The Mental Militia Forums

Activism Tactics => The Agitator => Topic started by: Joe Kelley on June 12, 2019, 12:38:47 pm

Title: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on June 12, 2019, 12:38:47 pm
From simple to complex the devil and the details are here and now offered to a candid world, for consideration actual, not for counterfeit forms of discussion.

Simply put the law is either an agreement among defenders to hold to account offenders, or there is no law, and offenders gain ready access to victims.

Counterfeit agreement is not the law.

“Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.”
Josiah Warren, 1863

Criminal:
“I am here to protect you, give me everything of value in your current possession or I will break your legs, or worse, my gang will rape you, torture you, for the rest of your life.”

Defender:
“No, if I do so you will go to my neighbor and counterfeit the same agreement only this time you will have my help. My conscience does not allow me to do so. You do know that everyone with a working conscience knows that your so-called Emperor is naked, don’t you? So...why pretend that you are here to protect us?”

Criminal (under the color of law):
“We the People, says right here, consented to this charade. So pay up.”

To be continued, please be civil actual, not counterfeit.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on June 12, 2019, 11:26:49 pm
The next source of information is actually a sound bite when compared to the demand for the power required to deter the criminal opposition, the opposition that works under the color of law.

The next source of information is vital if the idea is to understand true government power commanded by individuals who are then constituting an aggregate or "collective" sum total of individual, voluntary, defensive, power.

Since there are no responses yet, I think the following fills the void in a very special way.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Bill St. Clair on June 13, 2019, 10:16:08 pm
Lysander Spooner rocks!

There are incredible collections at http://www.lysanderspooner.org/works and http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm#spooner
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on June 14, 2019, 08:52:35 am
Spooner may have riled the Austrian Economic Professors with his Paper Money Essay, I know Murray Rothbard printed derogatory words aimed at Spooner in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. It turns out that at least Rothbard is willing to join the Cult of Might Makes Right; in my opinion.

I think also that this was pointed out by Gary North here:

"One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
"Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?"
The Gold-Plated Sting, March 3, 2007, Gary North

For the purposes of this Topic the main point is well stated in the quote from Spooner repeated for effect:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."

Those words are not ambiguous, at least not in my opinion. Those who allow their actions to place them in The Cult of Might Makes Right, with or without pledges, oaths, licenses, contracts, and counterfeit authority of law, are those who subscribe to the idea that criminal means justify criminal ends, and that is the first step down that slippery slope that turns into a torturous hell on earth for everyone as the mass of mankind gains momentum, as the slippery slope turns inevitably into a vertical drop to extinction.

The pretention of authority that is false, counterfeit, opposite of true lawful authority is expressed well in the forward to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli here:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction)

Similar words explaining that basic fraud, or self-deception, that is both stupid and servile, are explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo

Also here:
"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.”
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, 02/18/2008

To the point, individuals decide (often with malice aforethought) to injure innocent people so as to consume innocent people, to take the life out of innocent people, and that decision is followed by actions that are necessary for reaching the imagined benefit. There are 3 basic actions as such:

1. Deception aimed at innocent targets
2. Threats of aggressive violence aimed at innocent targets
3. Aggressive violence perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims

There is a connection between violence and deception, and that is explained well enough by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, which will follow, so as to end this post in this Topic, after one more comment of my own.

In order to begin down that slide into man-made hell on earth someone, somewhere, has to invent and then infect other people with this unnatural, suicidal, genocidal, destructive path, a path that can be described with the word entropy. The path is chosen by the first criminal, then the next, and along the way there is a founding, a framing, a forming of what I call The Cult of Might Makes Right, whereby all those members in that Cult share the same lie, and that lie is the price of admission into the cult, it is the unstated oath. If mankind were as self-destructive as the lie being told suggests, then why not hold the worst to account, if for no other reason than to keep score? Is it just a coincidence that those in (criminal) power always remove from general use the power to hold those in power to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter?

"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
 

 


Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on June 17, 2019, 04:18:04 pm
The simplest form of law is a power built into the species, that power is moral conscience, and for that simple example there is offered a relevant quote:

All things whatsoever … - This command has been usually called the "Saviour's golden rule," a name given to it on account of its great value. All that you "expect" or "desire" of others in similar circumstances, do to them. Act not from selfishness or injustice, but put yourself in the place of the other, and ask what you would expect of him. This would make you impartial, candid, and just. It would destroy avarice, envy, treachery, unkindness, slander, theft, adultery, and murder. It has been well said that this law is what the balance-wheel is to machinery. It would prevent all irregularity of movement in the moral world, as that does in a steam-engine. It is easily applied, its justice is seen by all people, and all must acknowledge its force and value. This is the law and the prophets - That is, this is the sum or substance of the Old Testament. It is nowhere found in so many words, but if is a summary expression of all that the law required. The sentiment was in use among the Jews. Hillel, an ancient Rabbi, said to a man who wished to become a proselyte, and who asked him to teach him the whole law, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another." Something of the same sentiment was found among the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is found in the writings of Confucius.
Barnes' Notes

Simple laws that work naturally are turned into complication as the devils put into human contact those devilish details previously listed as:

1. Deception, so as to consume the lives of innocent people.
2. Threat of Aggressive Violence, aimed at targeted innocent people.
3. Aggressive Violence, perpetrated by guilty people upon innocent people; with malice aforethought.

The most basic, simple, deception is a well-worn claim made by powerful criminals whereby the targets are convinced that the criminals constitute the only hope for innocent people, the only form of protection available to innocent people. 

That is clearly exemplified in those events that became known as the founding of America. Previous to the deception described above the people in America started a voluntary mutual defense association that was based upon rights afforded to all people by all moral people. No one in their right mind then or now can argue the legitimacy of the lie used then, the same lie used now, in complex forms, or in simple forms, not without resort to further lies.

The deception that starts out simple, “we the people,” give a band of criminals absolute power, because that band of criminals said so. Then the simple lie becomes a very tangled web of deceit in short order, doing so by natural laws. Power begins to shift from moral people who volunteer to create and maintain an effective defense of all people as the criminal gang begins to extort everything that is worth anything from those moral, productive, people who manage to maintain enough liberty to actually get productive work accomplished.

I will end this sound bite with a common form of the lie as the lie begins to go down that path of the exponential increase in lies, a natural course governed by natural laws, as each lie will require more that one lie to cover up the first lie. 

The original lie where the criminal gang claims that they are the government is soon followed up with the lie that criminals will obey criminal made laws. That is an accurate description of the lie told by the criminals who counterfeit government. The lie is not a confession, so the words used by the criminals are not accurate words. The lie used by the criminals is not as it was just stated, the criminals do not say: “Criminals will obey the laws that we criminals force upon our victims.”

Instead of that type of confession, the lie takes on a form that convinces the targeted population that somehow, this time, even though it is a required condition necessary for a criminal to be a criminal, that criminals, as a rule, do not obey man-made laws, this new (counterfeit) law, as the lie goes, this additional law added to the pile of laws already not obeyed by criminals, this new law will be obeyed by criminals, and that they say is why this new (counterfeit) law must be enforced by our exclusive group. Although it has never worked in the past, this time it will work. Although it is a condition required for a criminal to be a criminal, that the criminal does not obey man-made laws, this time they say it is necessary to add yet another (counterfeit) law.

The simple form of the lie is objectively exposed as a lie in every actual criminal case where there is an innocent victim, there is in fact, a guilty criminal. The crime scene is not a crime scene without that fact working whereby the criminal, as a rule, does not obey the man-made laws that advise criminals about natural laws.

If you kill some innocent victim, with malice aforethought, as a rule, you are a murderer in fact.

When people claiming to be the government murder people, in fact, they are guilty of murder.

Well, I rambled on when my intention was to be brief, but that last sentence could be exemplified with something resembling a common law trial by jury case:

THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you
agree with this verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

THE COURT: In answer to the
question did Loyd Jowers participate in a
conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther
King, your answer is yes.

Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by
the defendant? Your answer to that one is
also yes.

And the total amount of damages
you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is
one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

The Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee
Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, 1999
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on June 26, 2019, 03:57:23 pm
The lie restated:

“...all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity…”

And:

“...the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good…”

And:

“...the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual…”

If all men are bad then none of them ought to be given arbitrary power. Those who tell this lie confess they're obvious deception when they tell their fellow criminals, and when they tell their targeted victims, that among all the men who are bad there is one exception, and that single exception is always the liar, or the liars sycophants. The sycophants, as in the Emperor’s New Clothes, put the imaginary clothes on the fraudulent exception to the rule. Once the lie has legs, and boots, it starts kicking ass at will with impunity.

How does one place one’s self outside of the law that is meticulously enforced upon everyone else? One claims to be above the law that is the same law claimed to be the one’s source of authority. That is a self-made confession of lawbreaking.

“Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE.”

Falsehood only works on those who believe the lies that create falsehood.

Digging deeper may help the skeptics who remain willing, even eager, members of the Cult of Might Makes Right.

As far back as people have documented their lessons through life there has been evidence of counterfeiting the true law power.

Returning to the words in the introduction to my copy of The Prince is the term Republic:

“This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good.”

In that reference, someone could be misled as to the meaning of the term republic.

Is a republic a voluntary association for mutual defense, such as an insurance policy as explained by Lysander Spooner?

Counter, opposite, in opposition to, and counterfeiting a voluntary mutual defense republic: is it instead an involuntary association falsely labeled a republic?

Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense = Republic

Or

Involuntary Association to force the slaves to pay for their own enslavement = Republic

Of course, it can be both, but which is it in any case involving a controversy, or conflict of interest? What is a republic in a case where there is a clear and present danger to any single innocent individual member of the amalgamated group of individuals known as the public?

If it is a private conflict of interest then those involved in the conflict can remain inside the law, if they choose to do so.

For those who are confused about the true meaning of law see The Golden Rule. The true law can be confused with rules, statutes, suggestions, offers, hints, and friendly advice, which are expressly not the law. The law can also be confused with counterfeits of law such as edicts, proclamations, and oaths of allegiance to falsehood without question: The Cult of Might Makes Right Oath.

Those involved in private conflicts of interest can remain inside the law by doing onto each other that which they would want to be done to themselves. That is a choice to remain inside the law power. Those in conflict can agree to remain inside the law, and one or both, or however many are involved in the conflict can decide to step firmly outside the law by doing onto the others as they themselves would defend tooth and nail to prevent having that act done to themselves.

Those inside the law choose to remain inside the law. Those who do not choose to remain inside the law choose to step firmly outside the law. Law is a voluntary association. Those who step outside the voluntary association (the law) choose to do so, and in order to step firmly outside the law, a victim must be willfully created by the guilty criminal who chooses to step outside the law power.

Who keeps score, and where is that score kept these days?

Before writing things down the scorekeepers who operated courts of conscience (individuals with memories volunteering) kept score and the amalgamated total sum of all those scorekeepers constituted a collective court of record in human memory. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept the more accurate score could be solved inside the law. Many conflicts concerning which individual kept a less accurate score, or intentionally false score, constituted a conflict of interest, and the score could be solved inside the law, or the conflict could be solved outside the law, according to individual choices ruled by nature.

Trial by jury, a voluntary association for mutual defense, has been traced back, in various forms, to ancient times, and places, including places where people were not writing things down. In those places, there was also a process known as trial by ordeal. Trial by ordeal evolved into something called a Duel. If you wonder why the early American patriots and their opposition (who were known as loyalists) were so polite to each other consider what happened to Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr over alleged defamatory statements made by Alexander Hamilton against Aaron Burr.

A court of record functions as a memory bank where all recorded conflicts of interest have been resolved, and recorded, within the confines of the law power. Those who agree to remain inside the law power do so, those who choose not to agree don’t agree, and they choose to move outside the law power. It is a clear distinction, a matter of fact, that criminals, as a rule, choose to step outside the law (Golden Rule) power. Those who believe in the lie that puts imaginary legs on counterfeit law will have other’s believe that law applies to criminals as if criminals will, by some magic, obey laws that apply to criminals. That is the same lie that places criminals who counterfeit government outside the law, as those same criminals claim that their authority to be above the law, immune to it, is the same authority that no one is above the law; an obvious lie.

Criminals confess their crimes as they perpetrate their crimes, as a matter of demonstrable fact.   

Criminals do not obey laws. Criminals may choose to leave other people alone, let them live and let live, most of the time, but the fact remains that crimnals must step outside the law power in order to become criminals. Criminals must, as a rule, target, and then injure innocent victims, and they do so despite the fact that doing so is outside every form of law worthy of the name.

So where is the evidence, in the collective memory of people, written and unwritten in this bank of memories called a court of record, accounting for the true meaning of the term republic?

I’ll end this effort with a quote from Thomas Paine, and then something from a court of record.

"As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.
It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case.
The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.
What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.
Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively.”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, page 176, 1791

“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on June 28, 2019, 02:39:50 pm
I was not inspired to watch the Marxist fake debate (so-called democratic debate), but I did watch the competitive Clown World alternative offered by the gang at Infowars.

Biden was not molesting children at that time, and another Marxist criminal threw Biden under an imaginary Bus, the bus may have been figuratively used to segregate races, and Rosa Parks may have been on that bus in spirit.

Those are not democrats, and I guess I know how people can give up on words so easily, as the counterfeiters construct opposite meanings for previously useful words.

True democracy was explained, in time and place, by democrats (is the capital D an enforceable trademark for Marxists?):

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long, 1996

"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

Did you know that the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Republic (voluntary association for mutual defense), which was also applied to the word Democracy (voluntary association for mutual defense), was the same counterfeiting job applied to the word Federation?

Here in the Congressional Record before 1789:

“That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

When the criminals who counterfeit government begin to extract power from their victims it is the duty of the victims to - at least - keep an accurate score of that fact that matters.

When the criminals took over America by fraud, by threat, and by aggressive force, they left confessions on the official (court of) record. They had to get rid of the actual federation of independent states (a federation forms a voluntary dependency or division of labor), which was formed officially by Articles of Confederation.

The criminals counterfeited the term Federalist, like a King who might don imaginary clothes, and all those who were dupes at the time put legs on the false name, redefining a voluntary mutual defense association, turning a former state of liberty into subsidized slavery of everyone, including the criminals themselves. Life is much less costly for those criminals who make their slaves work hard to allow the criminals to afford luxurious lives at first, but natural forces also destroy the criminals who create counterfeit governments.

 June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.”

Patrick Henry sniffed out (called out) that Rat Smell as the criminals falsely claimed to be Federalists.

FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”

Melancton Smith also called out the Con as a Con. Those in favor of voluntary mutual defense for all, an invitation to live and let live, and the means to defend those rights born into people, were mislabeled, mischaracterized, misinterpreted, misjudged, and publicly smeared by the counterfeiters who were counterfeiting an existing federation (voluntary mutual defense association).

Later, much too late, that fact that matters became an obvious fact to Thomas Paine.

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.
As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.”

What power does Thomas Paine illuminate: the power to defend the innocent from the guilty, or the power to extract everything of value from the subjects of arbitrary government?

The criminals confessed, they always do, but who keeps score?

Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.
Philadelphia 14 May 1787.
Convention.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

They knew that what they were doing was outside the boundaries entrusted to them, and right there is the confession, so skeptics can look elsewhere for holes in the storyline. The criminal slave traders, along with central banking frauds, and warmongers whose propensity to fund all sides all the time in all wars is well documented - all these fellow cult members - stole liberty from those living then, and they stole liberty from posterity, up to these times in these places now.

We have the means to reestablish that perishable liberty.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 01, 2019, 10:35:03 pm
The means to reestablish that oh-so perishable liberty (in time and place: all “politics” is local) is rational, reasonable, logical, time-tested, agreeable (to moral people), relatively costless (compared to the inevitable alternatives), and supported with mountains of evidence including scripture.

Example:

Mathew 7:12:
Golden Rule

John 8:32:
The freedom goal is achieved by way of the truth: establishing it, acknowledging it, recording it, passing it on to the next generation, and the next, or similar message in other words.

Proverbs 1:8-19:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."

Call that a suggestion concerning involvement and consequence, or if you can’t do something good, don’t be the problem yourself, hidden costs blow back.

There is a thread on this forum eluding to studies that suggest a physical part of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Those who gain arbitrary (absolute) power suffer from brain damage over time.

You extort, and you suffer as a result, or you pay the extortion fee, and you get what you pay for.

So…

Stop being the problem, and that is a step toward affecting a solution to the problem.

If you don’t want other people giving power to your enemies, consider what happens when you give power to their enemies, and that can be called Blowback: see for example Ron Paul’s critiques on (corporate) U.S. foreign policy. Where do the members of corporate U.S. get their power to execute what they call “Foreign Policy?” See: National (not federal) Debt Clock Real Time.

Finally, there is a tried and true method by which the people as a whole can inspire voluntary membership in a group of moral people whose participation is a process that has at least one truthful goal: such as finding any fact that matters in any case involving any controversy anywhere anytime, so as to set us free, please?

If it isn’t your duty to discover the truth that matters, then the least you can do is admit that your “contributions” to the Empire may blowback on you or posterity. Admit that to yourself, if to no one else, even if it an unwanted, ignored, fact that matters to you. If it is your duty to discover the truth that matters, including the facts concerning what is being done with your “contributions” to the Empire, then it might be a good idea to find a way to help other people reach that goal too. There is a process, and it is relatively costless.

Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)

Barrister.
My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.

Jurym.
Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.

Barr.
I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?

Jurym.
I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.

Barr.
It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.

Jurym.
You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath been much to my loss.

Barr.
I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses.

As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend.
Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not incur it unawares, by seeking this to avoid it? Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 08, 2019, 11:39:08 am
From the Redoubt News Website:
https://redoubtnews.com/2019/07/declaration-independence/

"The Declaration of Independence – Full Text "

That is the half-truth since the “Full Text” original Declaration of Independence was edited according to the official record, for specified “reasons.”

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Why is it important to get the whole truth instead of the redacted half-truth?

Here are a few (of many) clear warnings:

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson:
"To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."

George Mason
June 17, 1788
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745
"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . "

Garrison's Constitution
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made
By Paul Finkelman
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."

People are built with a natural governing power called conscience, maybe it is worth knowing the facts that matter. The common laws of free people in perishable liberty is a form of Voluntary Mutual Defense, a form documented in such works as a Declaration of Independence and a Bill of Rights.

When people volunteer to hold the worst criminals to account, there is in that work an increase in the power of deterrence: shinning the light of truth.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Tahn L. on July 09, 2019, 11:02:43 am
I can understand why they waited until Jefferson was out of the country, before beginning the "coup" against the Articles of Confederation. 

Thanks Joe Kelly! Interesting.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 10, 2019, 09:16:18 am
You are welcome Tahn L.

I wish to be clear about something infecting people in such a way as to cause powerlessness in defense against crimes such as the coup d'état in 1789.

Each individual moves by a combination of the individuals own will power and powers external to each individual. The powers external can be called peer pressure on one end of a scale and brainwashing on another end of a scale. Some people are very independent-minded while other people merely obey any official-sounding order; doing so without question.

An example of this phenomenon is exemplified well in the whistleblowing effort by Murray Rothbard on the myth of George Washington:

“His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.”
Murray Rothbard, Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty

One individual action is added to another, and another, and either by coincidence or by concerted, organized, combined, effort in a team of individuals, the sum total of the actions affect a coup.

Out goes precious liberty, a value worth a defensive fight, as valuable as life itself, and in place of liberty is blind obedience to falsehood without question: the slide into man-made hell on earth.

“And on top of this we are threatened by destruction in the fact that the physically compressed, strained world is not allowed to blend spiritually; the molecules of knowledge and sympathy are not allowed to jump over from one half to the other. This presents a rampant danger: THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION between the parts of the planet. Contemporary science knows that suppression of information leads to entropy and total destruction. Suppression of information renders international signatures and agreements illusory; within a muffled zone it costs nothing to reinterpret any agreement, even simpler – to forget it, as though it had never really existed. (Orwell understood this supremely.) A muffled zone is, as it were, populated not by inhabitants of the Earth, but by an expeditionary corps from Mars; the people know nothing intelligent about the rest of the Earth and are prepared to go and trample it down in the holy conviction that they come as “liberators”.”
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture 1970

I want to be clear about who “they” are; as in:

“I can understand why they waited until Jefferson was out of the country, before beginning the "coup" against the Articles of Confederation.”

They include everyone on all sides. Every individual on the defensive truth-seeking side and everyone on the falsehood creation and maintenance side are constantly in a struggle to either move the collective sum total of human action toward liberty or toward the willful extinction of life on earth.

Thomas Jefferson could have employed the common law to hold the Slave traders, the slave owners, the slave torturers, and the slave criminals in the federal government to account for their crimes against nature itself. He did not, and that is probably because he feared for his individual life, and any combination of other reasons or excuses. The fact that the whistleblowing by Thomas Jefferson in his published writings on the crimes of slavery exist is one of many facts that matter to all generations that constitute posterity. People even today scoff at the idea that slavery is a crime, hell they are slaves, so they would have to admit that fact that matters to themselves, but they do not, for some obvious, and some less obvious reasons.   

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

“A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.”
Patrick Henry, June 9, 1788

John C. Calhoun, November 3, 1837
"Of all the interests in the community, the banking is by far the most influential and formidable—the most active; and the most concentrating and pervading; and of all the points, within the immense circle of this interest, there is none, in relation to which the banks[484] are more sensitive and tenacious, than their union with the political power of the country. This is the source of a vast amount of their profits, and of a still larger portion of their respectability and influence."
John C. Calhoun, PUBLIC LETTER TO J BAUSKETT AND OTHERS, EDGEFIELD DISTRICT, November 3, 1837

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” 14th Amendment (thought crime)

Who is doing what, when, where, to move the force of liberty in the accurate accountability direction inside their own mind, or external to their own mind, and who on the other hand is suppressing the facts that matter to life on earth? All politics is local, and to be clear, the Emperor's naked body has no clothes on it, and the little man behind the curtain is not the all-powerful Wizard of Oz. The reason King John did not want to sign the confession known as Magna Carta was (at least in part) because that document entered into the public record (court of record) an accurate accounting of the power (moral conscience) of each individual (volunteering on a jury) to nullify any law made by any so-called dictator.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 14, 2019, 12:13:22 pm
Skeptics persist in the face of overwhelming evidence, perhaps.

Skepticism is necessary on the path seeking an elusive truth: accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case.

Willful ignorance of the facts that matter is necessary for the creation and maintenance of violence, falsehood, and fake government.

Some will agree with the lie parroted by every single criminal who has made the choice to create and maintain counterfeit government. Call that lie whatever you want, in any words you choose or borrow from the pile of lies that document the process created and maintained by criminals and their ignorant victims.

Example: The Strong Man Fallacy

If we do not find and empower our own Strong Man, those people over there will enslave us with their Strong Man.

In principle, those who exist in liberty, naturally, can voluntarily associate for their mutual defense against the Strong Man Fallacy, but they can’t do so if they are sucked into that lie too.

Next is further evidence from a previously mentioned source, a discovery of facts that matter, offered to all those who are skeptics, and placed in front of those who may stumble upon this evidence even as they willfully ignore this evidence.

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

When did the liars get away with the lie? When did those lies begin to emit that familiar Rat Smell to those who prefer liberty over despotism?

Those who insist that “our” Strong Man must sit upon our arbitrary “government” to kick ass with impunity upon “our” innocent targets before they can attack “us,” will ignore the facts that matter in the case. That will happen in that individual mind, in that individual place, at that individual time, and that fact will contribute to obvious consequences down that road to those who seek the obvious causes of those obvious consequences.

Patrick Henry:
“Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?  For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.”

Sam Adams:
“From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

In truth like so many before him, Sam Adams turned his coat during Shays’s Rebellion, and that ought to be entered into the public domain right here and now.

The following is for the skeptics, remain vigilant, but if you can Smell that Rat Smell, consider the value of the information on its own merits; please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 15, 2019, 01:09:13 pm
The Federalist Papers : No. 81
The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Falsehood:

"That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested."

Evidence:
The Debate over the Judicial Branch
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/judiciary/

"The Agrippa letters appear to have been written by James Winthrop, who was register of probate in Middlesex when these letters were written."
http://www.constitution.org/afp/agrippa.htm

Agrippa V, Massachusetts Gazette, 11 December 1787:

"Authority is also given to the continental courts, to try all causes between a state and its own citizens. A question of property between these parties rarely occurs. But if such questions were more frequent than they are, the proper process is not to sue the state before an higher authority; but to apply to the supreme authority of the state, by way of petition. This is the universal practice of all states, and any other mode of redress destroys the sovereignty of the state over its own subjects."

That is also false, but the obvious false claim by Al Hamilton (the claim of absolute authority: not likely to be contested) is contested by James Winthrop, as a matter of fact.

The falsehood of James Winthrop appears to me to be on the subject of what is or is not a free member of a free people in liberty.

1. A subject of an all-powerful state.
2. A volunteer in a voluntary mutual defense association under the common laws of free people in liberty.

People can waffle between the two, but in time and place, there are accurately measurable transfers of power from one to another, transfers that are contestable or agreeable, such as for two examples the removal of the power to speak out against arbitrary governors in arbitrary government as Martin Luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum have their lives removed from them, along with their liberty. Agents of the all-powerful Nation-State created by the likes of the liar Al Hamilton routinely murder people to keep them from blowing the whistle, and in at least the MLK case the country, through a jury, found agents of the State guilty of that conspiracy murder.

Being subject to arbitrary government at a State level, or at a Federal level, is despotic in either case, so the non-arguable Hamilton position of a National (not federal) all-powerful judiciary is - in fact - argued (proving that Hamilton is false) by James Winthrop whose argument is that a State, not a Nation (falsely called a federation) ought to have the power to subject people to arbitrary enforcement of arbitrary decisions made by dictators in black robes or uniforms.

Missing (so far) in this non-argument that is argued (a conflict of interest, and a cause to act morally i.e. the law) is the actual law at the time, which was the common law, whereby people volunteer to be subject to the decisions made by the country (the whole people) represented by jurors in a jury trial. Those who don't volunteer don't agree with the common law, and they are by their decision outside that law.

So...these people in this non-argument that is an argument (a controversy) as to who (or which legal fiction) is given arbitrary (absolute) power, could be settled according to the existing voluntary association for mutual defense. The country (through the jury) could decide the matter in each case, every time this conflict arises. 

Petitioner A, such as Al Hamilton, wants everyone in every county in every (soon to be overpowered) state to give up their rights to Legal Fiction A: an all-powerful Nation-State hid behind a federalist facade. 

Petitioner B, such as James Winthrop, wants everyone in every county in his State to give up their rights to Legal Fiction B: his all-powerful Nation-State Massachusetts, the crime scene known as Shays’s Rebellion.   

Falsehood was not yet ubiquitous in those days, not like today. Today almost everyone, each individual everywhere, invests into The Cult of Might Makes Right as if there wasn't any other viable, reasonable, option.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 26, 2019, 11:40:53 am
I don't have all day, so this present effort will dispense with some of the connections, links, references, and sources of offered data. For example, there are 2 opposing processes that have commonly known labels which were made common as people repeat these labels whenever people refer to the 2 opposing processes.

Law

Equity

Law, as in Law of the Land, also known as due process of law, is a process based upon a very simple, eloquent, suggestion known as The Golden Rule. The process called law is a process in which people endeavor to accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of controversy involving any single individual and any other single individual, and of course the process of law also involves any combination of individuals who find themselves in conflict with any other combination of individuals anywhere, anytime, and any place.

As Lysander Spooner points out the concept of law dates back thousands of years, traced originally (perhaps) to Ancient Greece, moving up to Ancient Germany, moving then to Ancient England, and eventually moving, as a concept if not a process, to America.

Again the concept driving the law process is The Golden Rule, and each individual is on an equal, or equitable, footing with each other individual, which is a concept that has many descriptions in words, and symbols, such as the words offered in that famous Declaration of Independence, and that symbol of a blind lady holding a scale. Those who remain on that equitable footing choose to maintain lawful order. Here it is useful to consider the fact that the law is for moral people only, and the law has only one use for immoral people. Moral people, in fact, take the law into their own hands, that is their duty in fact. The only use that immoral people have for the law is to counterfeit it, which is then a very efficient mask for immoral people. 

Recap:
The law is for moral people. Moral people maintain the law as individuals. Moral people employ the law to discover, to publish, and to determine the facts, as they exist, in any case where someone is suspected of willfully choosing to break the law. Criminals, as a rule, do not obey the law. Criminals choose to step outside the law, and that choice is what constitutes a crime. Criminals, as a rule, lie. One often told lie, told by criminals, is that they are the only law, and their dictates must be obeyed without question, or else.

Moving on to Equity.

Equity in this context of juxtaposition to Law has an intended meaning that is not commonly understood or employed. The meaning is a mask.

The common meaning for the word equity goes something like this:

“the quality of being fair and impartial”

Or this:

“the value of the shares issued by a company”

Equity - as in Equity Court - in stark contrast to Law has an entirely different, curious, and potentially understandable meaning. Equity Courts are Summary JUSTus Kangaroo Courts. This curious and potentially understandable label (Equity) is clearly a false front or false flag, like cheese in a mousetrap.

Out goes The Golden Rule-based process of individual people endeavoring to keep the record straight, with the process known as the law, on an equal footing with everyone else, and in place of Law is this counterfeit version of law called Equity.

That is offered here and now as a bread crumb along the way for those who may want to know the details, the facts, that help explain what Lysander Spooner offers in the following quote:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”

In the process of Law, the whole body of people are duty-bound to represent the whole body of people as they work on grand and trial juries to ensure that facts are discovered, published, and those facts are placed before a trial jury so that the whole country (the whole body of people) are thereby represented as The Decider.

In the counterfeit law process known as Equity, there are profit-seeking monopolists taking the power from the people, and using that power of cognizance, discovery, judgment, and right, and turning that power against the whole body of people. This is clearly so, and those who are unaware of it, and those who faint (if they dare to do so) argument against these clear facts, prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts in the case.  The power to discover the facts, once taken from the people as a whole, and once commanded by the profit-seeking monopolists, ensure that the people as a whole remain ignorant. That explains why you are ignorant about these facts. Take it, it is yours.

If by chance someone, somewhere, is ready to argue that these facts now presented are in any way in error, then be my guest, please. Every shovel dug into this pile of crap will dig the hole deeper, and that is why no one will endeavor to argue in favor of so-called Equity.

Equity comes from Exchequer. Equity is similar to Maritime, Admiralty, Family, or other labels placed upon the same Summary JUSTus System of plunder.

It has taken some time to discover and assemble the information that shows these facts to be facts, and my work is far from done, so have at it, and again: please do so. 
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 29, 2019, 10:05:14 pm
Colonial Courts and Secured Credit:
Early American Commercial
Litigation and Shays' Rebellion
Claire Priest
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2298&context=fss_papers

"Yet, while the debt-recording interpretation of colonial courts is the dominant explanation of default judgments in current colonial law scholarship, other evidence characterizes the operations of the colonial court system in a dramatically different way. In 1786 and 1787, shortly after the Revolution, Shays' Rebellion constituted a widespread attack on the structure of the colonial court system, culminating in the violent takeover and closing of many county courts in western Massachusetts and throughout New England. The Shaysites (who referred to themselves as "Regulators") raised an armed revolt against the colonial court system.
They condemned its injurious costliness, its fee structure which, they claimed, enabled judges, witnesses, and sheriffs to profit at the expense of litigants, and its cooptation by lawyers."

That is a figurative Gold mine.

As was clearly the case in England previous to a deal made between Barrons and a Despotic King, to document Law in the form of a Constitution known as Magna Carta, the people did JUST fine with something called legem terrae, which was (and is) the law of the land, which was also coined the common law genuine, not counterfeit.

As it was clearly the case in England those who practiced the dark arts of criminal behavior (deception, threat, and violence upon the innocent, so as to consume the innocent) moved incrementally to counterfeit the common law so as to gain power over the targeted population, and that is clearly shown as so-called "Equity," took market share from the common law process.

Now, as this information (I just found) shows so far, the move in America was in principle the same move. The Americans had escaped the criminals (under the color of law) in England (and diverse other places in Europe) to regain individual responsibility, individual accountability, or in a word: sovereignty (of the individual), as opposed to "collective" sovereignty deceptively transferred (against the knowledge, or will, of actual people) from individuals to a Legal Fiction, or State, or "government."

In both cases, the people policed themselves, as individuals do in nature, albeit with standardized common law processes, involving representatives chosen to positions known as Sherriffs, Justices of the Peace (pool for grand jurors in some cases), Grand Jurors, and Trial Jurors (Petty Jurors). The people themselves were prosecutors or defendants, not so-called "lawyers or attorneys" who (as far as my study goes so far) work for a "legal fiction,"  and assume (extort) immunity from persecution (not prosecution according to the common law), as is their accurate accountability turned on them like shinning the truth. They, meaning criminals posing as representatives of a fictional character (legal fiction), persecute, and they impose Summary JUSTus, as positions in their criminal gangs known as Equity, Exchequer, Maritime, Admiralty, Family, Nisi Prius, and various other false fronts before the false word Court Judges, dictate their (false) Law upon targeted victims who are not paying members of their group.

How is it known who is in, and who is out of, their group? Why is that at all difficult to account for with precision? If the people try a case of Treason, what is a likely form of restitution offered by the people, through their representatives in a trial by the country, to the ones found guilty of treason? If you don't know then it might be a good idea to find out.

Those in the so-called legal fiction group, which are those in what I call the criminal organization that operates under the color of law, typically torture and murder anyone who dares to leave, or "rat on," their fellow partners in crime: under the color of law.



 
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on July 30, 2019, 03:07:36 pm
While reading the information offered in the previous comments it appears to me to be important to establish some important maxims of law, for those who prefer the real thing over the obvious counterfeit versions.

On the most basic level law is voluntary, and if that basic level is confusing to some people, then my guess is that the next vital information is beyond those people. If those people who are confused about the voluntary nature of law are less confused when considering the Golden Rule as law, and when considering the opposite of the Golden Rule as Might Makes Right, or an Eye for an Eye, then the following may help connect the dots between the Golden Rule and the voluntary nature of law.

Those who are responsible, and accountable, are the law, and they want others to help maintain the law. Not we are all each other’s keepers, rather instead that if I want others to be responsible and accountable, then I want to be able to hold them responsible and accountable, and therefore I want them to do the same for me, which is that law power.

Those who prefer to poke eyes out, and subject everyone to their routine displays of might, are those who must maintain a false front when facing someone mightier, or when facing a mightier gang of criminals. The mightiest gang of criminals can do whatever they please to whomever they please, whenever it pleases them; until a mightier gang of criminals show up, and then deception is once again the rule, and if anyone in “our” gang rats on anyone in “our” gang - passing on secrets to the rival, mighter, gang - well, that can’t be tolerated can it? 

So the following is just a bit. To some the following is way too much information all at once. I have a life, and National Income Tax to pay, along with sales tax, property tax, state tax, school tax, and that awful - and almost hidden - inflation tax.

The following must be understood in order for the rest of the information to fit in place, but again, if someone is confused about the opposites law and crime, they are on a sinking ship, a founding of quicksand, and nothing can be built upon such confusion. Law is voluntary, crime is involuntary, such as the term subdidized slavery suggests as a watered down version of the stark fact that slaves are made to dig their own graves rapidly. 

____________________________________________________
      "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government.
It was anciently called " trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country;  which country you (the jury) are."
       The object of this trial " by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
      Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this.
      On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.
      To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
      It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government.
      It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
      But all this " trial by the country" would be no trial at all "by the country," but only a trial by the government, if the government could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.
      If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law."* [footnote]

[footnote]
* To show that this supposition is not an extravagant one, it may be mentioned that courts have repeatedly questioned jurors to ascertain whether they were prejudiced against the government- that is, whether they were in favor of, or opposed to, such laws of the government as were to be put in issue in the then pending trial. This was done (in 1851) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, by Peleg Sprague, the United States district judge, in empanelling three several juries for the trials of Scott, Hayden, and Morris, charged with having aided in the rescue of a fugitive slave from the custody of the United States deputy marshal. This judge caused the following question to be propounded to all the jurors separately; and those who answered unfavorably for the purposes of the government, were excluded from the panel.
      “Do you hold any opinions upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave Law, so called, which will induce you to refuse to convict a person indicted under it, if the facts set forth in the Indictment, and constituting the offence, are proved against him, and the court direct you that the law is constitutional"
      The reason of this question was, that “the Fugitive Slave Law, so called,” was so obnoxious to a large portion of the people, as to render a conviction under it hopeless, if the jurors were taken indiscriminately from among the people.
      A similar question was soon afterwards propounded to the persons drawn as jurors in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, by Benjamin R. Curtis, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in empanelling a jury for the trial of the aforesaid Morris on the charge before mentioned; and those who did not answer the question favorably for the government were again excluded from the panel.
It has also been an habitual practice with the Supreme Court of Massnchusetts, in empanelling juries for the trial of capital offences, to inquire of the persons drawn as jurors whether they had any conscientious scruples against finding verdicts of guilty in such cases; that is, whether they had any conscientious scruples against sustaining the law rescribing death as the punishment of the crime to be tried; and to exclude from the panel aIl who answered in the affirmative.
      The only principle upon which these questions are asked, is this - that no man shall be allowed to serve as juror, unless he be ready to enforce any enactment of the government, however cruel or tyrannical it may be.
      What is such a jury good for, as a protection against the tyranny of the government? A jury like that is palpably nothing but a mere tool of oppression in the hands of the government. A trial by such a jury is really a trial by the government itself - and not a trial by the country - because it is a trial only the men specially selected by the government for their readiness to enforce its own tyrannical measures.
      It that be the true principle of the trial by jury, the trial utterly worthless as a security to liberty. The Czar might, with perfect safety to his authority, introduce the trial by jury into Russia, if he could but be permitted to select his jurors from those who were ready to maintain his laws, without regard to their injustice.
      This example is sufficient to show that the very pith of the trial by jury, as a safeguard to liberty, consists in the jurors being taken indiscriminately from the whole people, and in their right to hold invalid all laws which they think unjust.
__________________________________________________________


I think it is vital to have that information working in a brain that is then going to be armed with a capacity to understand the information following in this effort to show how Voluntary Mutual Defense associations have existed, can exist, and will exist, in times and places where people know what is required.

There is more to this, such that those armed with this information are capable of clearly seeing the opposite of Voluntary Mutual Defense association, to then be inspired to guard against it, and do so effectively.

Next up (if the powers that be are willing) is more notes from Spooner's work concerning punishment and the obvious opposite of punishment, which is restitution, or remedy.

Then my intention is to return to the latest information uncovered in my study, which has to do with the competition between trial by jury according to the common law, and the opposite which goes by many names such as Equity. Feedback is more than welcome, to me, it is necessary. Without feedback the data transfer is despotic, monopolistic, dictatorial, and lacks the vital property of adaptability.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 06, 2019, 12:39:05 pm
Recap:

Voluntary Mutual Defense is a description (in three words) of a process by which people create and maintain something people have also called the law of the land, and/or the government.

Here is where idea turns into action. If the idea behind the action is along the lines of “live and let live” (Golden Rule), then the idea is to create and maintain voluntary association, freedom, liberty, or whatever word, in whatever language, means the same thing. The idea is to find out (discover) those forces that tend to destroy voluntary association and do so accurately. That idea then leads to action.

If, on the other hand, the idea is to consume other people as if other people were consumables, like air, food, water, and other power providing generators, then the actions following that idea are opposed to the previous idea. One idea driving action inspires the other idea to act, as in the term cause of action. If there were no people born with this idea to consume other people, ever, then there would never be an opposing idea to discover that destructive idea where and when it is manifested. Words like “follow the money” would be absent from the records of human history if there were never any individual humans born with this idea to consume other people.

The cause (idea) to act in a manner that destroys natural peace, harmony, freedom, liberty, adaptability, creativity, productivity, etc., is precisely recorded with the word crime, and once crime follows from the idea phase into the action phase there are then people who are precisely recorded with the word victim. If no one ever wants to know about crime, placing their heads in the sand, then the first criminal creates the first victim, and that idea (cause) followed by that action (crime) inspires at least two obvious possible consequences, which follow the natural law knowable as the law of consequences.

The first obvious consequence following natural laws is that the first crime rewards the first criminal as the first crime is costless, having no negative consequences charged to the first criminal, which then inspires the criminal to repeat the crime, so as to continue following that chosen path, leaving more victims as the next undefended victim is consumed. The rate of new victims can expand exponentially as the criminal discovers improved methods of consuming other people.

The next obvious consequence following natural laws is such that victims may be turned from the “live and let live” idea to the “consume other people” idea for many reasons including the simple transfer of the criminal idea that may have been foreign to the victim before the crime, but after the crime the victim is then aware of that criminal idea: crime pays the criminal something valuable, something that cost the victim something valuable. There is a possibility that this criminal idea can spread like a communicable disease, a plague. People infected with the new idea may be inspired to abandon the old idea. Gone in that individual then is strict adherence to actions that avoid personal gains that are costs born by other people. That natural order in which higher-quality life marches along in liberty, one innovative step at a time, adapting to changes in nature, is incrementally destroyed as that former victim turns to crime, as the new criminal removes more people (victims) from the pool of contributors - as that happens unnaturally - victims may also turn to crime: a potential exponential growth rate from ubiquitous liberty to ubiquitous despotism. The one Hitler, Stalin, or Rosevelt wannabe takes out another potential Aristotle, Michelangelo, Nicola Tesla, Josiah Warren, or any of the many contributors to advanced, high quality, low cost, human life. The infamous criminals set the standard, and no one will ever know the true cost of their actions caused by their idea, an idea that all criminals share: consume other people. No one can know the true cost because consumed people never get the chance to shine.

I don’t know if this forum is the right place to offer these words, evidence suggests otherwise. However, as with the unknown cost of precisely what has been destroyed by criminals, it is also unknown if this information will reach someone and help them. This information may help someone realize that the government they were taught is false. Someone reading this information may find the real government power described here. This forum may last a thousand years for all I know. In some future situation, someone may have access to an efficient search engine - a connection to all the records placed in digital form - and something someone wrote, not necessarily my own words, perhaps something I quote here, or elsewhere, and the message intended may transfer to the individual seeking that message. There is hope for those who look for it.

Example:
“As to “process of attachment for contempt,” it is of course lawful for a judge, in his character of a peace officer, to issue a warrant for the arrest of a man guilty of contempt, as he would for the arrest of any other offender, and hold him to bail, (or, in default of bail, commit him to prison,) to answer for his offense before a jury. Or he may order him into custody without a warrant when the offence is committed in the judge’s presence. But there is no reason why a judge should have the power of punishing for contempt, any more than for any other offence. And it is one of the most dangerous powers a judge can have, because it gives him absolute authority in a court of justice, and enables him to tyrannize as he pleases over parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors. If a judge have power to punish for contempt, and to determine for himself what is a contempt, the whole administration of justice (or injustice, if he choose to make it so) is in his hands. And all the rights of jurors, witnesses, counsel, and parties, are held subject to his pleasure, and can be exercised only agreeably to his will. He can of course control the entire proceedings in, and consequently the decision of, every cause, by restraining and punishing every one, whether party, counsel, witness, or juror, who presumed to offer anything contrary to his pleasure.

“This arbitrary power, which has been usurped and exercised by judges to punish for contempt, has undoubtedly had much to do in subduing counsel into these servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits, which so universally prevail among them, and which have not only cost so many clients their rights, but have also cost the people so many of their liberties.
If any summary punishment for contempt be ever necessary, (as it probably is not,) beyond exclusion for the time being from the court-room, (which should be done, not as a punishment, but for self-protection, and the preservation of order,) the judgment for it should be given by the jury, (where the trial is before a jury,) and not by the court, for the jury, and no the court, are really the judges. For the same reason, exclusion from the court-room should be ordered only by the jury, in cases when the trial is before a jury, because they, being the real judges and triers of the cause, are entitled, if anybody, to the control of the court-room. In appeal courts, where no juries sit, it may be necessary - not as punishment, but for self-protection, and the maintenance of order - that the court should exercise the power of excluding a person, for the time being, from the court-room; but there is no reason why they should proceed to sentence him as a criminal, without his being tried by a jury.

“If the people wish to have their rights respected and protected in courts of justice, it is manifestly of the last importance that they jealously guard he liberty of parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors, against all arbitrary power on the part of the court.”
Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

Summary punishment? Servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits? Does that compute?

I do not expect 1 in perhaps a billion people on this planet today to read through the books I am reading through with a mind to know better from worse, but that above ought to ring some bells in some minds that are less than obedient when it comes to ubiquitous falsehoods that aid and abet the current criminal regimes posing as the governments.

The people are either in power as one to judge the government as a service to the people, or there will be criminals posing as the governments. That is a dynamic process where opposing ideas lead to opposing actions: original offense and cause for defense.

When the people are the government, in Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, generally those people, through their representatives in common law juries, act: the people caused to act in defense will arrest, try, and attempt to redeem, restore, or punish only those who are the worst, first. Why would reasonable people sweep the bottom step first?

And if there be punishment, it will not be torture. That is a clear - in your face with a waterboard - clue as to when the governments became criminal organizations or profitable monopolies. 

Example:
“Judging, therefore, from the special provisions in Magna Carta, requiring fines, or amercements, to be imposed only by juries, (without mentioning any other punishments; ) judging; also, from the statutes which immediately followed Magna Carta, it is probable that the Saxon custom of punishing all, or nearly all, offences by fines, (with the alternative to the criminal of being imprisoned, banished, or outlawed, and exposed to private vengeance, in case of non-payment,) continued until the time of Magna Carta; and that in providing expressly that fines should be fixed by the juries, Magna Carta provided for nearly or quite all the punishments that were expected to be inflicted; that if there were to be any others, they were to be fixed by the juries; and consequently that nothing was left to be fixed by “legem terrae.”
Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

People merely want to live and let live, criminals want to enslave, torture if necessary, and when criminals take-over governments, the RULE is that the worst end up on top, and the worst are known to do unspeakable things to the weakest, innocent, among us.

Example:
"The same pattern of grand jury independence crossed the Atlantic to the colonies. Indeed, since the colonies lacked an efficient constabulary, colonial grand juries exercised greater independence than their English counterparts. American grand juries had a penchant for presenting government officials. These presentments could be for crimes or noncriminal violations of the public trust. The latter type of accusation would now, and sometimes then, be called a report. Colonies that lacked a representative legislature often turned to grand juries as a substitute; grand juries regulated areas higher officials did not address. As tensions between the colonies and the mother country grew, grand juries played an increasingly prominent role. They not only refused to indict, but also issued angry and well-publicized presentments and indictments against British officials and soldiers. Because of its boldness and independence in both defending and accusing, the grand jury emerged from the Revolution with enhanced prestige."
Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments, Renée B. Lettow, 1994


Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Tahn L. on August 07, 2019, 08:23:26 am


I don’t know if this forum is the right place to offer these words, evidence suggests otherwise. However, as with the unknown cost of precisely what has been destroyed by criminals, it is also unknown if this information will reach someone and help them. This information may help someone realize that the government they were taught is false. Someone reading this information may find the real government power described here. This forum may last a thousand years for all I know. In some future situation, someone may have access to an efficient search engine - a connection to all the records placed in digital form - and something someone wrote, not necessarily my own words, perhaps something I quote here, or elsewhere, and the message intended may transfer to the individual seeking that message. There is hope for those who look for it.



Joe Kelley,

This forum was designed for exchanging exactly this type of information and I too, hope it remains a well of information for a long time. Don't be disappointed by a lack of reaction, as most forum members realized years ago that "government" was the problem, so basically, "you are preaching to the choir". Still, in the future, your sharing and the sharing of many others, may help someone.

Our Dear departed MamaLiberty, I believe,  succinctly and clearly summarized the problem in her statement, "The root of all evil is the desire of some to control the lives and property of others". She believed in non aggression and self responsibility and gave no quarter in defending these concepts. A review of many of the older posts, from a plethora of posters, on this forum would, I believe, be of benefit to anyone. Some of the past discussions, while quite lively, were extremely illuminating, especially to those newbies, (such as I was at one time) and were literally life changing ideas for many.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 07, 2019, 04:21:12 pm
"Don't be disappointed by a lack of reaction, as most forum members realized years ago that "government" was the problem, so basically, "you are preaching to the choir"."

I think that it is important to point out - in the most efficient way possible - that every time people volunteer to create and maintain a working defense against destructive aggression those people use words to label their efforts, and every time those same words are soon counterfeited.

In other words, the sheep figure out an efficient (low cost, high quality) way to defend against wolves, and then wolves figure out how to disguise themselves as sheep.

So...someone may read your words and see that "government" is written with quotation marks. Someone else may disregard the quotation marks and they might read a message that they interpret as a warning that says all government is bad, and therefore there is no such thing as good government. The sign says: The enemy of all good things is the government.

The message may be interpreted in such a way as to make people believe that there never was, nor will there ever be, anything, anywhere, that can serve all the people in such a way as to provide to all the people who want it, a means by which the lowest cost, and highest quality, defense against harmful aggression can be constructed and maintained by those people who want it.

I’ve met people who believe that message. They tend to call themselves anarchists. I did some homework on that too.

Proudhon and his Translator
The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews

"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it."

At a time when Andrew Jackson has pulled the plug on the National Central Banking fraud, there was a rejuvenating free-market spirit generally, taking on forms such as Wild Cat Banking, not without the un-free, despotic, and criminal influences of course. In that time-period were people who began writing and producing free-market stuff, such as the words of Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, and Stephen Pearl Andrews quoted above, and these people are claimed to be Anarchists. Josiah Warren, for example, is still claimed to be The First American Anarchist, but the actual man rejected, in writing, such labeling.

This may be a good time to ask a valid question.

Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of government that is strictly voluntary, and a form of government that is adaptive, competitive, free-market, anarchistic, and works to move people toward higher quality and lower cost defense of all free people against all enemies of free people?

 

Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Bill St. Clair on August 08, 2019, 09:14:48 am
This may be a good time to ask a valid question.

Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of government that is strictly voluntary, and a form of government that is adaptive, competitive, free-market, anarchistic, and works to move people toward higher quality and lower cost defense of all free people against all enemies of free people?

Such a government would hardly be a government. Maybe some of the Native American tribes came close, before the Europeans showed up, but I don't know enough about that to say.

Get the total tax rate, local + state + federal, down to 3%, and the difference wouldn't matter much to me, as long as it was impossible to ever raise it, and an affirmative defense for homicide of anyone who proposed, voted for, or enforced such an increase. Of course, we'd also need real constitutional money, gold and silver coin, and nothing else, except paper and electronic vault receipts that were exchangeable for PMs. Otherwise, the inflation tax could get around the tax cap. And no government borrowing except via bonds sold to the public, at buyer's sole risk.

I won't hold my breath.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 08, 2019, 01:24:18 pm
"Such a government would hardly be a government."

I read that as; "Such a non-government would hardly be a government." or "Such a government would hardly be describable with the term government."

A famous, apt, quote is: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

If the word government means Involuntary Association, then that meaning is the same as the meaning of the term Subsidized Slavery, and then that meaning is the same meaning as Profitable Monopoly Under the Color of Law.

Why would people seeking to govern feel the need to falsify their intended motives and their intended actions if the intended subjects of their form of government knew in advance those intended motives and those intended actions of those people intending to govern in the way they intend to govern?

Example:

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

Hamilton and his gang included Robert Morris who was another so-called Central Banker, which is another term that is constructed so as to put the sheep costume on the true motives and the true actions of the Central Banking Frauds.

Hamilton and his gang were not Patriots, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Central Bankers, not Governors, not Law Abiding Citizens, not Free Traders, not the type of people who could be trusted with any power at all, let alone arbitrary, absolute, dictatorial, tyrannical, criminal, power hidden behind a thin veil of easily exposed false words.

“Get the total tax rate, local + state + federal, down to 3%, and the difference wouldn't matter much to me, as long as it was impossible to ever raise it, and an affirmative defense for homicide of anyone who proposed, voted for, or enforced such an increase. Of course, we'd also need real constitutional money, gold and silver coin, and nothing else, except paper and electronic vault receipts that were exchangeable for PMs. Otherwise, the inflation tax could get around the tax cap. And no government borrowing except via bonds sold to the public, at buyer's sole risk.”

An apt quote from Benjamin Tucker (1854 to 1939) fits right here and now:
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.

"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.

"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.

"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.

"Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.”
Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)

So-called Central Bank Notes are counterfeit forms of money. Someone seeks an equitable exchange with someone else, but the other free trader is a fraud intending to perpetrate a crime upon a victim. That is simple like simple addition.

What is not simple is the means by which people can help other people see the more complex math problems such as:

"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.”

Someone meets a so-called Liberal Democrat today, and the motive behind the imaginary someone meeting the Liberal Democrat today is to help the so-called Liberal Democrat find a way to increase the general labor price exchanged between employers with capital stored as money and employees with capital stored as labor. The Liberal Democrat is trained to be an idiot. The Liberal Democrat is trained to be a member of a cult, a subject of ubiquitous falsehoods, and as such, the Liberal Democrat - more accurately knowable as a Marxist Communist - is trained like a Pavlovian Dog to salivate when a bell is rung. Like a trigger the bell ringing causes the well-trained idiot to respond with aggression. But for now, in a discussion on vital topics, I am creating a Straw-Man Liberal Democrat that has command of the power of will; an individual responsibility.

Rather than stupidly and servilely obeying the dictates of your masters, consider the possibility that once those masters no longer convince their victims of the absolute necessity to pay them for fake protection, those former masters can no longer dictate who is allowed to start a new business.

So the Liberal Democrat made of Straw responds with a spark of curiosity. The curious one asks for particulars.

Once the market is flooded with a glut of employers those employers will then run into a curious problem. Those many employers will be spending their capital stored as money to accomplish the goal of discovering, targeting, and marketing their higher quality and lower cost jobs, so as to then get those few employees before someone else will.

   To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.

"As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.

"There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamors of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion.

"When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, "You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do"-is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification.

"In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness."

So the Liberal Democrat made of Straw (by me) may scratch their head when the math problem moves from simple math to something like basic algebra, or not, depending upon how much the Liberal Democrat has been clubbed with the club labeled government. It is a club. It is a club with a label on it.  George Carlin joked about The Big Club, and that is worth something.

"Such a government would hardly be a government."

If it is a Big Club, why call it something other than a Big Club?
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Tahn L. on August 08, 2019, 04:55:30 pm

This may be a good time to ask a valid question.

Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of government that is strictly voluntary, and a form of government that is adaptive, competitive, free-market, anarchistic, and works to move people toward higher quality and lower cost defense of all free people against all enemies of free people?

Verbosity can dull the argument, if not the spirit.

To govern, implies control or to rule over others. Anarchy means (originally) No Rulers. It does not mean, No Rules.

  If you had asked ;
"Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of government organization that is strictly voluntary, and a form of government organization that is adaptive, competitive, free-market, anarchistic, and works to move people toward higher quality and lower cost defense of all free people against all enemies of free people?"

Your question, as I understand it, asks if a strictly voluntary community is possible, I would suggest yes! I believe Bill is correct that there probably have been historical instances, among tribal peoples but I am not enough of a historian to supply any examples.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 08, 2019, 09:10:19 pm
"Verbosity can dull the argument, if not the spirit."

The topic is Voluntary Mutual Defense. The topic isn't how well, or how poorly, the messages are offered. If, on the other hand, the topic is much less worthy of discussion compared to the alternative subject, then I am all for discussing the most efficient ways a message can be constructed. Have you read the following? 

1. Equitable Commerce or True Civilization by Josiah Warren
 
Or

2. The Disadvantages of Being Educated by Albert J Nock

I offer that as a means to standardize how I think a message can be efficiently constructed. I can’t do that, so I appreciate actual help. Help, so-called, that merely insults I have a hard time with because I don’t want to waste time dealing with insults. Help arrives in a form that the one being helped can construct improvement; with that helpful help.

From Warren in Equitable Commerce:
"Responsibility must be individual, or there is no responsibility at all."
Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, 1852

From Warren in True Civilization:
“Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.”
True Civilization.
Warren, Josiah
(1863) Boston, Mass.

Note the time period, please.

I won’t quote from Nock since I am very likely guilty of dulling the argument and murdering the spirit; in defense, as I alone see it, and I take responsibility for my error-prone viewpoint.

How about a test? If 1000 working members of the British Accredited Registry, in any county in America, were asked to define the meaning of the word codify, would you find the same words describing that meaning in every case, and if so (or if not) what does that say about that type of authority over meanings, or law power?

 “Although in the Saxon"s time I find the usual words of the acts then to have been edictum, (edict,) constitutio, (statute.) little mention being made of the commons, yet I further find that, tum demum. leges vim et viggrem habuerunt, cum. fuerunt non modo institutae sed firmatae: approbatione .communtitatis." (The laws had force and vigor only when they were not only enacted, but confirmed by the approval of the community.)”
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

In that work, which some people these days would find cause to avoid reading, blaming the author if necessary to massage the ego, are steps that confirm Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government if government is defined by the people as a whole, not “government” defined by a Special Interest Group of criminals working under the color of law: VERBOSITY DEFINED).

Voluntary Mutual Defense Association is confirmed in something called The Bill of Rights, but if Criminals take-over said Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, counterfeiting it, turning it into the opposite of the original spirit, meaning, goal, etc., then The Bill of Right can mean anything at all to suit the purpose of the criminals who took over.

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]

George Mason:
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

In the words of Slick Willy: “That depends upon what the word is: is.”

IF I HAD ASKED?

"Does anyone here think that there never has been, nor will there ever be a form of…”

ORGANIZATION

The point being pointed out is very simple, a very simple math problem, regardless of which words are chosen to present to the intended audience THE math problem.

Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government)

Involuntary Special Interest Profitable Monopoly (i.e. FAKE government)

There is clear evidence (such as a lot of people alive at the moment) that the chicken and egg conundrum is evidently that Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government) came first, and only as a means of usurpation by fraud, by threat of aggressive violence, and by demonstrations of torturous, horrible, terrifying aggressive violence, did government (original) become government counterfeit.

I stand corrected? So, when speaking to the so-called choir I must remember that the word government means a criminal organization formed in place of a voluntary association, and at no time (other than obscure tribes dreamed up by no one precisely) was there ever a working voluntary association named a government. A government, in short (avoiding verbosity), means the enslavement of everyone by a few rotten apples?

Do I now have the choir understood correctly instead of incorrectly? I don’t think so, but I can ask.

“Your question, as I understand it, asks if a strictly voluntary community is possible, I would suggest yes! I believe Bill is correct that there probably have been historical instances, among tribal peoples but I am not enough of a historian to supply any examples.”

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

Codify:
“...to organize and write a law or system of laws.”

Spooner:
“No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed,or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, (harmed.) nor will we (the king) proceed against him, nor send anyone against him, by force of arms, unless according to (that is, in execution of) the sentence of his peers, and (or or, as the case may require) the Common Law of England, (as it was at the time of Magna Carta, in 1215.)”

Spooner:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”

Step, by step, by step, incrementally, the criminals will take over, but not “no matter what,” and it is a simple math problem to turn things back around. But I am always guilty of verbosity.

Forget about me, which subject is more or less worthy of your time?
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Tahn L. on August 09, 2019, 11:15:58 am
Joe,

IMHO, "the most efficient ways a message can be constructed" is to agree on definitions. You said, "Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (i.e. government)" To me, your whole discussion/discourse started with definitions I could not agree with.

Definition of government
1 : the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

Definition of voluntary
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voluntary

Definition of oxymoron
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness) broadly : something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron

Is your point communication or argumentation? I mean no insult, here or previously, but I feel we (you and I) are reaching a point of "non communication". I have no desire to continue "arguing", without a reason.

 




Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 09, 2019, 08:25:28 pm
Well Tahn L., if you see a contradiction I don't.

You offer ambiguity to me as an intended meaning for the word government.

"1 : the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control"

What is being specified in that definition? I see "plausible deniability." Someone with 60 years experiences hammering nails without ever bending a nail or hammering a finger could offer authoritative direction. Someone can control everything that will or will not be allowed to contact someone else: arbitrary control of someone by someone: subsidized slavery. Which is it?

Plausible Deniability was once called “construction” as exemplified here:

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788, 6 June

George Mason:
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

If the meaning can mean up and down at the same time, then my advice is to be a bit more specific.

A tribe (if you want to call them a tribe) created one of the first democratic governments according to recorded history available to the general population on earth: it was a working voluntary association for mutual defense. The place was Athens, Greece, the time was quote: "Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BC is famous for being the purest, most extreme form of democracy in human history."

That idea, adapted, improved, and preserved as an ideal moved to Germany, and the Saxons, another tribe, if you want to call the Saxons a tribe, employed voluntary association for mutual defesnse.

Another tribe called the English, if you want to call those people a tribe, learned from the Saxons, adapted, improved, and also maintained voluntary association for mutual defense, and here is where the English word “government” became currency. Not Greek, not German, but English.

Another 13 tribes in America also employed voluntary association. Voluntary association was perfected, adapted, from the English government example, in America, and that lasted from at least 1775 to 1789. I suspect strongly, based upon information I have read, that much of the American version of voluntary association for mutual defense was improved with the help of the Indian tribes already homesteading in America.

I don’t know why this is at all hard to point out, seriously.


 
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Tahn L. on August 10, 2019, 12:02:45 pm
Well Tahn L., if you see a contradiction I don't.



Joe Kelley,

 If you don't see a contradiction between "being governed" and "voluntary action", we are on such different planes, I don't see how communication is possible. Good luck in your endeavors Joe.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 10, 2019, 01:06:57 pm
I may continue this thread or I am may not as time goes on. The idea, as expressed earlier, is to point out something already pointed out by so many people in so many words as to cause (inspire) people to reason out the information being pointed out.

Some people will not ever see it. I don’t write to those people.

I can take information as it exists, and I can attempt to figure out what is intended by whoever constructs the information given.

“If you don't see a contradiction between "being governed" and "voluntary action", we are on such different planes, I don't see how communication is possible.”

Quotation marks are used to identify 2 different planes as such:

Being governed (which can mean anything to anyone)

Voluntary action (which can also mean anything to anyone)

So a definition for “Being governed” was offered and that definition was unspecific and therefore without specific meaning as to what is meant by anyone when someone says “being governed.”

“Authoritative direction” could mean “being governed”?

Authoritative direction could mean an offer by someone or some group concerning experience earned by the offering party. Someone seeking earned experience from people who have earned experience may decide - voluntary action - to take authoritative direction from those who earned experience.

An example was offered, and rejected, apparently. Someone with 60 years of experience in carpentry could offer someone with no experience in carpentry and someone with no experience in carpentry could decide - voluntary action - to take the authoritative directions offered by the one with 60 years of earned experience.

Perhaps “being governed,” is meant to mean the opposite of “voluntary actions,” as was also my inference of the offered definition of government.

The offered definition of government repeated:

"1 : the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control"

What is control? The meaning of control that I infer is the opposite of “voluntary actions,” and once again, the offered meaning of “government,” is useless if the idea is to specify a specific meaning for a specified phenomenon labeled with a specific word.

Government is either authoritative direction (or earned experience offered to those seeking earned experience) or government is control (or power exerted by someone or some group upon another individual or a group of individuals). Government cannot be both voluntary actions, such as earned experience offered to those who want the earned experience being offered, which can be a form of authoritative direction, and government cannot be the opposite at the same time, which is control, or “being governed,” if being governed means an individual enslaving another individual, or many individuals enslaving many - controlling - many individuals.

If the plane people plant themselves on is a plane where the only meaning for the word government is the same meaning as the word slavery, then why not use the word slavery?

If the plane people plant themselves on is a plane where the only meaning fo the word government is “being governed,” and “being governed” means the same thing as slavery, then why not use the word slavery?

If people today plant themselves on a plane where the word democracy means “being governed,” which means slavery, then those people deciding - voluntary action - to plant themselves firmly on that plane will have to ignore history or deal with history, because history shows that there is a contradiction between the original meaning of democracy and the meaning people choose to plant themselves on.


The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum

"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."
http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html

Take the Jeffery Epstein Suicided or the Ranch for Kids Ambushed by Montana Government phenomenon, or “stories,” for example.

No action is allowed to be performed by anyone upon anyone without first gaining probable cause, and if it turns out that the actions taken were based upon false probable cause, then the actor is liable for costs created by the actor who acts with a false cause.

Anyone initiated defensive action upon anyone else without gaining probable cause to defend someone who will be harmed by an aggressor is someone who is, in fact, an aggressor.

Why call those who are aggressors by any other name than aggressors? Why call those who are defenders by any other name than defenders?

How can one defender agree to cooperate effectively with other defenders? Murder them? Why is this hard to see? Is it hard to see because people refuse to see? If murderers are murdering people does it make sense to call them the government instead of murderers? What kind of sense is that?

How many potential defenders, actual defenders, or past defenders, saw as clear as day that Jeffery Epstein would be “suicided” (murdered)? And what is the latest story told by storytellers? Facts are offered, such as perhaps an actual dead man no longer walking, and facts are offered with a little twist, a bend in the information, a spin. Instead of an announcement of concerned defenders forming an independent grand jury to command all jurisdiction civil and criminal in that case of suspected murder by criminals posing as government agents, to present discovered suspects with a trial date, the NEWS is just Spin. How many potential offenders, actual offenders, or past offenders will parrot the lies? Poor thing killed himself, did everyone a favor, now what are the Kardashians doing?

Instead of “Ranch for Kids Ambushed by Montana Government,” which is spin, how about an announcement that is factual?

A gang of criminals posing as agents of the Montana Government ambushed, assaulted, kidnapped, or however many crimes were perpetrated in that case, by the offenders upon the defenseless victims?

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.”
Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852

I will continue this here or elsewhere.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 16, 2019, 06:15:54 pm
More evidence of the ongoing power struggle between Voluntary Mutual Defense (agreements agreed upon by volunteers) and the opposite which is Counterfeit Law. Note please that some of the earliest attempts to counterfeit Law Power arrived in forms of Summary Justice titled with many deceptive labels: Exchequer, Maritime, Nisi Prius, Admiralty, Equity, etc.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec7f/25c9208eca556b84a673af69dfdf1086f8fa.pdf
Book Review. The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860 by Morton J. Horwitz

"More and more, courts resorted to the idea of damnum absque injuria to deny a plaintiff's claim. By accomplishing subsidization through the legal system rather than through taxation, Horwitz maintains, the ultimate political choices were hidden from view and insulated from debate. The developmental urge had captured the courts, and it was by this allegedly apolitical agency of government that the subsidy was levied."

Exemplify double-speak:
damnum absque injuria
"loss or damage without injury"

Does that depend upon what is is?

If the people decide through their representatives in a Trial by the Country (Trial by Jury) what anyone can do to anyone without consequence, and what anyone can do to anyone with consequence, then that is one thing, one form of government, by a tribe, or by a people homesteading within a specified geographical area. The other thing is not the same thing as a people, through their representatives in a jury, deciding fact, law, guilt, evidence, innocence, remedy, restitution, or punishment. The other thing, other than Trial by the Country, is termed: Summary Justice.

A government by, of, and for the whole people as one, on one side.

B Government by, of, and for Special Interest Groups, at the expense of everyone, on the other side.

Not one meaning for the word government, but two meanings for the word government, where one meaning is truth based, and original, and the other meaning is false based and counterfeit. If you refuse to see it, then that is your choice.

One is original, grass-roots, organic, natural, reasonable, spiritual, religious, honorable, truthful, productive, adaptive, preventive, and this one deters crime before crime ripens to fruition.

The other is counterfeit, top-down, inorganic, unnatural, unreasonable, spiritless, anti-religious, dishonorable, false, destructive, entropic, undefendable, and this one creates criminals exponentially.

Some people caught in the exponential growth rate of counterfeit government are made to ignore the alternative as if there never was, and never will be an alternative to the exponential growth rate of counterfeit government - criminal - power.

What does the following mean in context of Law (due process) versus Equity (Summary Justice)?

Chapter 14
COURTS TO BE OPEN; SUITS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH
Article I, Section 11
BY DONALD MARRITZ
“That justice may be speedily as well as impartially done, and that to prevent tedious and expensive pilgrimages to obtain it, I do for me and mine hereby declare and establish . . . that monthly sessions shall be held in every country in which all sorts of causes belonging to that county shall be heard and finally determined, whether relating to civil or criminal acts. And . . . that every person may freely plead his own cause or bring his friend to do it for him. And the judges are hereby obliged to inform him or her what they can to his or her assistance in the matter before him, that none be prejudiced through ignorance in their own business . . .”

Free stuff?

Volunteers, often without pay, or their pay is restricted significantly according to statute, are given all jurisdiction at law, and these volunteers in government constitute the pool from which a grand jury is formed for the purpose of accepting accusations and moving legitimate accusation to an offer offered to an accused for the accused to defend himself against the accuser, in a trial by the country: NOT a trial by the government.

If the accuser is false, then the right thing to do is to account for that fact, and charge the false accuser a judgment that intends to discourage false accusations.

What is the opposite, counterfeit, law form in as few words as someone of letters can muster?

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

One is not the other, and the existence of the counterfeit form confirms (does not deny) the existence of the original form.




 
 
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 17, 2019, 08:51:36 pm
I’m going to make a bold statement to the so-called choir.

Many people I meet, almost everyone to the man and woman, refused to go to school. They have been taught to avoid it at all cost charged to anyone who may breath a message suggesting a need to learn something new.

To me, on the other hand, school never stops, as far as I know, and in the end - perhaps - school does stop: death.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Bill St. Clair on August 19, 2019, 06:03:43 pm
Avoiding places that bill themselves as schools is often a good idea. Avoiding learning new things is fatal. And boring.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 19, 2019, 08:26:34 pm
"Avoiding places that bill themselves as schools is often a good idea."

Thanks for the correction. Misleading words like schooling ought to be avoided.

Even the term education has many contrary meanings.

Learning is pretty sold.

 "The difference seemed to be that while education was still spoken of as a "preparation for life," the preparation was of a kind which bore less directly on intellect and character than in former times, and more directly on proficiency. It aimed at what we used to call training rather than education; and it not only did very little with education, but seemed to assume that training was education, thus overriding a distinction that formerly was quite clear. Forty years ago a man trained to proficiency in anything was respected accordingly, but was not regarded as an educated man, or "just as good," on the strength of it. A trained mechanic, banker, dentist or man of business got all due credit for his proficiency, but his education, if he had any, lay behind that and was not confused with it. His training, in a word, bore directly upon what he could do or get, while his education bore directly on neither; it bore upon what he could become and be."
The Disadvantages of Being Educated
Albert Jay Nock

The following is also useful for learning a few things about school and education:

ohn Taylor Gatto - The Purpose Of Schooling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q

 
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 20, 2019, 12:56:48 pm
There is plenty of evidence available to confirm the opposite meanings of government as explained up to this point so far. My intent now is to explain some of the histories of counterfeit government in America.

As explained in the work done by Leo Richards concerning the Regulation (true government) of the Corrupt Massachusetts government (counterfeit government), the corrupt government agents created a Man of Straw, also knowable as a Legal Fiction, in the form of an Angry Mob that has a common intention. The common intention of the fictitious Angry Mob is to level the incomes of everyone, and this fictitious Angry Mob (that does not exist in reality) will use Subsidized Slavery (counterfeit government) to reach the goal of leveling the incomes of everyone.

Does that sound at all familiar to anyone?

The Angry (fictitious) Mob desires absolute control over everyone (counterfeit government power) so as to level every income “from each according to ability, to each according to need” and the word used at the time was not Democrat. The word used at the time was “levelers.”

In fact, the people who were given the name “levelers,” were Regulators in the tradition of many cases already in the past in American history, the most notable case of Regulators is documented with a Declaration of Independence, and various Bills of Rights. There were other cases of Regulators Regulating Corrupt Counterfeit Government. An example offered by Leo Richards is the example in the Carolinas. For now, consider the creation and maintenance of a fictitious Angry Mob of Levelers.

Go to time 17:00 (or so) in the lecture below:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

Speaking about David Humphreys, American Revolutionary War colonel and aide de camp to George Washington, Leo Richards lectures: “...and David Humphryes reported these people were levelers. They wanted to seize the land of the rich, and redistribute it to the poor.”  Then Leo Richards adds the opinion of Henry Knox “informing” George Washington about the Regulation against the corrupt government in Massachusetts: “...and he reported the same thing, that these people are really levelers, that they want to take all the property and redistribute it, that they want to overthrow the state.”

This is before a Political Party was formed out of this fictional group of people who do not (yet) exist. There were no democrats in the Democratic Party (™) at this time. No one existed who could constitute such a Party, it was pure fiction. In fact, the actual people who were actually redistributing wealth were the people who were soon going to form a (false) Federalist Party. These people who would soon form a (false) Federalist Party were war-mongers and central bankers. Leo explains how the central banking redistribution of wealth worked in Massachusetts at the time of the attempted Regulation in Massachusetts (1786, 87) by ex-military veterans, families, rich and poor farmers, etc.   

Got to time 25:00 (or so) in the Lecture on the Regulation in Massachusetts.

“The problem is by 1780 the notes have all gone to Speculators, they have disappeared. The soldiers who got the notes, they no longer had them, they got rid of them, for whatever they could get, and they had fallen into the hands of people who speculate notes, hoping they will go up in value.”   

Start a war. That creates a demand for Promises Not To Pay (Central Bank Debt Notes). People fight the war and are paid in those Promises Not To Be Paid. People are robbed of their ability to make ends meet, to feed the Meat Grinder of War, and they are paid with the same fake money. People who need to produce in free markets can’t afford to hold onto currency, people who produce in free markets need currency to be current, active, moving, so people creating wealth don’t hold onto currency that is fake, counterfeit, and “depreciating,” at the moment. Speculators, War-Mongers, Central Banking Whores, and Slave Traders, on the other hand, can form a Political Party and pay themselves whatever they can squeeze out of their target subjects.

Criminals love Summary Justice Court Systems of Counterfeit Justice. Criminals can issue orders to pay, to pay now, or go to jail.

The opposite, the original, the genuine, the organic, Court System does not allow the issue of an order to pay, issued by anyone in government, nor does the opposite government power allow anyone to go to jail merely at the pleasure of a government agent. The organic government power demands that no action can be done to anyone without the say-so of everyone, unanimously, as represented in both grand and petit juries; according to the real (ancient) common law, not the counterfeit, summary justice, Common Law (™) that was then current in England.

“In fact, 80 percent of the State Debt ends up in Boston, and 40 percent ends up in the hands of just 35 men, who turn out to be the powerhouses of the State Legislature, and also, one of them is the Governor himself.”

So, central bankers, war-mongers, and Slave Traders (previously alluded to in this topic), redistribute wealth by creating a Legal Fiction, an all powerful fictional character, all the while these criminals pull the strings, move the levers, behind the curtain, and that evil beast gives legs to their false authority to “collect” anything they want at their pleasure, and if anyone dares to resist that aggressive force, those who resist will be made to pay even more, as an example of what happens to anyone who dares to step out of line.

“ The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” 14th, so-called, Amendment to the Criminal Constitution of 1789.

That is in your face, uncontroversial, mind control. You, they say, in writing no less, can’t even think about questioning your absolute obedience.

On the other hand is real government power:

“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788


Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 21, 2019, 02:16:25 pm
Following is yet another historical record offered in Spooner’s Trial by Jury Essay. To those who have some cognizance of current affairs since Ruby Ridge, Waco, and a growing so-called Militia Movement, these words may offer some help along the lines of affecting an expedient, effective, just, remedy for the problem known as malfeasance in office, or in many other words, such as simple corruption. 

Spooner:

   Rapin, in his discourse on the “Origin and Nature of the English Constitution,” says:
   “There are but two things the Saxons did not think proper to trust their kings with; for being of like passions with other men, they might very possibly abuse them; namely, the power of changing the laws enacted by consent of the king and people; and the power of raising taxes at pleasure. From these two articles sprung numberless branches concerning the liberty and property of the subject, which the king cannot touch, without breaking the constitution, and they are the distinguishing character of the English monarchy. The prerogatives of the crown, and the rights and privileges of the people, flowing from the two fore-mentioned articles, are the ground of all the laws that from time to time have been made by unanimous consent of king and people. The English government consists in the strict union of the king’s prerogatives with the people’s liberties. But when kings arouse, as some there were, that aimed at absolute power, by changing the old, and making new laws, at pleasure; by imposing illegal taxes on the people; this excellent government being, in a manner, dissolved by these destructive measures, confusion and civil wars ensued, which some very wrongfully ascribe to the fickle and restless temper of the English.” - Rapin’s Preface to his History of England.

Any collection of people anywhere in this area known collectively as the United States of America, can affect the expedient, effective, just, remedy at their pleasure. To fail to do so ensures, as a matter of course, inevitable escalations of violent confrontations.

The topic is Voluntary Mutual Defense. The following offering is not offered as a distraction from the topic, so as to then change the topic to relative attributes or flaws of the characters involved in authorizing the next information media offered in context of this present stream of information.

Title:
No More Free Wacos: An Explication of the Obvious Addressed to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States.
Date:
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Excerpt:

“If we are no longer under the rule of constitutional law but are merely subject to irreversible bureaucratic diktat and we do not fancy being railroaded in a patently unfair federal trial where expert witnesses are denied access to evidence, then our options when approached by ATF agents are rather limited. It is plain, in the absence of the right of a fair trial, that a target of ATF investigation has little to lose by resorting to the right of an unfair gunfight. This may be an unintended consequence of those cases. It is nonetheless real.”

And another excerpt:

“ There's still lots of vicious drug gangs, murderous career criminals and real terrorists out there to keep them busy without picking a fight with honest American gunowners who merely want to be left alone.”

So there you have past experience moving to current experience in so many words. The following offers an alternative to rinse and repeat bloodbaths:


The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Excerpt:

"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."

Additional information from that last source quoted:

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

“But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.”

That is already a huge wall of text, so for the next effort my intention at the moment is to move to a future step whereby the so-called Divine Right of Kings, with special powers over inferior subjects, is clarified with greater precision, and more importantly what happened in America after the people ended such nonsense, as the law-abiding volunteers took control of those prerogatives that were once the kings exclusive domain.

The idea will be to glue these seemingly confusing sources of data into something useful, a how-to guide for volunteers seeking that just remedy so as to avoid inevitable escalating violence between the criminals in government and the actual people who abide by the law.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Bill St. Clair on August 21, 2019, 04:59:54 pm
I understand the difference between valid and invalid government, but I don't really care. The state ALWAYS becomes corrupt. That is its nature. There is no way to prevent it, except to never allow ANYONE to impose authority on anyone else. Most humans are sheep, so they're not going to do it themselves, and I sure as hell don't want to be cop of the world. So I'm going to live my life as I please, and the rest of the world can do what it will, since it will anyway.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 23, 2019, 10:14:22 pm
Man walks into a bar…

Wait, I’m not Joe King. Actually that is a joke my dad told his 6 kids. Not the “Man walks in a bar” joke.

Guy calls my dad asking for money to pay some nebulous debt. Dad says: “You must be Joe King.”

No, that is not why I’m here to bother people with information.

Man walks up to the BAR...


A treatise on extraordinary legal remedies, embracing mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition
by High, James L. (James Lambert), 1844-1898

A comparison of the writ of mandamus, as now used in England and America, with the writ of injuction, discloses certain striking points of resemblance as well as of divergence in the two writs. Both are extraordinary remedies, the one the principal extraordinary remedy of courts of equity, the other of courts of law, and both are granted only in extraordinary cases, where otherwise there courts would be powerless to administer relief. Both, too, are dependent to a certain extent upon the exercise of a wise judicial discretion, and are not grantable as of absolute right in all cases. It is only when we come to consider the object and purpose of the two writs that the most striking points of divergence are presented. An injunction is essentially a preventive remedy, mandamus a remedial one. The former is usually employed to prevent future injury, the latter to redress past grievances. The functions of an injunction are to restrain motion and to enforce inaction, those of a mandamus to set in motion and to compel action. In this sense an injunction may be regarded as a conservative remedy, mandamus as an active one. The former preserves matters in status quo, while the very object of the latter is to change the status of affairs and to substitute action for inactivity. The one is, therefore, a positive or remedial process, the other a negative or preventative one. And since mandamus is in no sense a preventive remedy, it can not take the place of an injunction, and will not be employed to restrain or prevent an improper interference with the rights of relators.

   Footnote: See further as to the distinctions here noted, People v. Inspectors of State Prison, 4 Mich.187; Attorney-General v. New Jersey R.& T. Co., 2 Green Ch.136; Washington University v. Green, 1 Md. Ch. 97; Blakemore v. Glamorganshire R. Co., 1 Myl. & K. 154; Crawford v. Carson, 35 Ark. 565; Fletcher v. Tuttle, 151 Ill. 41.
   Legg v. Mayor of Annapolis, 42 Md. 203.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on August 26, 2019, 12:01:36 pm
“I understand the difference between valid and invalid government, but I don't really care. The state ALWAYS becomes corrupt. That is its nature. There is no way to prevent it, except to never allow ANYONE to impose authority on anyone else. Most humans are sheep, so they're not going to do it themselves, and I sure as hell don't want to be cop of the world. So I'm going to live my life as I please, and the rest of the world can do what it will, since it will anyway.”

Note in the above the mixing of terms. In the first sentence the word government is used to describe a process that the author knows (or understands) as both valid and invalid. The author does not care, but I’d like to know which process is valid, and which process is not valid? The same word is used for both opposites.

1. Government (valid)
2. Government (invalid)

The same word is used to denote 2 opposites. Imagine trying to describe a process to someone who cares, whereby this process happens in time and place were some people consume other people for fun and profit, and instead of using the word slavery, or using the word cannibalism, the word used is the word government. Try as I might to describe a specific evil perpetrated by specific evil people, I am prevented from doing so because I use a word that means the exact opposite of the process (slavery, cannibalism, organized crime) I am attempting to describe with words.

What about a simpler example? I try to describe, to someone who cares about good things, a good thing, such as a cure for scurvy. Suppose the one who cares to know about this good thing is suffering from scurvy. Scurvy can be seen as a process that consumes individuals who have a limited diet. In the attempt to describe the process of consuming food that prevents scurvy I use a word that means – to the one suffering from scurvy – the same thing as the current diet that causes the scurvy. Then while confronting this problem of failing to describing a scurvy preventing diet – all the scurvy victim hears is grog, grog, grog: his diet – there is yet another complication. The one suffering from a diet of grog also eats salted meat, so the conversation goes something like this:

Me: “In your language do you have a word for a good diet?”
Scurvy victim: “Grog”
Me: “Good, then if you want to prevent scurvy you need grog.”
Scurvy victim: “I don’t care about grog. Salted meat always goes bad.”
Me: “You don’t want a good diet, you don’t care about it, so I’ll move onto someone who may want to prevent further damage done to them by scurvy. Thanks for your time.”

I’m left wondering what salted meat means, why is salted meat introduced to the conversation that has to do with a good diet, and why would someone involve themselves (voluntarily?) with something that always goes bad? I won’t bother to ask for clarification, since I’ve been informed that this individual does not care. I probably misunderstood most – or all – of what this individual cared to offer as a message in a written language. Perhaps the language barrier is insurmountable.

This is not a mystery. This is a predictable consequence resulting from a process known as counterfeiting.

When counterfeiters decide to counterfeit they have in mind something  good, such as free market currency, or accurate accountability, and in place of the good thing in mind these counterfeiters desire the power to consume people for pleasure or profit, and so these counterfeiters design a replacement for the good thing. The good thing is replaced with the opposite of the good thing. Out goes free market currency, and in place goes a money monopoly. Out goes accurate accountability, and in place goes a profitable monopoly.

Example:

   “Once established as a tool that could be used by a monarch, it also establishes it as a tool for use by the people when they become the sovereign, as happened upon adoption of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.”
Original URL: //www.constitution.org/eng/stat_quo_warranto_1290.html
Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society
Original date: 2014/3/8 —  Last updated 2019/8/26

In history people died from scurvy and from criminals in fake government. In history people refused to care about treatments for scurvy and death by criminals counterfeiting government. Before England was turned from free markets, good government, England was for a time a sanctuary where people effectively governed themselves, and that history is well documented by many people including Lysander Spooner in his essay on The Trial by Jury.

Example:

 (MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721

Notes on Magna Carta

"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”

Before fake government in England, as documented above, people were the government: sovereign individuals, each born with standing in natural law, then known as legem terrae, the law of the land, and the common law, with trial by the country, which is trial by jury. Then the criminals began to counterfeit law. Gone was accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, and in place was placed summary justice courts of plunder. Courts of law became courts of equity. Before equity there was exchequer. The list of fake names from fake government courts is long, a sordid history of counterfeiting good government: accurate accountability of the facts that matter in every case.

I may move to mesne profits next. I may do that here. 
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on September 02, 2019, 07:37:16 pm
"If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime. On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor ever can exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist; that there is nothing for them to do, and that there is nothing that they can do. They are confessions that the governments exist for the punishment and prevention of acts that are, in their nature, simple impossibilities." Natural Law, Lysander Spooner, 1882

I was helped on this forum when a link was offered by someone on this forum, and the link was a collection of works by Spooner.

This may appear to be a sidetrack from my original goal, and from my attempt to zero in on mesne profits. The original goal is to offer clear evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that government is - exclusively is - a voluntary association for mutual defense, as proven throughout history where, when, and how people remain free and at liberty. The problem with this goal is the simple fact that criminals have managed to counterfeit government in almost every place and almost every time to some degree or another along the same timeline as free people maintain liberty.

Actual law, which is always a voluntary association, does not require documentation. Actual law exists whenever, and wherever, defense against harm is facilitated by any individual, or any group of individuals who cooperate - by agreement - to facilitate the same shared goal.

Counterfeit government, on the other hand, depends upon a facade such as a “sign” from an all powerful entity, a tablet of commandments, a book of orders from the one and only all powerful entity - orders that must be obeyed without question - whereby the counterfeiters construct a facade that is put in place of the individual counterfeiters who pull the strings from behind the facade. This is a simple principle known as deception, a framework from which to construct a more elaborate hoax. There is a simple fabricator, a simple target to be fooled, the simple employment of the fabrication upon the target, the simple fact that the target is deceived, and while the target is deceived, the simple fact that the target is in some way consumed factually, by one calorie at a time over a long period of time, or many calories all at once: enslavement of people by people in time, in place, in fact. 

A thief can employ the basic principle when yelling and pointing in a direction away from an intended crime scene, the thief yells “THIEF!” while pointing the finger, and as soon as people are captured into the hoax, looking in the direction pointed out by the thief, the thief swipes the prize, doing so undetected. The opposite is the law power, all eyes turn to the thief pointing the finger, and they draw their guns.

A much more elaborate hoax is organized religion, and I found a prime example in a new book that cost me a pretty penny or two. That example may soon be offered to those who may want to dive into this natural law, voluntary association, free market government, conceptualization offered in this thread.

Before offering the relevant quote from my newly purchased book, I will attempt to reset the stage.

The history of voluntary association did not start with the Saxons, but from those Saxons are proofs offered in Spooner’s work, showing a framework that worked, and within that voluntary association framework was something called trial by jury. Then the English adopted that voluntary association framework as documented in a work known as the Magna Carta. Clearly the people had the framework working in the form of independent trial juries consenting to, or not consenting to, any claim of authority claimed by anyone, anywhere, anytime. In other words the people, represented in their juries, were the judges of law, the judges of fact, the judges of any need for force of government unleashed upon any wrongdoer deemed a wrongdoer by the people themselves, not by the government as such. People issue orders, the government executes those orders. The government does not issue orders that must be obeyed by the people without question. One is not the other, so it makes sense to discriminate accurately between the two; not conflate, confuse, commingle, or otherwise counterfeit a good for a demonstrable evil.

That law was called the law of the land, in Latin it was legem terrae, and it was known in English as the common law, the same terminology imported to America. The people volunteer to check any government power, to consent to any government suggestion offered by anyone in any position in government, and so long as the people volunteer to do so, so long will there be voluntary government power to resist corruption in government.

One effective method of counterfeiting government in England was a fabricated authority known as Equity. Clearly in the literature there is a demarcation between either a court of law, where private prosecutors prosecute alleged wrongdoers before the people in a country, in a jury trial known as a trial by the country, or instead of that form of the law of the land  - due process of law - there was the counterfeit, criminal, opposite due process exemplified with a Court of Equity, where a government agent has already determined guilt and those found to be guilty by the government agent are “processed” for “collection” of a fee “for services rendered.” Those deemed guilty by a fake agent of the fake government - sometimes before the actual crime - are made to pay a fee to the government in an Equity Court. An Equity Court is a Summary Just-US Court, a kangaroo court, and a crime scene.

THAT BATTLE between private prosecutors prosecuting alleged wrongdoers before the country in a court of law, and on the other side of THAT BATTLE is “jurisdiction” assumed by agents of a Court of Equity (Summary Justice) was - THAT BATTLE was - imported to America, as documented very well in Shays’s Rebellion, 1786 to 1787. Shays’s Rebellion (so-called by the victors whose victory was “possession” by conquest) was a continuation of the battle between Law and Equity. Shays’s Rebellion (a regulation) was clearly a battle won by Equity over Law, as was the case in England. In both cases where law was defeated by so-called “Equity”, the victors led the defeated into a very costly process known as Empire Building. In the British case Empire Building included War with France, a war against people know as “The Slave Trade,” 2 wars to keep “Rebels” in America subjugated,  and so-called Opium Wars whereby Warmongers subdued - enslaved - the Chinese. In the American case the defeated power of law, rightfully held by the people and for the people, opened the path to continue (and to subsidize) the African Slave Trade. The same battle lost by the people ensured a so-called Civil War in America. The same lost battle afforded those who had a problem with the existing population of Indians to “Solve” their “Indian Problem.” The same lost battle which then subsidized criminal War of Aggression (Empire Building) led to the War with Mexico and both World Wars: One and Two. The lost battle set the stage for the current endless War on Drugs and War on Terrorism, and various other cases of demonstrable - in your face - Empire Building.

Borrowing now from Spooner:

NATURAL LAW CONTRASTED WITH LEGISLATION.
Section I.

“Natural law, natural justice, being a principle that is naturally applicable and adequate to the rightful settlement of every possible controversy that can arise among men; being too, the only standard by which any controversy whatever, between man and man, can be rightfully settled; being a principle whose protection every man demands for himself, whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not; being also an immutable principle, one that is always and everywhere the same, in all ages and nations; being self-evidently necessary in all times and places; being so entirely impartial and equitable towards all; so indispensable to the peace of mankind everywhere; so vital to the safety and welfare of every human being; being, too, so easily learned, so generally known, and so easily maintained by such voluntary associations as all honest men can readily and rightfully form for that purpose --- being such a principle as this, these questions arise, viz.: Why is it that it does not universally, or well nigh universally, prevail? Why is it that it has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey? Why is it that any human being ever conceived that anything so self-evidently superfluous, false, absurd, and atrocious as all legislation necessarily must be, could be of any use to mankind, or have any place in human affairs?

Section II.

“The answer is, that through all historic times, wherever any people have advanced beyond the savage state, and have learned to increase their means of subsistence by the cultivation of soil, a greater or less number of them have associated and organized themselves as robbers, to plunder and enslave all others, who had either accumulated any property that could be seized, or had shown, by their labor, that they could be made to contribute to the support or pleasure of those who should enslave them.


“These bands of robbers, small in number at fist, have increased their power by uniting with each other, inventing warlike weapons, disciplining themselves, and perfecting their organizations as military forces, and dividing their plunder (including their captives) among themselves, either in such proportions as have been previously agreed on, or in such as their leaders (always desirous to increase the number of their followers) should prescribe.

“The success of these bands of robbers was an easy thing, for the reason that those whom they plundered and enslaved were comparatively defenceless; being scattered thinly over the country; engaged wholly in trying, by rude implements and heavy labor, to extort a subsistence from the soil; having no weapons of war, other than sticks and stones; having no military discipline or organization, and no means of concentrating their forces, or acting in concert, when suddenly attacked. Under these circumstances, the only alternative left them for saving even their lives, or the lives of their families, was to yield up not only the crops they had gathered, and the lands they had cultivated, but themselves and their families also as slaves.

“Thenceforth their fate was, as slaves, to cultivate for others the lands they had before cultivated for themselves. Being driven constantly to their labor, wealth slowly increased; but all went into the hands of their tyrants.

“These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labor of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organizations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and cooperate with each other in holding their slaves in subjection. But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws.

“All the great governments of the world --- those now existing, as well as those that have passed away --- have been of this character. They have been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations, and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to each his agreed share of the spoils. All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes, and the more peaceable division of their spoils.

“Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class --- of persons to plunder and enslave others, and hold them as property.”

So where does mesne profits find any room in all that information offered by Spooner?

Returning to the treatise on the writ of mandamus:

“An important feature of the writ of mandamus, and one which distinguishes it from many other remedial writs, is that it is used merely to compel action and to coerce the performance of a pre-existing duty.

So…

When the people consent to government, such as the examples in history show, the people - not the government - “compel action” and “coerce the performance of a pre-existing duty.”

Such as (treatise on mandamus):

“So much is it regarded as an ordinary civil action that it is held to fall within a statute authorizing changes of venue in civil actions in law or equity. And since the proceeding has all the elements of an ordinary action at law, including parties, pleadings, mesne and final process, it is regarded as an original proceeding or suit, rather than the mere final process in a suit, or a mode of obtaining execution on a judgment.”

If as the record shows, and reasonable people can judge voluntarily, and unanimously, the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) Corporation formed in 1789 (a legal fiction) was a crime, then all profits flowing to the criminals abusing the color of law since 1789 must be returned - by some equitable means - to the victims of the crime; as ordered by lawful process. 

What does that mean in dollars and sense?

“$291,102 for every person living in the U.S.”
https://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp

If you are a fellow criminal you can confess by your words and your actions. You can claim that you keep your mesne profits by right. Your ill gotten gains are rightfully yours by conquest, and that is another important piece in this puzzle, to be verified with official records.

Side note: I intend to attempt (again) insurance payments paid to me by what I was told (at the time of purchase) was an insurance policy known (euphemistically) as Social Security. I will endeavor to persevere without those benefits accrued from that insurance policy I paid for, but I’m not going to make it my chosen vocation to jump all the hoops put in place on the hamster wheel. The most evil may not be the few who own the most. Far from that nebulous assumption are specific people, who have names, and they steal, cheat, rob, torture, mass murder, and worse crimes. They cannot do so without finding a way to convince (con) people into giving up on the actual law power: accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case. If you must take the information offered here and twist it, then you must not be someone who has been given a duty to help, to care for, life on this planet. Go in peace: please.

Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on September 15, 2019, 02:49:10 pm
Having taken a long break in this effort to spell out Voluntary Mutual Defense it may now be worth the effort to recap before introducing a long quote from a Law History book from Cambridge. The quote from The Cambridge History of Law in America spells out the already spelled out falsehood that I call dogma from members of the cult of Might Makes Right.

Clearly there are 2 Parties in conflict throughout the history of mankind as such:

The Criminal Party
The Party formed in defense against the Criminal Party

The Criminal Party has learned a long time ago that they gain a tactical advantage when they counterfeit the opposition Party. When the Criminal Party poses as the Defense Party, the Defense Party is thereby rendered defenseless in fact as demonstrated very well throughout the history of mankind.

Why then is it time and again apparently so easy for the Criminal Party to get away with this obvious fraud?

Here is where it pays to learn the Criminal Party dogma, as previously offered in a quote from the introduction in a book by Nicola Machiavelli titled The Prince.

Here again:
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction)

The Criminal Party members know how to craft a false message that projects their malignant thoughts onto their targeted victims, and that projection of false evil projected by evil people onto innocent people - so as to falsely justify intended criminal acts - constitute the basic tactical advantage previously spelled out. The targeted victims are misdirected to a point at which the targeted victims defend their enslavement in a collective manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome.

An actual member of the actual Defense Party will be violently destroyed by dupes who are caught by the fundamental lie, dupes who are caught and thereby inspired to attack anyone who dares to tell the truth about the fundamental lie.

The fundamental lie is restated time and again - various forms - throughout history, just as it was done in the quote from The Prince. This now is a lead-in to another restatement of that fundamental lie, where the restatement of the fundamental lie is retold in a book claimed to be a history of law in America.

Before quoting it may be worth the effort to put this piece properly in place on the puzzling map of the ongoing struggle between the 2 distinct - opposing - parties. While the Defense Party (Liberty Party) is effectively rendered powerless by the Offense Party (Criminal Party), one would think that a little truth might go a long way, but that depends entirely on each individual member of either Party, and only when individuals are capable of waking up enough other individuals in the Liberty Party will there then be a collective sum total of individuals who are armed with enough facts that matter (the truth) to constitute an actual (rather than a counterfeit) defense.

The Liberty Party also produces messages that are published for consumption by members of the Liberty Party, and these messages are opposite the messages produced by members of the Criminal Party. An example in stark contrast to the message in The Prince (introduction) is the Golden Rule, a message crafted to inspire actual just thinking, which then may be followed by actual just action. Another example in stark contrast to the projecting of evil being projected by evil people onto their intended - innocent - victims is a document written by a member of the Criminal Party, as that member of the Criminal Party attempts to tell the truth, to confess, and to turn from the Criminal Party to the Liberty Party instead. That document goes by the name Declaration of Independence.

Clearly documented in human history at the time of what became known as the American Revolutionary War is the Criminal Party lies starkly contrasted by the Liberty Party facts that matter in that case where armies of people polarized by evil intend to cause injury to armies of people polarized by the facts that matter in that case.

That is my lead-in to the long quote that I think is worth the effort to transcribe from a book, placing the message in digital form, which can then be cut and pasted by anyone who cares to know these facts that matter in this case.

There is more to this puzzle piece because the two sides are always gaining or losing power as the lies infect the minds of individuals who would otherwise be polarized in such a way as to work effectively at the necessary work required to keep the criminals from hurting themselves and their victims in time and place. The purpose of law - actual not counterfeit - is to deter crime before it ripens in the minds of individual people, and that is accomplished by telling or finding the truth, and spreading that truth that matters in any case; caveat emptor.

Who claims Divine Right to Rule arbitrarily, and it is worth the effort to dispel such falsehoods?

The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins

“Virginia was the clearest instance of a land of conquest, but it was by no means the only one. The early charters and letters patent are all liberally scattered with references to conquests and occupations, which for some jurists at least, seem to have been taken to be the same thing. Occupation, declared the most influential of them, Sir Edward Coke, “signifieth a putting out of a man’s freehold in time of warre...occupare is sometimes taken to conquer.”

“The initial claim that America was a land of conquest, was not, however, made in isolation. It was but one, of which the annexation of India by the British Crown in 1858 was to be perhaps the last, of a long series of “conquests,” some more obviously so than others: the conquest of Wales, completed in 1536; the conquest, or at least the seizure, of the Channel Islands (although this was not completed until 1953); the conquest of the Isle of Man in 1406; the prolonged conquests of Ireland between 1175 and 1603; and the initial attempt at union with Scotland or of the subordination of Scotland to an English Parliament, which was to become one of the issues at stake in the Civil War, in 1603. For more than two centuries before the first colonies were established on the eastern seaboard of North America, England has been in a state of constant and determined expansion. It was to remain more or less uninterruptedly in this state until World War I.

"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering" the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.

“Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settled and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."

"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."

"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World , both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both , as soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."

“By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which , at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."

“Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For if America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law.”

That is a puzzle piece on the war map between lies and crime on one side and truth and justice on the other side, and there are clearly defined borders between the two parties. I felt the need to stop quoting mid stream, as the clearly defined borders between the two parties are only clear to those who are solidly on either side. To those who are caught in the middle there is darkness, confusion, misdirection, and defenselessness; a powerless state, and a ripeness for exploitation.
Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on September 16, 2019, 09:02:40 am
Note please the clearly demarcated sides as members of each side define the meanings of words for their side alone, and this tells an important story about Liberty versus that which opposes Liberty.

The word “civil” defined originally by human beings means the development of life from a negative, base, savage, barbaric, bad, form of life that is incapable of adaptation (and therefore destined to suffer extinction without the capacity to adapt) to a positive, principled, cultured, peaceful, good, form of life that is capable of adaptation and therefore capable of surviving as nature demands that capacity to adapt or suffer extinction.

The original meaning of a word such as the word “civil” in English is the same original meaning of any word intending to convey the same original meaning in any human language. To mistake the map for the terrain is a common error worthy of note. To know instead that the terrain is what it is, and to know that the terrain is not the map, is a fact that matters in any case where someone might be making the mistake of mistaking the map for the terrain. The terrain is the terrain. The map is the map. The terrain is not the map. The map is not the terrain. The word is not the intended meaning. The intended meaning is not the word.

The word “civil” was used in the quote from the Law History of America book to mean the opposite of the original meaning. Instead of a positive improvement - an adaptation - of life from barbaric to civil, the word “civil” was used to mean a move from peace to war, or from civilized co-existence for mutual defense to barbaric enslavement of innocent people for the profit of a few investors who invest in the extraction of life from their own kind.

In order for the strategic advantage of falsehood to affect the targeted victims to their detriment the targeted victims must be made to confuse the map for the terrain, and to accomplish this goal the evil people must distract their victims, occupy the minds of their victims, to a point at which the victims are then incapable of accurately discriminating the stark difference between the original meaning of the word, which is a good meaning, and the counterfeit meaning of the word which is a bad meaning.

Civil good: Accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of controversy anywhere, anytime, involving any number of people, and provide for a just remedy, so as to then be less occupied in violent conflict among members of the same species, and instead of that condition of “perpetual war,” the human species can focus their powers on surviving against the forces of nature.

Civil bad: Transfer all political (and therefore economic) control from those who produce excess wealth to the worst criminal individuals currently living, and allow those criminals to run amok on the planet enslaving and destroying everything that pleases them anywhere, anytime.

Why is it difficult to see that the original meaning of the word is opposite the meaning being used by the criminals and their victims?

Or

What is Civil Law?



Title: Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
Post by: Joe Kelley on September 16, 2019, 03:33:54 pm
As easy or as difficult it may be to know the stark opposites of the 2 Parties always at war in human nature the members of each group meet in combat in time and in place, so there are ways to document - and therefore know - precisely what constitutes either party.

Times where battles are fought are important for many reasons such as the proximity of a battle to someone having a vested interest in those specific battles. A battle yesterday, today, or a pending battle that is planned for tomorrow can be more important to some people compared to a battle that happened over 200 years ago.

Places where battles are fought are also important for many reasons also for the reason of proximity to someone having a vested interest in those battles. A battle where someone is standing is relatively more significant to the one in battle compared to a battle on the other side of the planet.

Another important point to understand about the places where battles are fought is the point at which people claim ownership of land, such as for example a claim called Allodial Title, and for another example, there is a claim called Absolute Dominion.

I did not make up either of those two examples of claims that concern ownership of land, other people have done so, and I can benefit from their work, as it was them who earned the credit for having created these claims of ownership of land. If I want to use their words I don’t have to pay them rent for doing so, and if I want to transfer their words right here and now, on this forum, then I don’t need permission from them to do so. What follows are examples of people documenting the meanings for both Allodial Title and Absolute Dominion.

The first example is now taken from that Cambridge History of Law in America, and this example offered is a continuation of the words quoted in my previous post, so the words now are what followed the words previously quoted. The message context is telling a story, and the point of this is to illuminate the stark contrast between messages from the Criminal Party as those messages can be compared with messages from the Liberty Party that are specific to land ownership.

“It was precisely because all conquered territories were a part of the royal demesne that the monarch was able to grant chargers to the colonies in the first place. For however empty those charters might have been considered to some, they were indisputably concessions made by the Crown. Charters, wrote Thomas Hobbes, “are Donations of the Soveraign; and not Lawes but exemptions from Law. The phrase of a Law is Jubeo, Injugo, I Command and Enjoyn; the phrase of a Charter is Dedi, Concessi, I have Given I have Granted.” If this were so, and Hobbes is here starting a legal commonplace, then in one quite specific sense the English colonies had feudal foundations. Most of the lands in America had originally been granted in “free and common socage” as of the manor of East Greenwich in Kent. This formula allowed for what were, in effect, allodial grants, which derived from a contract between the Crown and the landowner but at the same time avoided the duties of feudal tenure - such as the need to provide auxilium et consilium, in effect military assistance to the sovereign. In this way the colonies were both free and unencumbered while at the same time remaining legally part of the royal demesne, and every part of the terra regis had to form a constitutive part of a royal manor in England, Land in Ireland, for instance, was held as of Carregrotian, or of Trim or of Limerick or of the Castle of Dublin, and when Charles II made over Bombay to the East India Company this land too was granted in “free and common socage” of the manor of East Greenwich. In the proprietorial colonies, by contrast, a large area of land was granted to a single individual, who then allocated lands more or less as he pleased. But even here the Crown still maintained that it possessed the ultimate rights of ownership and that it could therefore dispose of the territory in question as it wished. (The Spanish Crown, by contrast, although often represented as the most despotic and centralizing of the European monarchies, only ever made claims to exercise property rights in several limited areas which were described as being under “the King’s head,” or cabeza del rey.)”

In context the word allodial above adds the words “free and common socage,” and “free and unencumbered.”

Here is another example of what people mean when people use the word allodial:

“In England, this law was derived from feudal tenures in real property as held by a succession of what were called tenants-in-chief and mesne (intermediate) lords or a pyramid of proprietors holding from the Ring on down. These tenures, however, never prevailed in the American colonies, as the Revolution proved. Instead, the land titles (not tenures) in the American states were called "allodial" (see Chapter 36 of the laws of 1787 of New York State as a good example), which meant that they were not, as in England, held from a principal original overlord (Ring or Crown), but each was owned outright by the proprietor. These are the same titles that prevailed in England prior to the coming of William of Normandy. The holders of them were called "roturiers."
COMMON LAW, STANDARD SPECIE & ALLODIAL TITLE
https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/common-law-standard-specie-allodial-title.106912/

Now contrast the information offered above with the following message taken from a web page which publishes the notes taken during the Federal Congress meeting to discuss the publishing of a Declaration of Independence, 1775.

“That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

Who has heard of the term Indian Giver? How about the term Receiving Stolen Property?

One more reference to these opposing claims of land ownership:

“To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king :

“The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war—a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.

“That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.

“Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry.

“Townships, from twenty to thirty thousand acres of land, shall be laid out and appropriated to such of you as will come over to us, in the following manner.

“[Every captian who shall bring with himself forty men from the service of the enemy, before the first day of September, 1778, shall receive eight hundred acres of good woodland; also four oxen, one bull, three cows, and four hogs. If this captain is accompanied with his lieutenant, the lieutenant shall receive four hundred acres of woodland, also two oxen, two cows, and four hogs.

“[Every sergeant who shall accompany his captain shall receive two hundred acres of land, two oxen, one bull, one cow, and three hogs.

“[Every soldier who shall accompany his captain shall receive fifty acres of land, one ox, one cow, and two hogs.
“[If a lieutenant, or other commissioned officer under the rank of a captain, shall bring off from his company twenty five men, he shall receive six hundred acres of land, two oxen, two cows, and four hogs.

“[Every sergeant, or non-commissioned officer who shall bring off parties of men, shall receive an additional bounty of twenty acres of land for every man so brought off. And every soldier, who shall come off without a commissioned or non-commissioned officer, shall receive fifty acres of land; and if he brings off his arms and accoutrements, an additional bounty of twenty dollars.

“Both Officers and Soldiers who shall come off together, shall be at Liberty either to separate themselves, or to unite for the purpose of affording to each other Mutual Succor in the Establishments they make, and to form themselves into Townships after the Model of many German Settlements in various Parts of these States, which Exhibit an Example of that Happiness which is now offered to those who are wise Enough to accept of it.

“[Such officers and soldiers shall be at Liberty immediately to employ themselves in the settlement of their farms, without being obliged to do any military duty; and they shall receive rations in proportion to their rank for the space of six weeks.

“[The stock hereby offered shall be given to such officers and soldiers as shall actually settle on the lands respectively granted to them.

“Such of the officers and non-commissioned officers as choose to enter into the military line, shall receive an additional rank in detached corps, which shall be formed of native Germans of those who now reside in America; which corps shall not be employed but with their own consent in any other service than that of guards at a distance from the enemy, or in garrison upon the western frontier.

“Such of you as are skilled in manufactures, over and above these lands and other articles, will find riches in prosecuting your occupations, the necessaries of life being very cheap in proportion to the price of manufactures, and the demand for them is so great, that every mechanick will find full employment. Some of you have had an opportunity of observing the truth of these assertions, and will doubtless inform their countrymen and acquaintance of these facts.

“We have hitherto met you in the field of battle, with hostile minds, urged on by the great principle of self-defense; yet in those instances, where the fortune of war hath delivered any of your countrymen into our hands, we appeal to them that our enmity hath ceased the moment they were disarmed; and we have treated them more like citizens than prisoners of war. We now address you as part of the great family of mankind, whose freedom and happiness we most earnestly wish to promote and establish.

“Distain, then, to continue the instruments of frantick ambition and lawless power. Fee the dignity and importance of your nature. Rise to the rank of free citizens of free states. Desist from the vain attempt to ravage and depopulate a country you cannot subdue, and accept from our munificence what can never be obtained from our fears. We are willing to receive you with open arms into the bosom of our country. Come, then, and partake of the blessings we tender to you in sincerity of heart.

“In the name of these sovereign, free, and independent states we promise and engage to you that great privilege of man, the free and uninterrupted exercise of your religion, complete protection of your persons from injury, the peaceable possessions of the fruits of your honest industry, the absolute property in the soil granted to you to defend, unless you shall otherwise dispose of it, to your children and your children's children for ever.

“Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, who have vacant lands, to lay off with as much expedition as possible, a sufficient quantity of lands to answer the purposes expressed in the foregoing address; for which lands no charge is to be made against the United States.”
Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 10

Which side is the side that affords each individual the freedom to earn a good living by using a portion of unoccupied land, and which side lies to get enough control over their victims to then be in a position to steal everything that can be produced by the subject of that form of robbery?

It may not be an arbitrary employment of English words (or Latin words for that matter) to label a process with the following words: The Law of the Land (legem terrae). As Spooner points out another lie about “feudal times,” these words here document a similar battle between regular people getting along and finding ways to facilitate their mutual defense, and those who threaten that peace with lies, false claims, threats of aggressive violence, and displays of horrid, torturous, aggressive, massive, violence.

“The authority of a Saxon monarch was not more considerable. The Saxons submitted not to the arbitrary rule of princes. They administered an oath to their sovereigns, which bound them to acknowledge the laws, and to defend the rights of the church and people; and if they forgot this obligation, they forfeited their office. In both countries, a price was affixed on kings, a fine expiated their murder, as well as that of the meanest citizen; and the smallest violation of ancient usage, or the least step towards tyranny, was always dangerous, and often fatal to them.” Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852


In time (1775) and in place (America) there was a battle over claims of ownership. For a very short period of time, in many places all over the world at that time, people afforded other people the power to earn a good living. In order to do so people had to deal with the Criminal Party. There never was and there never is a true choice offered by the members of the Criminal Party, that is the price of membership in their cult. Members of that cult, as a rule, lie. In order to be a member in that cult one must pay that price. They will “give” you something you already have, and then they will take from you the power you have to hold them to account for their lies.

I think that it ought to be clear that one side affords everyone their free, unencumbered, cost-less, access to the lawful process to find a just remedy concerning any conflict of any kind, including conflicting claims of ownership, and the other side, as a rule, affords no one but themselves anything, and those criminals on that side, as a rule, hand their victims a bill to be paid to the criminals, to be paid by the victims, for the cost of enslaving everyone.

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Current Published Criminal Party Thought Crime Dogma

So now there are choices to make concerning those who wish to volunteer their 2 cents in asking and answering two questions offered.

1. What is Civil Law?
2. What is Criminal Law?

Next I wish to return to the Roger Roots book for a competitive message that can help answer those questions.