Above the law? Does the law even apply? What's the evidence?
I don't think I'm above the natural law of "do no harm". I don't think I'm above morality and ethics. I don't think I'm above keeping my word. I don't think I'm above taking responsibility for my actions.That being said, I haven't seen any evidence that the constitution, statutes, codes or regulations apply to me just because of my physical location, nor have I seen any evidence that they apply to you just because of your physical location. I've posed the question to you good people. I've posed it to so-called "tax agents". I've posed it to so-called "senators". Where is the evidence?
I've received none.
What I have received is threats of violence, or argumentum ad baculum. I have received claims based on circular logic, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. I have even received admissions that the evidence I'm looking for doesn't exist and that the applicability of these so-called "rules" is simply an assumption or assertion. One "tax agent" even told me he "imagines" that the constitution applies to me.So my question is...
How can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a rule has been broken if it can't even be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the rule applies in the first place? How can there EVER be a presumption of innocence for ANYONE if the applicability of these arbitrary rules are ASSUMED and never actually proven? Why do people spend so much time fighting for "lower taxes" or "legalization" of anything if it can't even be proven that these "legal rules" apply to anyone?
Instead of trying to "change the system from the inside", what if all this effort and organization and alternative press that gets wasted in a futile attempt to manipulate the so-called "political process" was instead applied toward use of the Socratic method to challenge the lack of evidence proving applicability and subject matter jurisdiction of "the courts" whenever someone gets summonsed?
If the individuals calling themselves "the court" have to violate their own rules of evidence every time they convict someone of a victimless so-called "crime" or "civil violation", how long would it take to expose their whole "system" as nothing more than a glorified cartel of men and women who force people to pay them? How long until everyone realizes that their game is rigged?
What if all the race, class and gender baiting by the media only exists to keep the people it divides from asking these questions?
All laws are simply threats backed by force. Legal != moral. Few people understand where morality comes from so they comply the myth of authority to get by, living paycheck to paycheck. I'm hopeful we can move enough people up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to get some real self-actualization going and improve society based on reason, logic, and love, not fear-based emotion.
When you're born, you're not born a free man. If as a baby you had the skills to care for yourself, provide the same value to society that you required to survive, or means to survive on your own, you could be free. But nobody is born with that capability. They require parents to care for them. Society to protect them from those that might harm them. Schools to educate them. This is the debt every man is born with.
Your subjugation to society is merely to pay off this debt. It's provided you free of charge, 18 years of care and development. Now all you are required to do is not hurt others, follow a few silly laws, and pay a portion of your income in taxes.
And you're not even bound to any particular society! If you wish, you could live until you can afford a boat, then sail off into the ocean and care for yourself, paying no taxes, avoiding all interaction, and being bound to no sovereign law.
It's unfortunate that nearly all the places that have no law are waterbound. But such is the case when you live on a limited resources planet - the land is already claimed. Any unclaimed resource is yours for the taking. But claimed ones are off limits, to take them without providing mutually agreed compensation is to hurt another, and above even the natural law.
When you say "society", which individuals are you specifically referring to? What evidence do you have that I owe these individuals money? Do you have proof of services rendered that weren't paid for? How does being raised by my parents (who paid for my upbringing) mean I owe money to third parties? How is it possible to be born into debt given that debts can only be incurred through consensual contract? By your logic, wouldn't it be okay to take out mortgages on behalf of your unborn kids?
Why would I have to sail off into the ocean in order to not submit to theft? You realize that you're not my dad and that I don't live in your house, right?
Are you saying that it wouldn't matter which goods or services I provide to enrich the lives of others; that it's not a contribution unless I also submit to the theft of taxation?
How does any of this conjecture constitute evidence that the constitution applies to me?
"Your parents raised you therefore the constitution applies" would be a non-sequitur, but I can understand why you felt the need to engage in story telling.
So, you mean people are born as slaves, and with the obligation to obey their ruler's arbitrary demands. And that is the natural law? Please tell me with what kind of magic, some of the born slaves become masters and slave owners, being born as defenseless and dependent as everyone else?
![5 questions] (http://imgur.com/a/S918O)
I wouldn't say slaves is the right word for it. But we have the moral obligation to pass onto the future society what society has done to benefit us. Any other action is immoral selfishness. And true, there is unfairness in how the power is arranged. We ought to work together to fix that. But you would see, if you actually lived in a land without law, there is even more unfairness without the law.
Let me answer those questions:
Yes. If someone commits harm upon a group, the individuals do not have the moral right to vigilante retribution. But the group itself has the moral right to protect every member.
Not so much the "right" to do things they wouldn't do, but the obligation. They act as a delegate of the group, and they are obligated to work in the best interests and direction of the group instead of their own.
I wouldn't say an act is transformed. Morality is not absolute. The "same" act in different circumstances has different moralities. Obeying the consensus of society is a circumstance where your actions are usually (but not always) moral. For instance, stealing to feed your family is different from stealing to obtain as much wealth as possible. Even slight differences make a difference: if you stole luxury foods to feed your family when it was possible to steal mundane foods, that is different from stealing the cheapest items you need.
Yes, if they do anything immoral while a delegate of society, they are just as culpable as if they did it as an individual.
If a delegate is ordered to to something he finds morally wrong, he is obligated to step down from his position. He is also morally obligated to try to change society so that his successor does not commit the same wrongs.
Wait a minute, why is it the responsibility of anyone to take care of a child other than that child's parents? Why is it my responsibility to take care of my neighbor's child simply because they decided to have intercourse. This is not to say that I won't help as i see it necessary, but this is not something that either is nor should be required of me. Why must I be held accountable for the actions of other people?
Let me start by saying that I admire your curiosity and willingness to share your thoughts on a complicated subject.
As an attorney, I feel compelled to respond because there is a lot going on here. I understand the underlying message, but some of the legal processes you mention are being taken out of context.
Subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ), for example, is a procedural rule that involves the power of a court to exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of a civil lawsuit that is filed in its court. The scope of the federal courts' SMJ is outlined in the Constitution. Federal courts can only hear cases asserting a federal right or those between citizens of different states when the matter in controversy is over $75K. It is not exercised unless someone sues you and it does not apply to criminal cases. So a Socratic method-based discussion on this topic would be futile.
Next, it is typically juries--not courts--that convict people. Further, the rules of evidence are governed by statute and are used to determine the admissibility of evidence. They are very dry and very boring. Evidence comes in the form of documents, testimony, physical objects, etc., and it is introduced to prove the elements of a crime or cause of action. To convict a person of a crime, the prosecution has to prove each "element" of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So murder, for example, requires the prosecution to prove the following: 1. an unlawful killing of a human being 2. malice aforethought (intent). When a court (read: jury) wrongfully convicts someone, it typically involves a constitutional violation--not the rules of evidence.
"an unlawful killing of a human being":
So, if some law says it is ok to kill a human being, say, when a cop or soldier kills, it is ok.
That is the problem with state-made law.
Well, it really comes down to what you mean by ok.
Is it morally ok to kill a person? Personally, I don't think it's ever morally right to kill someone.
Is it ok legally (meaning you won't go to jail)? It depends. First, there aren't any enacted statutes or "laws" if you will, that say it's ok to kill a human being. "Unlawful" simply means without a defense or justification such as insanity or self-defense.
SMJ is not a procedural rule; it's a required element of a valid cause of action. It is always presumed because there's no evidence establishing SMJ absent tangible proof of a damaged individual or group of individuals.
Thanks for being honest about your conflict of interest, though.
No, it's a required element for standing. A cause of action is a theory of liability, like negligence. And SMJ is not always presumed. Take federal subject matter jurisdiction, for example. Federal courts only have jurisdicition over two types of subject matter: 1. cases that involve diverse citizens when the the amount in controversy is over $75K and 2. cases that involve federal questions (i.e. federal rights). Similar limitations also exist on the state level. Traffic courts, for example, do not have SMJ over probate matters.
At 5:25, he mentions that these laws cannot be imposed upon a child, at least not for their whole life. What do you do with the children who reach adulthood and then reject the rules of society? That part is glossed over.
Very nice!
It seems highly optimistic to think that the court system would bog itself down if enough people challenged it in the way you described. From my observation, it would seem that the court isn't a justice system as much as it is a control and order system. Since it doesn't play the "justice game", hoping to beat it at that game is futile. For the time being, we basically just have to accept that we are slaves in the most slave-friendly country on Earth... or die. Because they will kill us, without hesitation or accountability. They care nothing of your life, only of what you can give them, be it perceived power via voting or tax money. Once one of us becomes more trouble than we're worth, watch out.
@jaredhowe Excellent post and Welcome. Your post reminds of a question I always wondered. Would our Revolutionary forefathers have paid and filed for a permit to protest? They would have neeeded a permit for the Boston Tea Party and a whole lot more for the rest of the Revolution. I ask that because I know that is how it is today. You have to have a permit for your right to assembly. Go figure.
@streetstyle
I am totally with you. However, for that approach to work, %90+ of people must use the same approach. If only a small % of people do what you do, you will only be harassed or jailed or worse.
There are people doing this called "sovereign man movement" and such, they are still jailed and charged and all that.
Those people are making claims and taking the burden of proof onto themselves; they are not engaged in the Socratic method. There's always strength in numbers, but there has also been several victories even without numbers:
http://marcstevens.net/successes
Are you arguing that the Constitution doesn't apply to you?
Then, we don't need to let you speak? We don't need to let you carry a gun? We shouldn't let you assemble to protest or follow any religion?
You seem to look at the law as something to control you, when it really exists to protect everyone. Taxes are the cost of that protection, as well as your voice in the government through voting, free speech and protest.
Are you inferring that you would use force to keep people from speaking if this document didn't exist?
I'm simply asking for evidence. Do you have evidence that it applies to me? If yes, what is it?
Who is this "we"? Why is it up to you whether I speak or carry a gun? I see a lot of claims here but not evidence
Anyone, everyone. It's not up to me, it's up to any group with the strength to take your gun. You don't see evidence because you refuse to look at reality.
If this evidence is such an obvious part of reality, where is it?
The sky is clear, therefore the constitution applies to me? Non-sequitur. If your claims are so self evident then why are you still putting forth conjecture instead of putting the evidence on the table?
The sky is blue is your evidence that some people have the right to meddle with our lives and steal our property? Is this a religion of yours? Doesn't seem very far from ancient religions where the fact that the sun rises every morning was proof of the existence of some god that had the right to claim that infants had their hearts ripped out of their tiny bodies.
Look up. Can you see the sky? That's because the government sets pollution limits. That's evidence you ignore.
Look at your post. You're publicly questioning the government. That is because the US Military has prevented another government from ruling you and silencing dissent. That is evidence.
Can you walk or drive down the street safely? That is because the government sets safety standards for cars, and rules for driving and punishes people who break those rules. That is evidence.
Do you have a home? That is because the government protects property rights, so no one stronger than you can simply kick you out.
Look around, basically any time peoples' carelessness or vindictiveness is not hurting you it's because the government has set laws against it.
It's evidence you are benefitting frlm society's laws.
For the second time: Where is your evidence the law is illegitimate?
It's not up to you to prove your claims? Who is it up to? You're saying you have no evidence then? How is it that your claims reflect reality given that you can't even provide supporting evidence?
"Where's your supporting evidence that the government doesn't apply to you?"
"Government"? I asked about the constitution. Do you have any evidence that "government" exists as anything tangible or is it just a euphemism for men and women who force people to pay them?
Sounds like a no
Wow. That was "it's not up to me to prevent you from speaking."
So... where's YOUR supporting evidence that the government doesn't apply to you?