FREEDOM VS. CONQUEST
I read this book entitled FREEDOM about Voluntarism, by Adam Kokesh. @adamkokesh - He asked me to tell him what I thought of it.... so here it is.
I’ve also watched his videos where he asks people if they think they own themselves. So I did some research and the following is the results of my observations. Frankly, the answer is NO. We are owned by the Corporation of the United States of America. While we are free to leave and come back, we not free of the Taxman and even if you disclaim your citizenship, the Country will still charge you an exit fee to be free.
Where does it come from? Where does the Nation derive its right of ownership over us natural born North Americans within the territory Legally Described in the incorporation of the United States?
Many people believe that jurisdiction must come from the voluntary consent of the governed.
But this isn't true, just ask William Wallace… oh that's right he was drawn and quartered at the end of the Movie Braveheart.
Likewise many people believe that they have a right to a fair trial.
But that is a fiction which requires fealty to written law or to a monarch who affords such luxuries.
There is only one Absolute Right in this world that is NOT based on written law. That is the Right of Conquest or the Ability to conquer a rival for the extortionary Powers he enjoyed for himself.
The Right of Conquest exists for us all.
We all have the same rights as Genghis Kahn, Alexander, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, George Washington, Napoleon, Chavez and Joseph Roberts; just not the same resolve, or enough charisma to raise and Army and create a New Nation.
Without exercising those rights, however, we have immensely less responsibility and problems.
In the United States we threw off the chains of a Tyrannical Monarch of favor of self-rule.
This is the goal of many Anarchists - Independence and Self Rule but in a Country of 300 Million it is now impossible without affecting someone else as you endeavor to provide for yourself and your family, independently.
We have a unique opportunity that I've heard many people want to squander. Including Adam,#
We may be subjects of OUR government but unlike many others IT is here to maintain personal freedoms to speak, to travel, to assemble, and to own property, encouraging people to create new businesses and grow the old ones. And Adam wants to get elected to tear it all down because no one is truly free.
Let’s Analyze what it means to be Free; as in as Free as a Sovereign being.
What does that look like? I’ve read a lot on the subject about how our current socio-economic paradigm breeds the violence and crime which runs rampant between the have nots and the haves.
But if we look at history, not everyone wants to be a sovereign. Throughout history weak people attach themselves to the strong and charismatic, creating realms and kingdoms and empires; which is where we are today…. Arguably at the beginning or the ending of the Empire of the United States.
Throughout history these realms and kingdoms have created cultures, ways, and laws that regulate how people voluntarily or in most cases, involuntarily, interact with each other and with the defacto sovereign being.
A good example of human nature is on display on the History Channel’s program entitled Vikings. Absent a functional and strong army all of our accumulated freedom and property are at the mercy of those who would take it from us. The Idea that people become altruistic and nurturing when placed in a one on one setting, even where there is no competition for natural resources, is delusional. It doesn’t matter the amount of availability there are those who will conspire to accumulate them and hoard it.
Fast Forward to the American Revolution.
Sovereignty has vested in the United States of America, a Sovereign corporation, with Sovereign Title and Jurisdiction over our lands and homes being created by the Conquest of the Colonies over Great Britain; by Conquering the Western Territories from Mexico and the Indian Territories directly from them; by conveyance from France for Louisiana and Spain for Florida, and Conquering the other island nations around the globe. The U.S. Patriots even tried but failed with Canada.
Jurisdiction has been delegated from the territories to the federal union. Again a sovereign corporation named United States of America which subsequently delegated limited Separate Jurisdictions to the 50 States comprising the Union and down the line to Counties, Parishes and Municipalities within each State. Thus, the federal union still controls all jurisdiction in its non-state territories who have not yet voted for Statehood.
Evidence of these jurisdictions is in the wars and blood shed to maintain this rule of law and by the very Legal Descriptions written to describe the physical limits thereof.
Evidence of acquiescence to this jurisdiction is simply the mere fact of ones existence with the domain legally described.
It is not based on whether someone has agreed to be governed; for unless he is in active rebellion as William Wallace was (who had the opportunity to Sack London), then it can be said that he agrees with the law of the land.
Ergo, based on the ancient Right of Conquest and the rules set up by the beneficiaries of that conquest of America, the United States of America's constitution is a covenant running with the land binding all those who inhabit it either by residence or by occupancy.
I have not seen it codified or even an accepted fact that the State must show that a criminal defendant has peacefully acquiesced to legitimize the State's Jurisdiction that was gained by earlier Right of Conquest or Treaty with a previous Jurisdiction.
George Washington could have taken America and set himself up as a king but instead he and the other founders set up a self-ruling republic with a written constitution and by-laws (statutes), opposing the pre-existing international world view that might has right, but relying on it for legitimacy in International Law.
The Right of Conquest still has its place in International law in recognizing other nations, as well as domestic law for upholding title to our lands otherwise our's is illegitimate and the original natives progeny still have a claim to it otherwise.
So, if you're going to be an Anarchist in America you're going to need to pay off the local Tribe of Native Americans in your area or convince them to allow you to join in with their jurisdiction.
One might say that this is unfair. To be ruled in a Nation that advertises it’s the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
In the End however, you are free to leave, and to buy your Freedom… But where will you find a better deal? Maybe there is someplace better for you… Or maybe we can work together to make the limited freedom we have here even better, rather than tearing it down to replace it with an unsustainable utopian fantasyland where everyone is a sovereign being interacting with each other in a private state of anarchy.
We should be teaching Voluntarism and the non-aggression principal in our schools, but we should never allow ourselves to become so naive to believe that there are no longer any threats to our current gravy train that’s been made so safe by our current sovereign master – WE THE PEOPLE.
Is it a perfect Nation? No…. But it has been created in an effort to form a MORE perfect union; and we should never stop trying to make it more perfect. I believe that it’s currently out of balance with the undue influence the special interests have over our congress….. But that’s another post.
http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2211
... Back on March 5, 1770, the King’s soldiers fired on and killed five people. They stood trial before a jury of citizens, though were found not guilty because they had a right to self-defense. However, both the laws and the people had a right to determine what they government could do, and what it could not do.
On January 26, 2016, a government “soldier” (armed with military grade weapon and accoutrements) attempted to kill, or at least, recklessly endangered the occupants of the white truck. He is not charged with such a crime, even though one of the occupants sustained a gunshot wound. Instead, he is charged with being dishonest and impeding an investigation. That would never have happened if we were still under the King. Instead, we have the hens (the United States Attorney and the FBI) guarding the foxhouse (the FBI), so, well, we know, now, just how this may end.
(If you're a cop in America where be your fealty? To the law or to the Mayor or to each other?)
Just to make sure, are you advocating a concept of property rights from force? If I have the weaponry to steal a piece of land from another, I therefore own it? Historically this is how it has worked -- in many years -- but that doesn't validate the core concept.
What would be the non-utilitarian proof of the Right of Conquest. That is, the philosophical proof and not the practical implementation of it.
I personally think it's a weird set of morals. It resembles ethical egoism.
Example: if I have the power to conquest and enslave a person, would that be ethical?
Ethics are fictional concepts which only exist within a framework of laws. I'll call them laws of civilization.
Force operates outside of civilizing laws and all ownership of property requires the exercise of force to acquire and retain property absent any framework of civilizing laws.
Ethics describes moral values, which then differentiate good from evil -- right from wrong. Moral values, in most parts of the world (if not all,) also differentiate good force from evil force.
Libertarian ethics defines rightful property (i.e. exchange and homesteading) and force (i.e. non-aggression principle.) By force, with neglect to ethics, one can obtain resources, but this doesn't make it their property. If the obtained resources was another's property, the person who took them, stole them. Thus these resources are not the thief's property, but still the original owners'. If the stolen property is not returned, the practical outcome of the situation makes it look like the thief is the owner -- as he exercises exclusive control of it. But this, again, doesn't change the principle.
Thus force doesn't operate outside of ethics, but is defined as either right or wrong, by it.
Words themselves have no meaning without the defining concepts behind them. And are the framework for ficticious laws. Fealty to the ficticious law creates the mechanism for the application of force. Good or bad is defined by who is the recipient of the pain involved from the application of force and will always be subjective.
Private property is the result of the force necessary for acquisition and retention. Law is Created to bind men into contracts of fealty to protect private property against an organized threat to that property.
Libertarianism pretending you're free while staring in the face of laws that present ownership over you; simply because you say force is illegitimate. It's actually more legitimate than ficticious laws. Force of the defacto law and nobility is swearing fealty to the ficticious laws that define and protect minority rights and not fealty to another person.