The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Voluntary Mutual Defense  (Read 51 times)

Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Voluntary Mutual Defense
« 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

“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.”

“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.

Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
« Reply #1 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

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6823
    • End the War on Freedom
Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2019, 10:16:08 pm »

Lysander Spooner rocks!

There are incredible collections at and
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
« Reply #3 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:

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



Joe Kelley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Voluntary Mutual Defense
« Reply #4 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
Pages: [1]   Go Up