Recipe for a novel government

[ozmirage]

:-:-: RFOG: ORIGINAL RECIPE :-:-:

Based on the Declaration of Independence, and the earliest State constitutions, we can condense the Republican Form of Government to mean the form where the sovereign people have endowed [sacred] rights that government was instituted to secure [not infringe].

However, those who consented to be governed (subject citizens) descended in status, embracing mandatory civic duties that abrogated endowed rights, as well as being held to a higher standard of behavior (Service was a privilege, and the people could object to servants that were disreputable, repugnant, or otherwise unacceptable).

These civic minded folks had to be
(a) property owners,
(b) tax payers,
(c) obligated to perform militia duty (18-50; currently 17-45),
(d) held to a higher standard of behavior,
(e) post a performance bond if elected to office.

So before you condemn them as a bunch of ‘rich white landowners’ consider that they had to surrender their sovereignty, be obligated to train, fight, and die on command, obey petty rules, and pay higher taxes for the privilege of serving the great unwashed.

In the 1820s, these strict prerequisites were eliminated, and the transition to the democratic form resulted, with all its attendant corruption and partisan politicking. However, the civic duties and higher standard of behavior still attached, though not rigorously enforced, nor understood by the masses.

If the original prerequisites were restored, no recipient of public charity or non-taxpayer would be eligible to vote or hold public office. The drastic reduction in the number of tax paying obedient subjects would diminish the power of the government (and those who control it). Which might explain why the republican form is never taught in government controlled schools. (Nor are the Articles of Confederation, but I digress.)

Since everything government does that is NOT securing rights, is based on the consent of the governed, and if fraud was used to induce that consent, every one has a right to object to the fraud and cancel all consent. Once consent is withdrawn, all endowed rights are restored. Since endowed rights cannot be taxed, regulated or restricted, the government revenue stream will drop accordingly. And as long as the non-consenting Americans do not exercise government privileges, they are not "governed."

Imagine an America where 97% of the people are sovereigns, untaxed and unregulated. And only 3% of the people are subject citizens, taking upon themselves the civic duties to secure endowed rights by operating the courts (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals) or the militia (defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic) and NOTHING MORE.
No matter who is elected, with only 3% of the budget and population to rule, what mischief would they create? Who are they going to bribe and tax? It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Thus we now see what the Founders established - a form of government where the abusive tendencies of government were reined in by consent of the governed. Where the pressure to have an ever growing government is offset by a lack of power to indiscriminately tax and spend. And where the civic minded citizens could evaluate their members for higher office, choosing only the best and brightest... and bravest.

ADDENDUM:
There is only one nation on Earth with a republican form (which is not synonymous with "republic"), where the people, individually are the sovereigns, and the government is their servant. In all other nations, the government is sovereign over the subject people. It is interesting to note that during the French Revolution, the revolutionaries did NOT copy Thomas Jefferson's daring Declaration with its Creator endowed rights and sovereign people. In fact, in 1789, TJ was in France, as an ambassador, and certainly could have given advice. Instead, the French enacted a system where sovereignty was in the government, not in any individual.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
Article III - The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it.
CONTRAST WITH - - -
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z


In America, the sovereign people do not administer the government. They do not vote, nor hold office. They are served by the subject citizens and the government. In fact, they're the only folks with "State's Rights". Governments only have delegated powers, and citizens only have government privileges (mistakenly called "civil rights" and "political rights").

[ozmirage]

HOW do we KNOW that Americans are sovereigns, not subjects

The Declaration of Independence is the origin of the republican form of government, in which all men are created equal (before the law - none higher). If one cannot have a higher status, then all men (in America) are sovereigns. Only by their consent to be governed, do they descend in status to subjects of a sovereign (the government, created by compact).

And since government was instituted to secure their Creator endowed rights, the government is not the source of those rights. And therefore cannot tax, regulate nor trespass those endowments except by consent of the governed -or- in pursuit of justice on behalf of an injured party (criminal prosecution).

However, the government is the source of privileges, such as civil and political liberties (also called civil and political rights), which involve permissions (licenses) and participation in the government. And with those privileges come mandatory civic duties - duties that abrogate all endowed rights to life, liberty (natural and personal), absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers, and so on.

This situation was well known by the founding generation, and their objections were smoothed over by the “Bill of Rights” - which actually did not involve endowed rights, but government limitations on the exercise of power over the subject citizens. But there’s nothing in the Bill of Rights that benefit or affect the sovereign people and their endowed rights and powers.

Thanks to the world’s greatest propaganda ministry, few Americans can accurately define the republican form, its source and origin. That is a testament to their ability to cloud men’s reason and distract the victims from identifying their tormentor.

I may be in error, but I believe that most Americans would prefer to be sovereigns served by government than subjects to be ruled by government, especially a bankrupt socialist democratic government.

[ozmirage]

AMERICA MUST BE DESTROYED
Why?
Only America has a republican form of government, despite the vast majority being ignorant of it.

In the republican form, the people are the sovereigns, with endowed rights that government was instituted to secure. And only by consent, can the government rule (govern). In all other countries, the people are subjects of their sovereign governments, whether they're monarchies, oligarchies, democracies, or totalitarian police states. The governed cannot give nor withdraw consent, but only pay and obey.

America and its people cannot be allowed to survive, thrive and prosper. It would trigger a world wide revolution and topple the Powers That Be.

This explains why the government appears incompetent to discourage crime, while being diabolically clever in undermining institutions. It's all part of "the Plan." After the dust settles, the folks pulling the strings hope the survivors will clamor for the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic, and dismiss that pesky Declaration of Independence with its republican form of government. In place of Creator endowed rights, we'll have "human rights" (as stated in the UN declaration). But it will be at a steep price - the loss of sovereignty, freedom and independence - all that our forefathers fought and died to bestow upon us.

[ozmirage]

Cyber Reader’s Digest Soundbite Snippet
- - - of - - -
*Good* Government (“American style”)

Basic principles :
What’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine, don’t trespass.

All law is for the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent.

All men* are born equal before the law - none higher.
(* in English usage, masculine nouns include the feminine. However, feminine nouns exclude the masculine - and are therefore the real “sexist” terms.)

All men have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass.

Absent consent of the governed, delegated powers are limited to securing rights (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic).

Once consent is given, shut up, sit down, pay and obey. In exchange for government privileges, mandatory civic duties abrogate all endowed rights, liberties, and inherent powers. In essence, the citizen has the duty to obey, support and defend the government, and its mission.

Participation in national socialism is 100% voluntary (according to the law), thus it is “voluntary servitude” since it imposes the duty to support other socialists, via compulsory charity and confiscation of surplus. In addition, “contributors” are human resources, pledged as collateral on the public debt, and thus underwrite the worthless securities, making them into “legal tender.” Lastly, being eligible for public charity makes all participants into paupers at law, and thus status criminals.

Agreeing to “abide by the rules of the bank,” via signed “signature card,” the account holder becomes subject to the rules promulgated by the U.S. governor of the World Bank and IMF, etc, etc.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

KNOWN problems in the original organic documents and subsequent laws
<> The limitation to gold and silver coin insured that the lawful money system would be plagued by scarcity and generate huge demand for usury (& credit).
<> At the ratification of the USCON, there were no domestic sources for gold and silver bullion, which meant that the nation's coin had to be bought or borrowed from European banks, giving them great power and influence over the country. (The first gold rush was in 1828, in Dahlonega, Georgia)
<> The Federal power to break contracts, via bankruptcy, further protected the usurers, and shifted the expense to the debtors, who filed for “protection.”
<> The granting of limited liability & “personhood” to artificial persons (corporations) created a privileged status that was inequitable and unjust. Stockholders were exempt from criminal liability for the damaging actions inflicted by corporations in pursuit of profit. Such privileges were more expansive than endowed rights held by real people thus shifted great wealth and power to those who owned and administered corporations, who also engaged in usury. The mass of regulations enacted to rein in artificial persons were also imposed on the natural people, as if they were as irresponsible, and thus crippled non-corporate businesses with the burden of compliance.
<> Enforcing contracts for usury in the courts insured corruption and abuse of the legal system would result. (Usury was and is an abomination, and has no place in courts of justice)
<> Deliberate obfuscation of the mutually exclusive status of sovereign people and subject citizens, has kept the masses in confusion over what is and what is not the law instituted to secure rights and govern those who consented.
... Withdrawing consent, and ceasing to exercise government taxable privileges, would restore endowed rights, which are not taxable, regulated nor trespassed.
Sovereign Americans have natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers, privileges and immunities (not related to consent).

... They have dominion (sovereignty) over their persons, labor, production and property lawfully acquired. They can exercise sovereign prerogatives that include inflicting capital punishment without benefit of trial (ex: posting “Private property, no trespassing, trespassers will be shot.”) in defense against breach of the close and other trespasses to person, liberty or property. (Of course, subject citizens do not have the same prerogatives to defend themselves.)

[Note: Most if not all states also provide an exemption from all judicial process - anti-peonage clauses - so that one’s private property cannot be confiscated (even with just compensation), and reduce the defendant to dependency on the state (involuntary pauperization). In short, one would be judgment proof. This privilege does not extend to estate (“real estate” or “real property”)]
[Note: States make a distinction between "residents" and "non-residents"/ free inhabitants. You should find that no state requires licenses (permission slips) from non-resident inhabitants domiciled upon private property. ]

[ozmirage]

I realize that most Americans don't read law, nor do they have the will to withdraw consent. But it might do some good if folks sent a few letters to their public servants.

Write polite questionnaires to your Congressman and Senators:

1. What law compels all Americans in the USA to enroll and participate in FICA?
2. What law punishes any American in the USA who does not participate in FICA?
3. What law punishes any American business that hires unnumbered Americans?
4. What is the official procedure to volunteer out of FICA?
5. What privilege am I exercising when I do not participate in FICA that would incur an income tax on my wages?
6. What constitutional law imposes citizenship, mandatory civic duties and therefore involuntary servitude, in the united States of America?
7. What law taxes, regulates or trespasses the Creator endowed rights of the American people who have not consented to be governed?

...
Their stock replies usually are: "We will get back to you when we find the law."
I've been waiting over 20 years.

(The last time I politely asked, around 1999 or so, I got an irate call from some office staffer, telling me that I had to make my request in writing. I politely informed her that I did send it, by USPS, as she was responding to my letter. She paused. Then yelled something unintelligible, and then said, "we'll get back to you when we find the law...")
LOL

What do you think might happen if they get millions of polite letters?
A rush to emigrate to countries that don't extradite to the USA?

[ozmirage]

In the 1990s, I embarked on the long expedition to understand American law, because I saw a letter written by a Councilman in Nevada, stating that American people were sovereigns.
This intrigued me, especially since it was obvious that we are NOT sovereigns, but subjects, obligated to obey and pay, and get permission (license) to do many many things, including marriage and owning a dog.

BUT THE PUBLIC RECORD SUPPORTED THE CLAIM
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
- - - Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
- - - Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463 (1793)

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
- - - Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
- - - Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)

"In every government there necessarily exists a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be formed absolute and uncontrollable. The person or assembly in whom this power resides is called the sovereign or supreme power of the state. With us, the sovereignty of the Union is in the people."
- - - Charles Pinckney, 1788

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
- - - Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct.
2529 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
- - - Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
In addition to the term "persons" excluding the sovereign people, all sorts of trap doors, exceptions and exclusions are embedded in law, so that no sovereign's rights are "accidentally" trespassed.

SHALL v. MAY
SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right of benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1375

MAY - Word "may" usually is employed to imply permissive, optional or discretional, and not mandatory action or conduct... In construction of statutes and presumably of federal rules word "may" as opposed to "shall" is indicative of discretion or choice between two or more alternatives, but context in which word appears must be controlling factor.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.979
Translation: any use of "shall" in a law that violates a private right if taken in the mandatory sense, can be construed to be "may" (discretionary, voluntary) so as not to violate a right.

This is why you won't find an American Natural Liberties Union. No government has ever trespassed the rights and liberties of the sovereign people.

TO ILLUSTRATE -

"Everybody knows" that there's a gun ban in a school zone.
But is there really?
Did the government bar the sovereign people from carrying weapons?
Title 18 USC § 922 (firearms)
(a) It shall be unlawful
(1) for any person ... <<trapdoor

Title 18 USC Sec. 922 (q)
(I) the Congress has the power, under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE ..., to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nations schools by enactment of this subsection.
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a SCHOOL ZONE.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
Well, there you have it. The law only applies to "persons" (which excludes the sovereign), and doesn't apply to private property.

If you absolutely own yourself, your clothes, and your weapon, as private property, and not "connected" to school grounds, you are NOT in violation of the statute - even if you were engaged in interstate commerce with firearms.
The servant cannot govern the master. If you did consent to be governed, then yes, the government can deny you the privilege to carry weapons (or sell them) in school zones.

If you are skeptical, write a polite query to your state attorney general or sitting judge and ask if the servant government can legally deny the sovereign people their endowed rights to life and to defend that life with whatever weapon they deem necessary. Make clear that you are not referring to subject citizens who consented to be governed, nor status criminals in socialist insecurity, nor engaged in contracts for usury.

[ozmirage]

Why would anyone distrust the democratic socialist government and the honorable public servants duly elected?

Out of the 2.27 billion acres in the country, about 28% of the total was owned by the Federal government according to the Interior Department.
635,600,000 acres (roughly 2 acres percapita)
Didn't they use taxpayer funds to acquire that land?

AGGREGATE SPENDING takes 44.4% of the GDP

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_per_capita_spending.html
2022 GDP: $23.499 T, U.S. population : 332.3 M, Per Capita : $70,716.22

● Federal spending, per capita : $18,090.2 (percentage of GDP: 25.5%)
● State spending, per capita : $ 6,931.7 (percentage of GDP: 9.8%)
● Local spending, per capita : $ 6,487.7 (percentage of GDP: 9.1%)
Summed up, combined government spending takes (approx) 44.4% of the GDP.
= = = = = =
PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA
In 2018, the share of tax revenue in GDP was 18.9 percent.

The American people are suffering a tax load (44.4%) that is over twice that of Communist China (18.9%). Who do you think is more "socialist"?

The beneficiaries of that tax bite will never willingly give up their wealth and power, not unlike the Communist Party. And will rely on any means, fair and foul, to keep things the way they are, regardless of the consequences.

[ozmirage]

WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT -
A glorious birthright

[] People are endowed by their Creator with rights to life (and thus the right to do any harmless act in support of that life), to liberty (natural and personal), and to absolute ownership of oneself, land, tools, chattels, and any other thing lawfully acquired. In America, the people’s birthright is intact unless surrendered or waived. In all other nations, the people are subjects of their respective governments.

[] Any American national with a domicile, holds the status of sovereign, a status most precious. As a sovereign, he is the social equal of every other monarch on this planet. Titled nobility are a step below him. It is why Americans do not bow to foreign monarchs (unless they're idiots like BHO). It is also why “common” Americans can marry foreign nobility (and monarchs) without incurring penalty under their own laws forbidding marriages to “commoners.” And it also means that the vulgar taunt, “Kiss my royal American @ss!” is legally correct - if one is a sovereign American.

Unfortunately, the world’s greatest propaganda ministry, and its unwitting allies, have misrepresented American government and indoctrinated millions to embrace the democratic form, partisan politics, socialism, usury, and other abominations. By abandoning their birthright, the people become helpless prey of the predators and parasites, who enjoy the benefits of other people’s labor and property.

[Pam]

ozmirage, I hope this is ok. I watched a video that was so inspirational to me. It involves an aspect of a glimpse of what our educational system ( I am speaking from a US perspective where saying our educational system is abysmal is a huge complement) could be if we really wanted to educate our kids, rather than program them. This video is an interview from J-Griff by an incredibly wonderful educator that has evolved into creating and mentoring home schooling and giving the kids the education to learn how to think not what to think. Even if you don't have school age kids this is such an uplifting interview. He also shares his story of how he evolved into this form of education. He also talks about other things pertaining to your topic.

I felt it was complementary to your thread in that it puts the principles into action. This incredible man charges 10.00 a month for his educational mentoring services!!! Mind boggling and wonderful.

V0TVCDQrKno

[ozmirage]

He also talks about other things pertaining to your topic.

I felt it was complementary to your thread in that it puts the principles into action.
I tend to cringe when someone trots out a "target" and says "THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM! Attack HIM!"
I know the mindset. When I first discovered I was a slave, I was mad at the "Slaver" (plug in various IDs). But after reading the law, the enemy was looking back at me in the mirror.

A famous author once wrote (paraphrased), "You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him. And a dead slave is useless."
One might infer that no individual can be enslaved unless he gives up his sovereignty, freedom and independence, to labor for the benefit of another.

Any slaver who knows human nature relies on this fact, and tries to persuade victims how much superior life is, even if it is in eternal bondage.

What is often removed from American curriculum: the REALITY we are choosing.

For those who would rather be disarmed, regulated and enslaved in the benevolent totalitarian police state.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
- - - Samuel Adams
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams

For those who would not remain enslaved, no matter what inducement.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
- - - Patrick Henry
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

(https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry)FYI : the liberty Mr Henry speaks of is NOT the privileges granted by a government ("civil liberty" or "political liberty"), but the endowed rights of natural and personal liberty.
: : : : : : : : : :
No sovereign people accept the "will of the majority" (democracy).
No sovereign people accept "going along to get along" (appeasement).
No sovereign people accept "compulsory charity" (socialism).
No sovereign people accept "paying tribute to another sovereign" (taxation).
No sovereign people accept "dominion by abominations" (usurers).
No sovereign people accept "endless attacks by zealots" (incompatible religions).

And the list goes on . . . .

All the partisan battles in the (m)ass media, are but guerrilla theater, to distract folks from ever remembering when things were very very different.
The last thing "the masters" want is for their victims to awaken to their lost birthright of sovereignty ("private property"), freedom ("natural liberty"), and independence ("personal liberty").
They want the sheeple to conform, and be good little tenants (on "real estate"), duly licensed and permitted ("civil liberty"), and bound to pay taxes & obey - or else !
How vastly different America would be if 97% withdrew consent, and restored their birthright. And how much different would government behave, if the 3% in service, were not infested with predators, parasites, and poltroons...


[Historical note: When challenged for not attending the Constitutional Convention, Patrick Henry replied, "I smelt a rat." That's how far back one might need to go, to understand what went wrong...]

[ozmirage]

What could be wrong with collective ownership?

● Capitalism = private ownership of property
● Communism = collective ownership of property

● Capitalism = voluntary charity
● Communism = compulsory charity

● Capitalism = the right to exclude others from your private property
● Communism = the State’s right to exclude you from its collective property.

From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
IF you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
- - - Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit. - - -
This definition does NOT include usury, gambling, underwriting / insurance, speculation, extortion, money manipulation, or other predatory practices usually attributed to "capitalism." Stock corporations and banks are creatures of government, granted the privilege to exist, hence they’re not exercising a right.

What most believe is “capitalism” is actually usury, anathema to true capitalism - the absolute ownership of private property by individuals - not group ownership of an artificial person existing by government privilege. And another unacceptable privilege is limited liability exercised by stockholders who are immune from criminal prosecution for any deliberate injury in pursuit of profit by their artificial persons. That's an abomination which should be abolished ASAP.


The collectivists and their useful idiots attack "capitalism" (private property ownership - an endowed right) while really objecting to corporations, banks, insurance companies, etc, who have no "right" to do what they do.
The slavers and thieves of communism are quite clever.

[ozmirage]

I have not read all law, and am not infallible, but I have yet to find ONE LAW that violates the natural rights, natural or personal liberty, private property or inherent powers of the American national, free inhabitant, domiciled upon his private property within the boundaries of the United States of America.

However, there ARE voluminous rules, regulations, taxes, and penalties imposed on U.S. citizens / residents, duly enumerated (via FICA), engaged in usury, who reside at residences, registered as real estate, and are obligated to get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, operate a business, transmit radio, fly a plane, trade in healthcare, buy medicine, cut hair, build a house, hunt, fish, marry, and / or own a dog.

[But according to the law, it was done by your consent, so no harm, no foul.]

In short, if one has not given consent, all that servant government can do is secure rights, as in prosecute those who deliberately injure the person and property of another. But once consent is given, all bets are off.

Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.


The republican form is still the law of the land in this "glorious" Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America... so far. But "they" are fomenting a ruckus so they have an excuse to wipe the slate clean and get rid of that pesky Declaration of Independence.

[rgray222]

A fascinating read and a lot to think about. I wasn't sure that I wanted to take the time to read all that you have written but I am glad I did. After two cups of coffee and putting my feet up on my desk in quiet contemplation, I have come up with some random thoughts.

You should write a book with a preamble (like the Constitution) and a conclusion for dummies. Words that could be understood and grasped by all that read them.


The issue of America touches every man, woman, and child on the planet. That is not an overstatement.
What you have written about is the most important issue facing mankind and 99.98% of the world is not paying attention.
Most people have never taken the time to understand the concept or importance of natural rights, the absolute ownership of private property and the true concept of sovereignty.
The USA is not about a president and it is certainly not about Biden, Trump Obama, or George Washington - anyone who thinks so has missed the entire concept of freedom and sovereignty.
The concept of America for those pushing One World Government is so appalling that it simply cannot stand. The U.S. Constitution limits and takes power away from the government it does not bestow more power.
The absolute destruction of America is the number one priority for those advocating for Global Governance.
The tools being used to destroy America are undermining institutions, and dividing people by race, gender, etc. Decriminalizing serious offenses allows crime to run rampant. Destroying the educational system and indoctrinating students. Destroying religion.
Socialists, I would call them Progressives hate America and American Exceptionalism because they fail to understand or don't want to live with the notion that people are sovereigns, not governments.
Socialists or Progressives want devotion to government or cause (like climate change) not to country or individual sovereignty. That is why patriotism is mocked and religion is castigated.
To many saying that our "Rights Are Endowed By the Creator" is akin to blasphemy.
People fail to understand that the Declaration of Independence set forth the ideas and principles behind a just and fair government, while the Constitution outlined those ideas and showed how the government would function.

People do not seem to understand that as flawed and as damaged as the USA currently is that if the leadership mantle is given to China, India, Russia, Canada, or France (name any country) that worldwide levels of poverty and suffering will soar.

[ozmirage]

You should write a book with a preamble (like the Constitution) and a conclusion for dummies. Words that could be understood and grasped by all that read them.
It's already been done, but folks can't grasp the words - or were told they really meant something else. And short attention spans are more prevalent, too.
- - - -
Frankly, "the Powers That Be" will censor anyone who gets too uppity and in their face.
I've had Wikipedia articles "thought bombed" by agents in Belgium. One in which I clearly explained the difference between a republican form and a republic was "hard linked" to "republic", thus obliterating it.
- - - -
Conservapedia version still exists - with some minor editting by others.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Republican_form_of_government
- - - -
My article on private property was heavily editted by others, but the remnants are mostly on point.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Private_property
- - - -
Ultimately, it boils down to ownership. If you absolutely own yourself, you have all rights. If you're owned by another, whole or in part, you have no rights - only privileges granted by your master. If you need permission (license) and or pay a tax to live, buy, sell, own, hire, fire, work, travel, trade, marry, etc., etc., you aren't the owner.

[ozmirage]

People do not seem to understand...
Found on the net:

I have no idea why bad people are worse than good people.
- - - Anonymous

[ozmirage]

HERE are words that are concise and to the point - - -

" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL RIGHTS, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
The sacred / inherent / endowed rights are secured by governments, and no vote, democratic majority or constitutional clause can change that.
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final."
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
The Declaration of Independence is still the foundation of all American law.
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
...
All men are created equal (before the law - none higher), with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate, nor trespass.
Absent consent of the governed, all that government may do is secure rights : adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals (after the fact), and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Summed up:

Job #1 : secure endowed rights, and
Job #2 : govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
If you can't say "NO!" it's not consensual. But once you consent, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Once sovereignty has been stolen by whatever hook or crook, what then?

The ones who are right and take on the mantle of leader are the ones with the biggest guns backing them up.

Is there remedy through the courts?

Or is violence the only way?

[ozmirage]

The "Big Lie" that we were all told, is that AMERICA is opposed to COMMUNISM. Actually, the USA has been communist since 1933, thanks to "saint" FDR and his administration.

For a quick glimpse into how the "sacred right to own private property" became a government privilege - - -
SEE: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120895-The-Democrat-Party-Has-Ceased-To-Exist&p=1551455&viewfull=1#post1551455

Our pervasive programming by the ministry of indoctrination keeps us from perceiving that condition, in spite of all evidence. It's doubly ironic when the CONgress "attacked" communists in the propaganda ministry (Hollywood), when CONgress was the most pro-communist institution in America. But it worked to distract the sheeple.

Since 1933, and the State of Emergency, constitutional government has been bypassed.
Its legality is based on OUR CONSENT, which is vital for their scam to work.
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-report-93-549/senate-report-93-549_djvu.txt
War and Emergency Powers Acts
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. sec. 95a and b).

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.
Welcome to the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America.

MORE proof?
The disappearance of constitutional money (gold coin) coincided with the "Emergency" and its replacement with worthless repudiated securities (Federal Reserve Notes) - which violates Art. 1, Sec.8 & Sec.10 of the USCON.

LEGAL TENDER STATUS
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
[] FRNs are not redeemable since 1933 (a violation of Title 12 USC Sec 411);
[] Government is therefore bankrupt;
[] FRNs are worthless;
[] FDR confiscated all lawful money (gold coin) in 1933;
[] FRNs are legal tender on obligated parties; (U.S. gubmint is an obligated party, according to 12 USC Sec. 411)
- and -
[] They are backed by YOUR goods and labor (FICA makes all participants into obligated parties [contributors] on said notes, so they become legal tender).

How did CONgress get the power to issue IOUs that obligate YOU to pay on them? Isn’t private property protected from being taken, and if it was, just compensation must first be paid?
Oh, right, private property has been abolished since 1933 - by our consent - saith the law.
But does anyone remember when "they" explained this to us?


Addendum : There is no cameraderie among collectivists, socialists, communists, marxists, etc. The National Socialists in Germany fought with the Socialists of Russia. In fact, practically all combatants in WW2 were socialists - excepting Japan.
Perhaps it's a game of "my collectivism is better than yours!"

[ozmirage]

Who really "owns" most of America?
Not billionaires nor corporations.
....
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_per_capita_spending.html
2022 GDP: $23.499 T, U.S. population : 332.3 M, Per Capita : $70,716.22

● Federal spending, per capita : $18,090.2 (percentage of GDP: 25.5%)
● State spending, per capita : $ 6,931.7 (percentage of GDP: 9.8%)
● Local spending, per capita : $ 6,487.7 (percentage of GDP: 9.1%)
Summed up, combined government spending takes (approx) 44.4% of the GDP.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
USA : 3,794,101 sq mi, 640 acres to a sq.mi, or 2,428,224,640 acres.
Population : 320 million, or 84.34 people/sq mi, (Or 7.58 acres per person)

Out of the 2.27 billion acres in the country, about 28% of the total was owned by the Federal government according to the Interior Department.
635,600,000 acres (roughly 2 acres percapita)

(This does not include state, county and local properties.)
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings..."
- - - Art 1, Sec 8, USCON
How did the Federal government gain the authority to hold 28% of the nation’s land for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings?
Whose tax money paid for it?

And how did it acquire the authority to dominate in the states, via rules and regulations, as well as taxes?
If you have to abide by federal labor laws, wages, OSHA, EPA, DOE, FDA, and a host of alphabet agencies, you may understand how "covert" nationalization is just as intrusive and pervasive as "overt" nationalization.

[ozmirage]

Once sovereignty has been stolen by whatever hook or crook, what then?

The ones who are right and take on the mantle of leader are the ones with the biggest guns backing them up.

Is there remedy through the courts?

Or is violence the only way?
As far as I can determine, the law says WE CONSENTED. If fraud, constructive fraud, misrepresentation or withholding of material facts was used to get that CONSENT, you can vitiate / abrogate all those consents.
BUT
Once you do, you had better not be exercising any privileges that would drag you back into servitude. Then you can't denounce the fraud, since your consent is evident.

"Anecdote mode on"
A few decades ago, one correspondent was fighting in their courts. They claimed they "withdrew consent," but was still collecting food stamps, etc.
[head thump]
= = = = = =

VITIATE. To impair; to make void or voidable; to cause to fail of force or effect. To destroy or annul, either entirely or in part, the legal efficacy and binding force of an act or instrument; as when it is said that FRAUD VITIATES A CONTRACT.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1572
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/61/case.html
“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”
- - - United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878)
TYPICAL MEANS OF GIVING CONSENT:
● Signing up for FICA (socialism);
● Signing up for a personal bank account (using a SSN/FICA account);
● Signing up for citizenship and claiming to be a resident (no state requires licenses or registration from non-residents).

In contrast, try and find any law, tax or regulation that imposes itself on American nationals / non-citizens; free inhabitants / non-residents; domiciled upon private property (not real estate); who retain all Creator endowed rights, liberties, powers, privileges, and immunities.

I've been looking for nearly 30 years - still can't find any.

[ozmirage]

Tidbit from the Articles of Confederation that will trigger questions.
I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Who are the people of the United States of America?
Who are the people of the United States who ordained the USCON?
All Americans were not eligible to vote, nor ratify the USCON.
...
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
- - - PREAMBLE, USCON
...
Note the difference between the "United States" and the "United States of America."

An honest preamble:
We, Congress, in order to form a more perfect union .... ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The “U.S. Constitution” is a compact for the United States, in Congress assembled, in order to serve, not rule, the people in the USA.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - - Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

(If they’re not involuntary servitude, they MUST be voluntary. But they only apply to citizens. How did we volunteer to be citizens if we're "born citizens"?)
13th amendment, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
{United States, in the plural, must mean the States united aka "USA" - not the federal government "United States".}
14th amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
{The term “thereof” means of the thing just mentioned. So one who is subject to the “United States” for the purposes of U.S. citizenship means the federal government. United States, in the singular, must refer to the Federal government, a foreign corporation with respect to a State. If it didn't why not use the phrase from the 13th amendment?}
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal corporation
. . . .
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]. . . .

Can sovereign people have children born subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign corporation? No.
Nor can any government instituted to secure endowed rights, summarily abrogate them at birth, via mandatory civic duties of citizenship.
And for which group was the 14th amendment enacted?

Who lied to us?
Did we trust the wrong folks?


Did "we" ever have a clue?
I think so - - -
.................................................................
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................................
If the federal government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state, then a state government must be a foreign corporation with respect to an “American sovereign”. Now do you understand the joke?

ALIEN - one who is not a citizen of the country where they are living.
Once the "alien" acquires a domicile and becomes a free inhabitant with sovereign prerogatives, he's one of the sovereign people served by government.

[ozmirage]

In the early days of the republican form, those who wished to be participants in the democratic form had to be (a) land owners (b) tax payers (c ) militia men and (d) held to a higher standard of behavior. As you can imagine, few Americans qualified under such strict prerequisites.

But WHY so strict?
Voting as well as public service is a privilege, not a right, and the sovereign people could object to those servants who were deem unacceptable, disreputable or repugnant. Hence the prohibitions that involved victimless crimes.

The Founders who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in support and defense of the government instituted to secure the endowed rights of the people, did not want undesirables sneaking into the government that was formed by the sacrifices of so many. Thus prospective citizens were on probation.

One of those means of probation was militia duty, from 18 to 50 years of age, meant that a probationary citizen had to do 3 years of service (18,19,20) before eligible to vote at age 21.

Anyone who failed to comply was banned from voting and holding public office. But that had no effect on their status as a free inhabitant.

Of course, under the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic, such notions are not acceptable, and we're urged to exercise our "right to vote" and submit to the glorious collective State.
(The change in voting age to 18 was a sop to deflect criticism during the Viet Nam unWar, that reflected ignorance of the republican form and the drop in status from consent to be governed under the democratic form.)

[ozmirage]

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
- - - or how law isn't really what you thought it was - - -
REBUT- To refute, especially by offering opposing evidence or arguments, as in a legal case; To reject.

PRESUMPTION - Law - A conclusion applied by law as to the correctness of some fact, ordinarily subject to rebuttal by contrary evidence.

OCGA 40-2-1. As used in this chapter, the term:
(2) "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is a rebuttable presumption that any person who, except for infrequent, brief absences, has been present in the state for 30 or more days is a resident.
At first reading, one might assume that a “resident” is one who has been in the state for 30 or more days. That is the desired result. However, if you weren’t indoctrinated to be functionally illiterate, you would perceive the opposite meaning.

“Resident” = person with a permanent home.
Sounds very close to “inhabitant.”
"INHABITANT - One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484
Why didn’t they define a “resident” to be any inhabitant with a permanent home?
Why bother with defining a resident residing at a residence?
"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something LESS THAN DOMICILE. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

"RESIDENT - ...when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less duration...
Resident has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1309
Let’s now re-read the definition with the understanding that a “resident” is a vague term, often referring to a transient.

[1] “Resident” = person with a permanent home.
[2] There is a rebuttable presumption that a person is a resident if he has been in the state 30 or more days.

In plain Inglitch, if you’re in the state less than 30 days out of the year, but you have a permanent home (not a domicile), you’re a resident.

If you’re in the state MORE than 30 days out of the year, you can rebut their presumption - reject the conclusion - that you are a “resident.”

Apparently, you fit the description of an inhabitant - one who has a permanent home. As a non-resident inhabitant, you’re not obligated to perform to rules and regulations that only apply to “residents.”

You have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. . . not tax, regulate nor trespass.

I have not checked all states, but the ones I did, all use the same sleazy legalese to define "resident". The only difference is the amount of time needed to REBUT THE PRESUMPTION.

Check your own state constitution and statutes for mention of inhabitants with domiciles versus residents residing at residences.
" No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property ... on account of religious opinions..."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 4

"... private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.'
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 1

“ Citizens, protection of. All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state ; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 7
Residents need permission / license. Nonresidents / free inhabitants do not.
O.C.G.A. 40-2-1(35) “Nonresident” means every person who is not a resident of this state.
O.C.G.A. 40-2-1(36) "Nonresident's operating privilege" means the privilege conferred upon a nonresident by the laws of this state pertaining to the operation by such person of a motor vehicle or the use of a vehicle owned by such person in this state.
The state has no reason to persecute nonresident inhabitants domiciled in the united States of America for failure to conform to rules and regulations that only apply to residents. It would appear that inhabitants retain their endowed natural liberty (dominion over their private property) and personal liberty (travel upon public roads).
Ditto for rules that only apply to citizens, to tax payers, to socialists, and to usurers.

[ozmirage]

Due to the republican form of government, the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America could not "impose" socialism, as it did in other nations. It had to rely on subterfuge to get "our consent."

Regardless of that fact, 90 years of socialism (as of 2023), have severely reduced the birthrate per woman. Thanks to high socialist taxes driving women into the workforce, the escalating costs of daycare and raising children, most socialist nations, including America, will not be able to sustain themselves.

Socialism’s negative effect on family size will result in its inevitable collapse, as not only did socialists run out of “other people’s money,” they also ran out of “other people’s children.” Who else would be taxed to support the ever disproportionate number of dependent elderly and infirm?

This demographic problem is worldwide, in every socialist country. [If the country has a "social security" pension program, it's socialist ] Importing surplus population from non-socialist countries is no remedy, especially if from an incompatible culture.

POST SHTF

After the collapse of socialism, everything will change. When you can't rely on public charity (aka government taxing other people's children), who else will support you in your old age? Your options are private charity* or your family. Ergo, you had better marry, have a large brood of children, and or build up an extended family network for long term security as well as enhanced prosperity.
Blood ties are superior to collectivism.
(*Many fraternal organizations offered private charity for their members.)

Examples of large scale private charity:
Moose Haven and Moose Heart.
http://www.moosehaven.org/
http://www.mooseheart.org/
Boy’s Town
http://www.boystown.org/nebraska-iowa

We must abandon socialism (and all other genocidal practices).
We must abandon usury and the limitations of money madness.
We must generate prodigious surplus usable goods and services, so we can be generous to those who are in need.

Once we're back to the endowed rights of the republican form, the servant government won't have the resources to fund socialist charity.
Do you have a backup plan?

[ozmirage]

AS MANY HAVE NOTED - things tend to fall down, and go "boom." One of the reasons we suffered government was their promise to help secure our rights.
When / if SHTF, and chaos erupts, what options do we have?
- hunker down
- emigrate ASAP
- surrender
- - - - - - - -
Though solo survival has its merits, over the long term, the best strategy is cooperation in building prosperity.
One of the best ways to preserve and secure our persons, property and liberty is preparation & defense. If we don't do it, who will? And how much will it cost us?
- - - - - - - -
I'm a fan of fortified villlages, not just for protection from predators, but as a means to deal with NATURAL DISASTERS. Of course, if you're insulated from harm, they cease to be disasters.

One version, the Dual Ring Village, was discussed here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90359-Ye-Olde-Fortified-Village&p=1064508&viewfull=1#post1064508

Folks who team up, withdraw consent, and stop being taxed, governed, and (ahem) cooperative with the "glorious" State may expect unpleasantness, from unscrupulous predators and parasites.
Thus being prepared behind robust barrier walls should be far better than relying on insurance claims, timely appearance of FEMA, or any other "first responder" to the vagaries of life.

The cooperative community should enjoy greater prosperity, since it should be an efficient means to produce surplus usable goods and services, equitably traded and enjoyed.
For example, a dual ring village composed of five story ring buildings, featuring mixed use development, provides convenience, reduced time and distance, and a ready pool of shoppers for the enterprises and businesses located there. In fact, with a little forethought, the DRV can be configured to provide champagne lifestyle with a beer budget. Ex: home delivery / room service. Laundry service. Community pool. Prewire bedrooms to allow for remote monitoring of vital signs by the village polyclinic (or anxious parents), providing a low cost alternative to hospitalization. House calls by health care providers could be like doing “rounds” in a round.

Close proximity to vocations & private enterprise, reduces or eliminates the need for private transport - another painful expense - especially since gubmint is forcing us to go 'lectric.

As one grows older, it becomes more apparent, that one is dependent upon the compassion and charity of others. Thus having a lot of surplus makes it easier to be charitable. Poverty and want is unpleasant even if equitably distributed to the masses.
This translates into building a lifestyle that consumes less to achieve one's necessities, luxuries, and even opulence. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.

Money (& its madness) is not a remedy, and frankly, the scarcity of the money token throttles trade and thus prosperity. The "socialist paradises" are finding they can't "tax other people's children" due to the consequences of genocide (reduced birthrate). Socialism is unsustainable, as recipient populations grow faster than the taxpayer population. Discouraging women from having large families has a devastating consequence. Each generation's ability to support the former, shrinks, as population declines. (Curiously, non-socialist nations are cranking out prodigious amounts of surplus progeny.)

Visionaries who pool resources, buy a chunk of land sufficient to support agriculture and construct a dual ring village, have a better chance in the post-socialist world. Become "Punk" Amish - high tech - but low resource consumption - which is anathema to the current paradigm of prodigious consumption, easy credit, and dependence on the State. (How else can they "skim" vast fortunes from us?)

Create your own ideal vision of rural, suburban and urban life, without the inherent problems and failings that "making money" minds have given us. Live in a verdant paradise, surrounded by nature, good neighbors, and in comfort.

[ozmirage]

Kibbutz - the socialist solution?
"The kibbutz (Hebrew word for 'communal settlement') is a unique rural community; a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice; a socioeconomic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education; the fulfillment of the idea 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'; a home for those who have chosen it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
COLLECTIVE PROSPERITY : As late as the 1970s, kibbutzim seemed to be thriving in every way. Kibbutzniks performed working class, or even peasant class, occupations, yet enjoyed a middle class lifestyle.
{Without the false distinctions of money madness and wage status, the equitable trade within the kibbutz provided a higher standard of living.}

Obvious benefits : economies of scale, commercial sized pool, laundry, kitchen, food production, food processing, child care, “country club” amenities at bargain prices.

Video about meals at a cafeteria : 3 shekels = $0.96 US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIOl1RG6NbQ (https://youtu.be/uIOl1RG6NbQ)


YET - Inherent danger from money mad cultures, inflation, and usurers. (Avoid debt! Many kibbutzim were ruined by financiers who forced them to privatize so they could cash out.)
- - - - - - - - - - -
An insightful video about the dynamics of community is "Keeping the Kibbutz"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_the_Kibbutz
The film was broadcast nationally on PBS World and over 75 PBS stations, and continues to air on individual PBS stations.
...
http://lookbacktogalilee.blogspot.com/2010/05/review-keeping-kibbutz.html

Ironically, what the producers presume are "capitalist" changes to the "socialist Kibbutz," are actually perversions of usury and money madness.

Beyond that, there are many instances that show the power of cooperative living.

The key features I found fascinating were the intense personal relationships and concern for their fellow Kibbutzniks that continued even after socialism was discontinued.

The saddest part was where the old timers were mourning the loss of "their" extended family. (And other aspects of the community such as communal meals in the dining hall, the emphasis on being of service to other members, and unselfish evaluation of conditions)

I wonder if one had a moneyless community, would there be the same problems?

[ozmirage]

- - - - - - - - - -
DREAD ZONE
- - - - - - - - - -
The parasites and predators rely on :

_ _ Money madness & the desire for money (instead of what that money can buy)
_ _ Usury (interest, in money), the abomination, and mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system
_ _ Consumer demand for ephemeral products; so that there is always a market for goods and services, that are “rationed” by the limited amount of current money tokens in circulation
_ _ Skim, taken by myriad intermediaries, who get a slice of retail transactions, without providing any equitable value in return
_ _ Submission to the glorious State; so the masses are compelled by mandatory duties and voluntary obligations to enrich the creditor and collectivist.

BANE DRAIN


_ Sovereign, productive people, who trade and barter without using “official” money tokens, and don’t prodigiously consume (“wrong" demographics), are not enriching the bankers and any other parties that take a “skim” of the transactions.
_ Those who dwell in disaster resistant domiciles do not need to gamble with underwriters (insurance companies) and thus cut down on their profits.
_ By reducing resource consumption, while increasing the production of surplus usable goods and services, they generate prosperity that is NOT taxable nor vulnerable to the parasite class.

SCENARIO

A community of non-consenting folks establish a cooperative community, in tandem with an agricultural enterprise, building a disaster resistant system.


<> By not exercising any revenue taxable privileges, they are exempt from taxation (44.4% or more could be owed).
<> By not borrowing from any usurer, they don’t have to pay debt service. If one was paying on 30 year mortgage, it’s not unusual to pay back twice and thrice the selling price. Plus we can add in those pesky insurance premiums that protect the creditor. Based on the rule of thumb that housing costs should not exceed 30% of income, the elimination of interest can drop that by 50% or more, to 15% of net profit.
<> By living in a high population density village, where one doesn’t need an automobile to access necessities, vocations, education, recreation, services, shopping, etc, one can save 10-15% of one’s budget. Of course, there are covert costs, hidden in property tax levies, gasoline taxes, etc, to fund infrastructure and subsidize other aspects of the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony. Again, one is exempt from paying those “hidden” costs.
<> By occupying a super insulated, frugal dwelling, one could reduce the need for fuel / energy to maintain comfort. If one also had on-site energy capture systems (solar power, direct & indirect; biofuels (alcohol, methane); wind powered turbines & pumps; etc), those costs can be further reduced, or eliminated entirely.
<> By raising one’s own food, via gardening, aquaculture, verticulture, small livestock, etc, one can reduce the food budget expense from 10-12% of one’s income.
<> With any abundance of surplus, one can trade with others to acquire what you desire. And one can suspect that “outsiders” will be interested in “buying” your high quality production, providing cash for those off-site purchases in their “asylum.”
<> By these, and other means, one can reduce the need to work for “their” money tokens, and be sovereign, free, and independent (to the extent that you wish to be). In this way, one can truly have long term security and not wind up in some nursing care warehouse, left to wither away, in the glorious People’s State.

Live long and prosper.

[Anchor]

Imagine an America where 97% of the people are sovereigns, untaxed and unregulated. And only 3% of the people are subject citizens, taking upon themselves the civic duties to secure endowed rights by operating the courts (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals) or the militia (defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic) and NOTHING MORE.
No matter who is elected, with only 3% of the budget and population to rule, what mischief would they create? Who are they going to bribe and tax? It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Thus we now see what the Founders established - a form of government where the abusive tendencies of government were reined in by consent of the governed. Where the pressure to have an ever growing government is offset by a lack of power to indiscriminately tax and spend. And where the civic minded citizens could evaluate their members for higher office, choosing only the best and brightest... and bravest.

I've often wondered, in a hypothetical land where everyone is 100% sovereign - and not 100% altruistic about how they go about living with others, how are the inevitable disputes resolved?

What you outline above may contain my answer, which is why I read it a few times and slept on it before commenting.

How is it assured that 3% of people step up to perform the civic duties required?

Where did the ratio of 3 in 100 come from?

[ozmirage]

Imagine an America where 97% of the people are sovereigns, untaxed and unregulated. And only 3% of the people are subject citizens, taking upon themselves the civic duties to secure endowed rights by operating the courts (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals) or the militia (defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic) and NOTHING MORE.
No matter who is elected, with only 3% of the budget and population to rule, what mischief would they create? Who are they going to bribe and tax? It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Thus we now see what the Founders established - a form of government where the abusive tendencies of government were reined in by consent of the governed. Where the pressure to have an ever growing government is offset by a lack of power to indiscriminately tax and spend. And where the civic minded citizens could evaluate their members for higher office, choosing only the best and brightest... and bravest.

I've often wondered, in a hypothetical land where everyone is 100% sovereign - and not 100% altruistic about how they go about living with others, how are the inevitable disputes resolved?
Reminds me of a segment from "How The West Was Won," where a group of pioneers got waylaid by a gang of pirates, and wound up having to fight their way out of it.
In simpler terms, tolerance of evil is unmerciful to the next victim.
Hence the termination of future options.




What you outline above may contain my answer, which is why I read it a few times and slept on it before commenting.

How is it assured that 3% of people step up to perform the civic duties required? There is no certainty who will exhibit such traits. But hopefully, those who do won't be lured by wealth and power to seek public office.



Where did the ratio of 3 in 100 come from?It was claimed that only 3% actually participated in the Revolutionary War, hence the government that they founded was designed to exclude those who stayed on the sidelines, etc.
That was one of the reasons for universal militia duty for citizens.
If you didn't have the courage to take responsibility for the safety of the system, you shouldn't have any power to direct it.

[ozmirage]

From the "Did You Know" file :

Did you know that there are NO works of fiction, science fiction, books, TV shows, nor movies that depict the "republican form of government"?
You will find innumerable examples of democracies, monarchies, empires, warlords, oligarchies, police states, etc, etc.
You will NOT find one example where the people are the sovereigns, and the government is their servant, not their master. And without consent of the governed, these governments can do nothing more than secure rights.
This is how you know the breadth and scope of the world's greatest propaganda ministry. They have successfully eradicated all knowledge about it.

(One of my favorite science fiction authors, Robert A Heinlein, a graduate of Annapolis, was clueless about the RFOG. In all his works, he never came close to it.)

P.S. A republic is NOT synonymous with a republican form.
Nor is it a "constitutional republic." The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON. In fact, no constitution can create a republican form.
The Peoples Republic of China is a republic but NOT a republican form.

Not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the republican form, its source and origin.

[ozmirage]

Self Evident Truths

All men have Creator endowed rights - but what are they?

Endowed rights include but are not limited to life, liberty (natural and personal), absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers and other associated privileges and immunities; based on all harmless actions in support of that life, liberty, exclusive ownership of one’s domain, etc. In addition, all harmful actions in defense of that life, liberty, and or property, are exempt from criminal prosecution, regardless. And any criminal or civil liability rests on the predator(s) / parasite(s) who instigated the subsequent damages incurred from defending endowed rights.

That sums up the law under the republican form of government.

Of course, if one consents to be governed by parasites and predators who infiltrated government under socialist democrazy, things may be reversed, and the guilty protected, while the innocent are prosecuted and punished.

Never ask government to give you something or do more than secure rights. No matter what government "gives" it first must be "taken" from somebody else, minus a cut for the "management." Anything beyond securing rights, invariably involves the loss of liberty or property, as well.

Once you consent to be governed, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

References:
Declaration of Independence, 1776
Articles of Confederation, 1777
US Constitution, 1787, 1789 (amended)

[ozmirage]

Non-Americans often wonder why Americans have a "thing" about firearms. It probably goes back to their dislike of being subjects / slaves.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
- - - Patrick Henry
All slavery is based on consent of the slaves. People who don't consent, and fight to the death are never enslaved. The dead make poor slaves.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
- - - Samuel Adams
You can never have an efficient totalitarian police state, when it has to be “benevolent” and fearful of millions of armed citizens. And you can’t disarm millions of armed citizens when they won’t tell you where the arms are. And you can’t arrest them until you criminalize their disobedience to “reasonable” gun restrictions and “common sense” registration. And you can’t tolerate their belief that they have an “endowed right” to self defense against tyranny, that supersedes your political power of the bigger gun.
• An Armed Populace Fears No Government.
• A Disarmed Populace Fears All Government.
• A Criminal Government Fears Guns.
• An Honest Government Appreciates the Assistance.
The Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America will never cease in its efforts to disarm the people, so that it can "efficiently" dismantle those pesky institutions that guarantee a republican form of government.
“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army,... and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; ... the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms...”
- - - James Madison, Federalist Paper #46.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

THIS is why America's governments are so stable when compared to those in Europe, and elsewhere. Our governments are servants of the sovereign people, and even if they had superior arms, they would be outnumbered and defeated.
No covert power in control of the servant government can do its will with impunity. It must rely on deception and fraud to get the consent of the governed, for without such consent, it is powerless.