14th indicates that all persons born in the United States are citizens. I guess we are all subjects.
