A Short Musing on Law: Is America a Voluntaryist Country?
I know at first glance this seems like an extraordinarily stupid question to ask, yet, I will do so anyway. The only way this question can be comprehended is if you study a simple .png image. This image depicts some of the complexities that lay quietly behind the scenes in the American legal system.
The words defined are as follows; PERSON, CITIZEN, RANK, SOCIETY, OFFICER, ARTIFICIAL PERSONS, NATURAL PERSONS, SUBJECT, UNDERSTANDING, CITIZENSHIP, STATUS, CITY, and CIVILIAN. If one can read and comprehend the complex interrelationships between all of these words and terms. Then, what you think you knew about America is turned on its head.
I’ll share with you some of the thoughts that came to my mind when studying these words.
If a PERSON is a man or a woman considered according to the RANK they hold in SOCIETY, then anytime someone is addressed as a PERSON that word carries with it the presupposition that the man or woman you are addressing has a RANK in a SOCIETY of which they are a member.
If RANK means OFFICER then does that mean all PERSONS know they are employed as acting OFFICERS in a SOCIETY or CORPORATION?
How and when did they apply for membership into this SOCIETY and was it clearly conveyed to them what rights and duties they would have as members?
Did you know that CITIZEN means one is a member of a CITY or a JURAL SOCIETY? A PERSON who has both privileges and duties? Did you read what these privileges and duties are prior to submitting your application for membership into the SOCIETY? Did you even submit an application for membership, or did you just assume and operate as if though you were a member?
Were you aware that a CITY in America is a (municipal) corporation, similar to how a Big Box Store is a corporation?
Did you know that the meaning of CIVILIAN is “one who is skilled or versed in civil law?”
Is that what the legal maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ means? For if one claims to be a CIVILIAN, then ignorance of the law, would, in fact, be no excuse because you already claimed to be skilled in civil law.
“The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS.” Do you think the founders ever imagined that the legal system would become so littered with laws that grossly violate the spirit of the founding document -- so much so, that the people would have forgotten that government’s existence is permitted by the consent of those who are governed?
If you really study the meanings of just those few words, I think you’ll come to the conclusion that the common interpretations that we have for these words have absolutely nothing to do with the legal meanings. We’re all playing this game that we don’t even know we’re playing. Does it exist inside of a voluntary society? Have we been unknowingly volunteering all of this time?
You really do not seem to understand Voluntaryism. It is not about “volunteering,” per se. It’s simply about individual self-ownership. It is unrelated to the statist legal mumbo jumbo you reference here.
Imagine someone has a baby in an American hospital. What's the first thing they do? They name the child and register him with the State, similar to how property is registered. A birth certificate is acquired. Now the child identifies as a U.S. CITIZEN. Let the games begin! Later in life the child gets a letter, it says all U.S. CITIZENS must register with selective services. When the child voluntarily signs this form, it makes him eligible for the draft should government choose to conscript (or enslave) him at a later date.
Later on the child becomes a man and wants to drive. He doesn't know the legal meaning of the word drive or that it is a commercial activity. All he knows is he needs government permission in order to do it. So of his own free will he gets a drivers license. It goes on and on, but I think you get the point. My point is, outside of the game called government is voluntaryism. Something that is immediately lost when we contract with it, do commerce with it, and identify with legal words that are it's intellectual property.
Right now if I wanted I could identify as a private in the military. I could sneak onto a base and pretend I am military. Maybe if I run into a recruiter on the base who sees what i'm doing but instead of getting butthurt about stolen valor he says: "Private so-and-so we seemed to have lost your registration, I'm going to need you to fill out this form so that I can resubmit it."
Now, I'm officially in the military in this hypothetical scenario. A pawn on their court and playing their game, and I did it all voluntarily. Do you see what I mean? Now I have even less rights than I did before and I did it all via contract law by signing my rights away.
Natural law self-ownership does not change because you “contract” with the state by getting a driver’s license or anything else. That’s kind of the whole point. You’re not an AnCap or Voluntaryist if you believe that.
Honestly wondering if you are intentionally spreading disinformation here. Maybe you’re just confused.
Either way. You’re wrong by definition, and the rest of us would appreciate if you’d stop calling this “free man” constitutionalist BS “Voluntaryism.”
When you sign a drivers license application you have to certify that you've read, understand and agree with the contents of the form, including the certifications on the back of the form, all of this under penalty of perjury. When you understand or agree to something, it means that you are contracting. Sure behind the contract natural law still exists, but there are penalties for violating contracts.
I am not trying to conflate "free man" ideology with voluntaryism. I'm merely suggesting as a free man if you loosely go about signing contracts that you subject yourself to the consequences should you choose to break said contracts. Whenever you install an app to your phone you are making a contract. So when the app says it needs permission to access your camera or microphone and you give it that permission you are contracting away your right to privacy. Data will be collected, and data will be sold, thems the consequences.
I repeat, I am not calling "free man" ideology voluntaryism. I am merely expressing the fact that contracts have consequences and although you may understand your contracts that doesn't necessarily mean that you comprehend the ramifications of them. When you sign contracts without comprehending them consequences abound. If you don't believe me, join the military you'll learn that shit real quick like.
Obviously, that last part was in jest. I do not recommend joining the military or doing anything that would put you in a situation where you might be compelled to perpetrate violence against a man, woman, or child.
Not where the threat of violence exists as a means to coerce one into signing said contract (as is the case with pretty much every example you’ve provided).
This renders the contract invalid in view of Voluntaryism/natural law.
We get a driver’s license so as not to be caged/extorted when discovered driving without one. I do so under threat of violence.
You are wrong. A victim is not legally subject to a bullshit “contract” based on violence. Get it?
Worse, in Virginia at least, you have to sign up for the draft to get a driver's license. Isn't that cute?
Really? Gross.
Yep! The state is just shoving it in our face these days.
I think there is a hangup here. Thoughts-in-time is speaking about contracts and liability; you're speaking about cituational circumstance (both are valid aspects).
How you sign a document is relational to the liability of order or contract. In other comments it appears thoughts is trying to relate how one invokes jurisdiction as an US citizen as opposed to citizen of united states of america. While he is correct in stating the cause crucial aspects are omitted (unintentional).
Anything under threat is duress or coercion and therefore is not legally binding, of course. However, how is the decision maker(s) supposed to know what the cituation was like? Its why, signatures and liability is important.
Good talk guys
No. You’ve misunderstood my argument.
State contracts such as those mentioned by @thoughts-in-time are not valid in view of the individual self-ownership axiom.
Ah, yes i see. Thanks and apologies for misunderstanding.
There is a difference between 'rule by law' and 'rule of law'.
If a social construct grants itself authority to make law and enforce, by force, it is a 'rule by law' system.
Rule by force constructs are not voluntary, especially if no body can voluntarily defect out of the system, as and where, it occurs.
America has deployed all forms of government as rule by force since the Constitution.
Note the Bill of Rights, especially the first few amendments were not rule by force against the population, but a declaration of freedoms to impose against social constructs, such as government. Most everything else was rule by force documentation, as there was no ability to defect.
I would argue for sake of arguement...
Our country has long passed from using said instruments above. You know this as you have obviously used past tense verbiage.
What, I think is, the government is fully commercialized. This proves evident in CFR 72
When appearing in court, most are mistaken that they are article III courts. But they are just another means to commerce. This is evident in a plethora of supreme court cases.
Howevwr, in common law/natural law.. its stated that whomever converts a right to be licensed in this case a right to travel (as presented in constitution) can actively engage in that right with impunity. This does not save you from consequences though. As officers will harass you and more. @thoughts-in-time
I recently, wrote an article about signatures and liability. I think some of this came from that. Just being honest. Monopoly board symbolism is that of a tontine wagering scheme. However, I deeply wish we can return to constitutional standards of 1789. Peace, liberty and justice for all.
I agree, if you travel the public highways without a license you will almost certainly be harassed by the police. That doesn't necessarily make what they're doing right or lawful, nor does it make me wrong about the fact that applying for a license is to subject oneself to a contract. Just imagine if it were required that people had to read all the contracts they consent to before signing them? Do you think anyone would have a fakebook account?
There are a lot of attempts to leverage/obfuscate different schemes, commercial is just one attempt. I think the pivotal point is whether it is a rule by force social construct.
Let me also ask, as there appears to be a grasping at social contract theory. Is there ever coherence in social objectivity of what a social contract 'should do' and what it 'should be'?
The problem with justice in the terms of social constructs, is there is no coherent social objectivity. Perfect justice or even primal/natural justice is a individual construct and varies from person to person.
This is why justice systems in a 'social democracy' (representative or direct) will always end up as a convoluted construct. It can't deliver justice close to the populations divided subjective values of justice.
You know @joesal giving you a follow.
There is much to discover. Is this a social construct? Yes. Is this a rule by force social construct? By design, perhaps otherwise practically no. The reason is for it to be social everyone must understand basic premise of it. Social security is a good example, everyone understands the terms and conditions of that; yet they do not understand that the lose individual rights that where protected at a state level. Etc. Much of the social contracts are not readily understood because namely it is expected for individual to know about it.
One can leverage bonds if they have the purse for it and know how to do it. Admiralty is the game more or less.
-"There is much to discover. Is this a social construct? Yes. Is this a rule by force social construct? By design, perhaps otherwise practically no."
There may be some problems in clarity here. We are agreed that it is a social construct. The laws are created and enforced without considerations of individual sovereignty, therefore it is a rule by force social construct. If individual sovereignty was above the authority of the social construct, then one could ignore the workings of the social construct as it would be subordinate (including the enforcement).
-"Social security is a good example, everyone understands the terms and conditions of that; yet they do not understand that the lose individual rights that where protected at a state level. Etc."
That sentences is a little choppy at this part: 'understand that the lose individual rights'
I would like to respond to that, as I think it is interesting, but want to have it more clearly stated.
Much of the social contracts were written by factions of social people with a social agenda, and those people have little to no interest in whether individuals understand them or not. Constructing social constructs with that inherent flaw, makes a strong case against social contract theory(besides the huge glaring errors in assumptions of social objectivity).
What I'm stating is, that by accepting federal benefit(s) through social security or paying the tax therein constitutes as acceptance or participation in the program. (Flemming v Nestor)
The type of contracts which are social in nature, yes are built around a flaw. They can be inhibited.
There remains a point that needs clarity. Can a person defect out of a federal benefit(and taxation) of social security on grounds of individual sovereignty?
(Or defect out of any and all fed/social constructs)
I'll have to make that arguement another time. Interesting chat today though
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Ok I was going to say no till I read it. The basic principles of Voluntarism as we know it do not hold sway but those points certainly look correct from a technical perspective
Thanks for your feedback @empress-eremmy. Yeah, I was just in recent days learning the difference between things that can technically be considered voluntaryism vs. the spirit of voluntaryism. Unfortunatly, with contracts, where the devil is in the details, both people and or corporations can be particularly evil if they wanted to.
One is not subject to the consequences of a contract agreed to under threat of violence.
In theory that is correct, unfortunately, the laws in the U.S. have become so convoluted and unnatural that when government puts it's PERSONS in a state of duress they normally get away with it. I don't know if you've noticed this but cops use verbal contracts all the time in order to subjugate people. They will say, "do you understand what I'm saying." Their not asking if you comprehend what they're saying, they're throwing that question out there so that you say yes and agree to their verbal contract. That way they can justifiably make an arrest with your consent.
And none of this changes that a voluntaryist is not bound to these contracts by natural law/ISO. That’s why we’re voluntaryists. You’ve conflated two entirely separate legal systems here, one just—natural law—and the other religious/fraudulent/illegitimate/unjust—the state’s legal “system.”
Natural law always exists in the background, I'd even go further and say that the law of the jungle exists in the background. Murder is illegal and people get murdered in this country everyday. It's proof that the law of the jungle exists, even in civilization.
That said, when a voluntaryist consents to a contract by signing and agreeing to the terms. If he wanted he could go the way of natural law and violate the contract, he has every natural right to. The problem with violating contracts is when doing so you solicit the force of the state.
This is why it's mostly irrelevant to contemplate ones ability to violate contracts, most people don't or would not. This, so that they avoid the potentially negative consequences.
I think it's important that people should recognize the nature of the contracts they are in, or contracts they might be considering agreeing to. Dude, if you think you have no responsibility to honor your contracts that's got to make doing business with folks who are aware of this really difficult.
I don't think that most voluntaryists think in that way, that's just my opinion. I don't claim to know what all voluntaryists think.
Even if you attempt to not sign the contract the state will violate you.
You really need to buckle down and study some solid voluntaryist principle/literature.
You don’t get it, in a magnificent way.
Which contract specifically?
Short musing voluntary is the really credible,
Posted using Partiko Android