Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Joe Kelley]

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.

[Joe Kelley]

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

[Tahn L.]

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.

[Joe Kelley]

"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?

 

[Bill St. Clair]

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.

[Joe Kelley]

"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?

[Tahn L.]

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.

[Joe Kelley]

"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?

[Tahn L.]

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.

 

[Joe Kelley]

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.


 

[Tahn L.]

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.

[Joe Kelley]

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.

[Joe Kelley]

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.




 
 

[Joe Kelley]

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.

[Bill St. Clair]

Avoiding places that bill themselves as schools is often a good idea. Avoiding learning new things is fatal. And boring.