The "Voice of the People" is a scam

[ozmirage]

Why is democracy a scam?
Or
Why should a majority tell me how I can live, what I can do, and where I can go?

Under the republican form, where all men have Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, and absolute ownership, those endowments are not to be taxed, regulated nor trespassed by a “democratic” majority, elected official nor constitutional government.

If one has an endowed right to life, one also has the right to support that life with any and all harmless activity. And one has the endowed right to defend with whatever means is deemed necessary. Absent an injured party, no government has the delegated power to intrude, restrict, regulate, deny or permit.

Upon one’s private property, absolutely owned, one can do any thing, being at liberty. As long as nothing injures the person, liberty or property of another, servant government has no delegation of authority to meddle, permit, license, subsidize nor penalize.

Upon the public roads and waterways, one has liberty to travel, without hindrance, as long as he doesn’t interfere in the rights of others. No government delegated power to secure endowed rights can interfere in one’s personal liberty to travel.

As one of the sovereign people, one has all inherent powers, such as dominion over one’s children. No state can deny that power. If there is no injured party, whose person, liberty, or property was injured, the government has no jurisdiction, no power, no business butting in.

So why would anyone wish to consent to be governed, to be taxed, and to be obligated to serve the State? Or worse, be subject to a majority that disagrees with you, when in the minority?

The free people have endowed rights, liberties, and powers - everything they can want. And any government instituted to secure their endowed rights cannot tax, regulate nor trespass those rights.

Why would anyone wish to be in a democracy?
Privileges, immunities, and power.

Governments limited to securing rights can only govern those who consent to be governed. What privileges, immunities, or power would one possibly wish for?

[] The privilege to do that which would otherwise be a tort, a trespass, or otherwise not allowed by law. Example : the license to practice medicine. Licensed physicians can do harm, or even kill, in the practice of medicine, without criminal liability, as long as their behavior and treatments conform to the canons of their vocation. However, such rigid restrictions also may cause harm, by their blind obedience. Those are the consequences, unfortunately. And if the licensed party ceases to comply, they may lose their license, and thus immunity.

[] The privilege to create an artificial entity that can own, engage in trade, and otherwise interact as if a real person, but have continued existence regardless of the death of corporate officers. This allows continuity of operation, and the replacement of officers, as needed.

[] The privilege to engage in behavior that harms another without any legal consequences, such as the limited liability of the artificial person, via incorporation. Stockholders can enjoy dividends (& usury) without criminal liability for the harm done by their corporations in pursuit of profit.
Of course, lacking anyone to hold liable is the rationale for the myriad rules and regulations imposed on privileged entities. Failure to obey can trigger fines, and ultimate dissolution of the corporation. Sadly, these rules were unlawfully extended to entities that did not have limited liability, and burdened them inequitably.

[] The privilege to own another as a chattel slave. This privilege was eventually abolished. But while it was active, slave owners were taxed for the privilege. Remember, under a democracy, a majority can legally persecute a minority, or enslave them.

[] The privilege to trespass another’s property, such as when radio waves pass through private airspace, or an airplane flies over private property.

[] The privilege to vote and participate in the servant government, as a citizen, subject to and object of the power of the state. As a public servant one can govern other citizens who consented, while one is a servant to the sovereign people.

And with that privilege comes mandatory civic duties - such as militia duty, the obligation to train, fight, and die on command. Such mandatory civic duties abrogate all endowed rights to life, liberty and private property ownership, since the citizen owes a portion of his property, his services, and even his life if called upon. This was spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, wherein the Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor (in obedience) to the governments instituted to secure the endowed rights of the people. All subsequent citizens are presumed to make the same pledge.
As long as citizenship is voluntary, no harm - no foul.
. . .
Which begs the question: who delegated power to the government to impose citizenship at birth upon infants who cannot consent?

And if those newborn citizens have mandatory civic duties, aren’t those duties involuntary servitude, banned by the republican form, the 13th amendment, and a violation of the very reason to institute governments - to secure endowed rights?

Perhaps those laws never applied in the united States of America...
Perhaps those laws only applied to privately owned slaves that were emancipated (not manumitted).

Ask your public servant for an explanation.

[ozmirage]

Not only is democracy a giant scam, but there is only one nation on Earth with a republican form (no connection with "republic").
Yes indeed, USA is the only country where the people have CREATOR endowed rights - not government granted / withheld "human" rights - and - [this is important] where all men are CREATED EQUAL (before the law - none higher).
. . .
Engage Brain mode ON.
If all Americans are born equal and no one is higher, then no one is a subject of the government, at birth. In fact, Americans have the highest status at law.
. . .
= = the highest = =
= = = status is = = =
= = SOVEREIGN = =
. . .

“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... No such ideas obtain here; 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[.]

“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it [sovereignty] 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 [the people] in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

Make no mistake - under the republican form, American people are SOVEREIGNS. The government is their agent and servant. All monarchs are the social equals of Americans. That's why Americans can marry foreign nobility and not violate their laws prohibiting marriage to "commoners."

In all other nations, their governments are sovereign over their subject citizenry.

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are SUBJECTS as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as SUBJECTS they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

American Citizens are not Sovereigns

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "SUBJECT" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

It should now be obvious that sovereign people and subject citizens are mutually exclusive.

WHAT MADE AMERICA DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER NATIONS?
The Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson.
No other nation was created on the self evident truths that all men were created equal and had Creator endowed rights.

Need more proof that "other nations" avoided TJ's self evident truths?
Consider FRANCE, in 1789, when it was in revolution - and - TJ was ambassador to France, and therefore available for consultation.

Guess what the FRENCH did not do in their "revolution"?
Recognize the sovereignty of the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...of_the_Citizen

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
Articles:

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.

In France, no individual is sovereign. Only the STATE is sovereign.

And no other revolution since 1776 has instituted a republican form, where the people are sovereigns and the governments are their servants - not their masters.

The world's greatest propaganda ministry labored long and hard to eradicate all memory of the republican form from the enumerated human resources of the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republics of America.

THAT IS WHY AMERICA IS TARGETED FOR DESTRUCTION.
The republican form must be ERADICATED from the planet, lest our success inspire billions to revolt against their masters.

Now you know the underlying reason for the feigned incompetence of governments, local, state and federal. They're working toward the collapse of the nation so that the "new" government can dispense with that pesky Declaration of Independence and the republican form of government.
Every abomination, every attempt at disarmament, every bizarre dictate derives from the need to destroy America.
The tragedy is that it is being done by OUR CONSENT.

[ozmirage]

Some folks already know that the United Nations is a front for the creditor and other powers who wish to destroy America.
Some of the reasons are the identity of the "fiduciary agent" for the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, etc, is the Federal Reserve Corporation.
Which is also the fiduciary agent of the bankrupted US government, and whose "U.S. Governor" is the Sec'y of Treasury, who shall not be paid by the US Gubmint (Title 22 USC Sec 286a).

The "smoking gun" : UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/unive...f-human-rights

Remember, only the USA has a republican form, due to the Declaration of Independence asserting that Americans are created equal before the law, none can be higher, only lower in status. All other peoples are subjects of their government, elected or otherwise, and do not have sovereign prerogatives to absolutely own, nor to defend that which they own. Since American governments can only govern those who consent, they are limited in power and cannot trespass the rights of the sovereign people, regardless of the “will of the majority of voters.”

The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS is an Attack upon Sovereigns, Eradication of CREATOR Endowed Rights, Abolition of Absolute Ownership of PRIVATE PROPERTY, Expropriation of Property and Imposition of Compulsory Labor for the Benefit of Others. Conversion of the privilege of Political liberty into an enforced “right.”
Remember, Any Right to a Thing “Given” must Be Taken from Somebody Else!

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the RIGHTS and freedoms set forth in this Declaration...

Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GRANTED HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR BY LAW.

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, IN THE DETERMINATION OF HIS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own PROPERTY alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 21. (1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE PART IN THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS COUNTRY, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE SHALL BE THE BASIS OF THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine ELECTIONS which shall be by UNIVERSAL AND EQUAL SUFFRAGE and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 23. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, AND SUPPLEMENTED, IF NECESSARY, BY OTHER MEANS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION.

Article 25. (1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A STANDARD OF LIVING adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services

Article 26. (1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION. EDUCATION SHALL BE FREE, AT LEAST IN THE ELEMENTARY AND FUNDAMENTAL STAGES. Elementary education shall be compulsory.

Article 29. (1) EVERYONE HAS DUTIES TO THE COMMUNITY

NOTE: So-called “RIGHTS” that involve taking from one to give to another are COLLECTIVIST privileges, not rights. Compulsory charity is slavery. Confiscation of surplus is theft by government. Abolition of private property is communism.

In short, this excrement is a naked attack on the basis of America's republican form, Creator endowed rights, individual sovereignty, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership, and fair warning what they intend to do to US.

[Bill Ryan]

Yes to all of that! Do also see this thread, with quite a few interesting posts on it:

• Democracy: Stick a fork in it, it's done

[Bruce G Charlton]

More fundamentally, I think that - more fundamentally than "democracy" voting is itself an evil; for reasons that I argued some 13 years ago:

The evils of voting

Where did people get the idea that voting was an acceptable - let alone the best and only, way to make decisions?

One person one vote is supposed to be the gold standard of decision making, and intrinsically the fairest - but why?

Naturally, in stable and human-sized groups decisions are made by leaders, taking into account power. A numerical majority is irrelevant - a powerful minority is more important, the consent of those ruled is more important - indeed just about anything is more important than a numerical majority.

And when sheer numbers is an important factor in the balance of power, a 51 percent majority is neither significant nor crucial - the crucial number would be more like 66 percent versus 33 percent - in which one party outnumbers the other two to one. But numbers are not the essence.

***

Voting maybe comes from the false ideology of intrinsic equality among humans (i.e. equality of human beings in actuality - asserted equality of wisdom and legitimate authority) - a perversion of the true ideal of intrinsic equality among humans (i.e. equality of human souls in potentiality).

Maybe it comes from the insane perspective of bureaucracy - which requires an abstract system, any system will do, for de facto decision-making - this decision-making being valided by diktat, by propaganda, by coercion.

Maybe voting comes from the jury trial aspect of the legal system - although where the ridiculous idea of determining guilt by a vote of random individuals itself originally came from, I have no idea. But like majority voting in general - trial by jury is sacred: don't ask why.

***

Dissent is defused by getting agreement on process (voting) rather than outcome (a specific decision) - and such is the feebleness of human's apprehension of abstraction that they will buy this pig in a poke.

We hoodwink human psychology by forcing pre-commitment to the unknown outcome of majority voting as intrinsically correct, and this is assented to because the future result of a present system is sufficiently remote and unreal that humans do not spontaneously organize against it, and imagine they can indirectly control it to give the outcomes they want.

***

There is no magic about majority voting, no 'wisdom of crowds', no place for the operation of divine or individual inspiration - neither the safety-first gut-feeling veto of requiring unanimous and full community assent to change, nor for the inspirational decisiveness of the gifted individual to lead the consenting (or acquiescing) group on the basis of superior wisdom, insight, foresight.


An artificial hiatus, a mathematical gap is inserted between the human interaction and the human action: the deadening vote, to which all defer...

***

The status of majority voting has even survived its manipulation. At a small scale, majority voting is rigged by small organized groups who manipulate meetings by well known and simple methods; and at a large scale by politicians in democracies who buy votes, take bribes, deliberately create voter dependency, change electoral boundaries, and now import millions of supporters.

People know this, know exactly what is being done to them and how it works - yet somehow this does not invalidate the outcome of majority voting!

Yet people still state, still believe that democracy is the best, the only safe, the only *good* system of government.

Brainwashed, or what?

***

I believe that majority vote decision making is one of the most damaging aspects of modernity. As a system, it is quite simply insane - knowing what we know, knowing from experience its unpredictability, randomness, unwisdom, distorting effects on human psychology...

Like its specific application in democracy by majority vote, the visceral rationale of majority voting seems to be egalitarian in the sense of trying to prevent individual power, rather than in trying to ensure good decisions.

It is abstract in the sense of being procedural rather than outcome oriented. It is to elevate simple mathematical neatness above direct contact with the world.

To rely on majority voting is fundamentally unserious; it is to regard life as essentially soft and sustaining, to regard life as unreal and something not requiring of us correct decisions and right behavior.

It is to regard decisions in a detached, playful, abstract fashion; to subordinate our souls to sums.

Voting is a gamble, worse than a gamble - it is to have faith in gambling as the best mode of life.

Indeed it even worse than this - it is is to have faith in a corrupt casino where you know for sure that the fruit machines are rigged - to put money in the slot anyway, to pull the lever and just hope for a win; rather than to try and do the right thing.

[palehorse]

Well, it probably started with small groups of hunters and evolved from there as we know. So in terms of government like political-religious entities from polis (city-states) to monarchies/aristocratic (kings or aristocrats) using decrees or any other crap to control people, to creation of law codes and followed by participation of citizens in decision making (early democracy like in Athens - firstly only males were allowed), then empires, republics, feudalism, constitutional monarchies, etc, etc,and etc.. until get where we are.

democracy is illusion, which is a result of the brain's interpretation of sensory input received by the controllers, add a good pinch of violence on top of it and people will believe it is the only truth even if they don't believe that, it is reality manipulation, pure theatrics. The world is a stage.

[Pam]

Brilliant thread, the thing is that it is really all very common sense. This should be something that the average human understands. When I read these incredible posts this morning the realization struck me that I am still buried in programmed assumptions. I have come to understand and am coming to deeply value the concept of sovereignty and even some understanding is a game changer towards becoming more authentic but the programming of being essentially a serf runs really deep. It seems like the old onion layer analogy, at least that must be the way my brain works, I am getting it in layers, maybe understanding it in full would be too much.

A couple of years of ago I would have told you that I am not very subject to programming. I may be less subject to programming, but the mistake is believing that and calling it a day. ozmirage and Bruce, you both hit the nail on the head. It really helps to see these concepts articulated so clearly, Thanks for taking the time to do that.

[Lunesoleil]

Today, the people are waking up and understanding that the true meaning of democracy has been truncated by an elite puppeteer. The people have long ceased to be listened to, and the objective of this minority is to gain power over the world's population, and it will take a long time to overthrow it all, as was the case with previous civilizations.

[ozmirage]

In a republican form, where the government only has the delegated power to adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, there is nothing that requires "democracy."
Do you 'democratically' choose which disputes to hear or ignore?
Do you 'democratically' prosecute criminals?
Do you 'democratically' decide when to defend and when to capitulate to enemies?
. . .
Those who consented to the democratic form, become subject to the servant government. Ironically, they do not have a "voice" in that government. Nor are they the "bosses." Once elected, the public officer can ignore his campaign promises, and perform his duties, for he is elevated above the citizenry. However, no public servant is sovereign. Even the president is merely the highest ranking public servant, one step DOWN in status from the American sovereigns he serves.

The elevation of the president into a "fearless leader" is but more evidence of the bizarre perversions instituted by the enemies of the republican form.

[ozmirage]

When a government devolves into a democracy, where takers seek to outvote makers, and endless arguments erupt over who gets taxed and who gets bribed, there is no remedy in the ballot box.

As long as evil is rewarded and good punished, you will never, ever see a moral democratic society. There is nothing in the organization of a democracy that insures that unselfish civic virtue will triumph over predators and parasites.

Giving power, authority and money to a democratic government insures corruption. By its very nature, the 51% can legally oppress the 49%. Therefore the solution must deny power, authority and money.

Coincidentally, the Founders understood the "secret rule" of all governments - grow or die. Regardless of the form, every government seeks to expand, to spend more, tax more, borrow more and hire more, because that is how one gains wealth and power in government. Every government looks for an excuse to "do something" with the public treasury.

The original remedy was to limit the number of citizens and tax revenue.
Prior to 1820s, state constitutions required citizens to be
_ _ Property owners
_ _ Tax payers
_ _ Militiamen
_ _ Obligated to perform to a higher standard of behavior
_ _ Post a performance bond if elected

As you can imagine, few Americans qualified to be citizen / electors. But that was not a problem, since "all Americans" had their Creator endowed rights to life, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers, privileges and immunities... which were not subject to taxation nor regulation. Only government privileges were taxable or regulated. . . and all privileges were voluntary.

With such a small pool of taxpayers and subjects to rule, the Founders sought to keep government lean and mean. Unfortunately, by the 1820s, the founding generation had died off or were displaced.
The "new kids on the block" wanted to get rich via politics. All the strict prerequisites for citizenship were removed, and the nation migrated to the democratic form, with partisan politics, graft and corruption.

It went downhill after that.
Under the democracy, you’re told to register as a voter so you can exercise your “right to vote.” You’re compelled to obey rules, apply for permission (license) and / or pay a tax to live, travel, work, buy, sell, own, operate a business, build a house, drive a motor vehicle, enter occupations, ferment alcohol, hunt, fish, hire, fire, transmit radio, fly an airplane, marry and / or own a dog. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

[ozmirage]

Most folks don't realize that government does not have unlimited power to tax. In fact, no American government instituted to secure endowed rights, can tax them. Only government privileges are taxable. That's why Churches aren't taxed. They're not exercising a government privilege.

Which raises the question : How did our endowed rights transform into revenue taxable privileges?

According to the law, we consented to be governed, and thus surrendered our endowment.

One of those ways is to consent to be a citizen.
[WHAT!?]
Aren't we "born citizens"?
Apparently not.

Few Americans were born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (Federal gov).
Since citizenship comes with mandatory civic duties that abrogate the very endowment that governments were instituted to secure, it would be a legal impossibility and a violation of the republican form of government. Infants cannot consent.

This fraud has been going on for decades.

You can write polite questionnaires to your public servants and ask them what constitutional law can impose citizenship upon an infant and abrogate his endowed rights - thus violating the Declaration of Independence, 13th amendment, and the republican form of government.

(There is no law. Just like there is no law compelling all Americans to enroll in socialist insecurity. Nor is there a law punishing any American who does not participate. It is 100% voluntary - voluntary servitude. )

CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY

“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
What was voluntarily surrendered?
The Creator endowed rights of the individual.

Were you ever informed that you voluntarily surrendered all your Creator's endowment of life, liberty (natural and personal), absolute ownership of private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without leave)?
Isn't that amazing that government approved | controlled curriculums omit that important fact. It's as if they want us to be tricked into submission.

Ironically, all the facts are in the public record, available at every county courthouse law library. But few Americans bother to read their own laws. I certainly didn't until my late 30's, when circumstances compelled me to get a "quick" legal education. Only then did I learn the truth of my enslavement.

Frankly, it's been part of the law since Day ONE... and before the USCON (1789)

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

IN SHORT, NO citizen has any endowed right to life, liberty or private property, since he OWES a duty to the STATE, to defend it and pay for it. Shut up, sit down, pay and obey. When you have no endowed rights, you have no grounds to squawk.

[ozmirage]

:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
ENDOWMENTS
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
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."

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 919.

"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.

" 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.

" PERSONAL LIBERTY largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
- - - II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

INHERENT POWERS. Those which are enjoyed by the possessors of NATURAL RIGHT, without having been received from another. Such are the powers of a ... father to control his children. Some of these are regulated and restricted in their exercise by law, but are not technically considered in the law as powers.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., P.1170

Americans are endowed with SACRED / INHERENT / INALIENABLE RIGHTS which include but are not limited to natural rights and liberties (natural and personal); inherent powers; absolute ownership of private property, and these endowments are not subject to infringement by servant government, instituted to secure those sacred rights.

According to John Locke (1632 – 1704 A.D.), there are three natural rights:

1) Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are born.
2) Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
3) Estate* (Property): everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
(*In American law, absolute ownership is known as private property, whereas qualified ownership is known as estate.)

Thomas Paine elaborated on natural rights in his work “Rights of Man” (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:

“. . . It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.”
“ The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”
- - - Thomas Paine “Rights of Man” (1792)

In other words, in America’s case, Americans have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure, not legislate, tax, regulate, infringe, nor restrain. Only by consent of the governed, may government step beyond securing endowed rights (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic). And that consent waives / surrenders endowed rights, rendering one a subject of the government.

"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,” the latter being a wonderful Jeffersonian euphemism for private property.
- - - From “Security, Trade and Environmental Policy” by Charles Bonser

[Declaration of Independence quote from above] This is clearly the intellectual product of the Enlightenment, and further back of Western individualism and capitalism if the pursuit of happiness is glossed as a euphemism for the right to private property.
- - - The Triumph and Tragedy of the Intellectuals: Evil, Enlightenment, and Death, by Harry Redner

Can you guess which ideology abhors private 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."

FWIW - no "communist" country ever achieved communism. They only achieved socialism.
FYI - the USA has been a socialist country since 1933.
Voluntarily, of course. [/sarcasm]

[ozmirage]

- - THE INFORMED CITIZENRY - -
:-: BELLY LAUGH OF THE CENTURY :-:

Few Americans can remember what private property was, since it has been 91 years.

"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.

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

“... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
- - - FIFTH AMENDMENT

Clear enough? Absolute ownership of lands, houses, and chattels by an individual is a SACRED RIGHT, secured by government, in harmony with the Declaration of Independence.
Anything else is qualified ownership of estate, a taxable privilege.
....
https://web.archive.org/web/20160323.../confiscation/

__"The private ownership of gold is a privilege, not a right. Congress revoked the privilege of private ownership in 1933 and restored it in 1974. Congress could easily revoke the privilege again. In fact, at no time during this century has the U.S. government recognized the right of private gold ownership. The Trading With The Enemy Act, which President Roosevelt invoked in 1933 to restrict private gold transactions, remains law. The government could reactivate the machinery, which The Trading With The Enemy Act established, to implement gold confiscation."
- - - Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 297, 320 (1982)

Congress and FDR declared that private ownership of gold was a privilege, not a right. And without lawful money, one cannot prove they "paid their debts" (alienate title to private property).

__“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” — Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mone...enateDoc43.pdf
......
Is that clear enough?
The STATE abolished private property (absolute ownership by individuals).
.......
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...ist-manifesto/

Abolition occurred in 1933.
......
STATE OF EMERGENCY
https://archive.org/stream/senate-re...3-549_djvu.txt

Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"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."

... ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
... COMMUNIST RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.

[ozmirage]

I would like to take this time to commend anyone who has read all this verbiage to this point. I'm used to devouring pages of text, since reading law for over 30 years. But I forget how painful it was at the beginning.

I wish there was a simple soundbite that could erase the generations of indoctrination, disinformation and propaganda we have all been instilled with.
But the world's greatest propaganda ministry doesn't make it easy. I will try, anyway.

READER’S DIGEST OF LAW
...
Law simplified into one sentence:

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

{And if one has surrendered private property rights (i.e. by consent to be governed) there are no property rights for law to secure - just policy law... from our consent to be governed}

Believe it or not, this can be applied to all other legal systems as well as religious scriptures. The key is to determine who has property rights, and how they're protected.

In a monarchy, where the monarch is sovereign, all property is his, and the law reflects that fact.
In a collective State, where the state holds title to all property, the law supports that.
In a totalitarian police state, the tyrannical autocrat uses the law and its enforcers to maintain his prerogatives.

People who do not absolutely own themselves are at risk. Disregard for human life is prevalent in those situations.
When individuals cannot absolutely own the land, they have no domain in which they are at liberty. They are at the mercy of the "land lord."
People who cannot own their own labor and the fruits of that labor are owned by those who do own or can claim it for their own.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Every election ever has had the same victor - the non-vote.
If they actually cared about democracy they would scrap any election where those that did not vote are in majority, remove all contenders, choose new candidates, and take the vote again - until someone gets an actual majority.
So far democracy has proven only one thing, that the electors, by a vast majority, choose 'none of the above' every time.

So, it is in fact accurate to say that democracy has failed us since its inception.

[Nasu]

Democracy seems to be a delusion, accepted over time. The only democracy seems to me to be very small local ones that allow people to have an actual say in day to day, weekly, monthly targets, rules and goals. The democracy we all experience is a mere veiled illusion or delusion, giving us a taste of hope without any tangible control. Vote for this party or vote for this individual and hope things will change. I’m out. Doing the same old thing and expecting a different result is insanity. We are the resistance, we are the change……..x…….. N

[ozmirage]

Posted by Nasu (here)
Democracy seems to be a delusion, accepted over time. The only democracy seems to me to be very small local ones that allow people to have an actual say in day to day, weekly, monthly targets, rules and goals. The democracy we all experience is a mere veiled illusion or delusion, giving us a taste of hope without any tangible control. Vote for this party or vote for this individual and hope things will change. I’m out. Doing the same old thing and expecting a different result is insanity. We are the resistance, we are the change……..x…….. N

If government is only securing rights, can you give an example where the "voice of the people" (democratic vote) would matter.

What partisan positions would emerge regarding adjudicating civil disputes, or prosecuting criminals who deliberately injure another, or defending the society from enemies?

Once a code of court rules and criminal laws are established, what's left for a servant government to do other than administer them?


(Do you consider a 12 man jury trial to be "democratic" ?)

[Tintin]

Time and technology constraints don't permit me here to be able to make time to contribute as I may wish to but I will endeavour to, and fairly soon.

In the meantime I'll share a thread that I started many years ago now dealing with Michael Tsarion's somewhat controversial take on the Constitution titled: The Constitution Con: A sad tale of parchment idolatory.

Whatever one may take away from this there's certainly some food for those of a more quizzical bent.

Source: https://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html

Thread: The Constitution Con | Michael Tsarion
Link: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...ichael-Tsarion

Extracted:

"Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact the "People" referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from within a legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia.

This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite.

It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America" - the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it again and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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."

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

"WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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 SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL".

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

[Nasu]

There's a bit to unpack in your reply, but I'll do my best.

Coming to a consensus on issues within a community can be done with voting, I think it can be a useful tool for small scale decisions, otherwise it is done by selected members who have the say, for example wild humans and our forebears used the elders to make the important decisions. However voting allows non elders to participate in the day to day decisions, which seems to me to be a good thing.

Positions of power within the community could also be a use for voting, such as judges, or representatives of accused members, aka lawyers. Defending the community would surely fall to those capable and willing to do so.

I can see no other purpose for government other than administering the will of the community and perhaps diplomacy between service and resource providers and other communities.

I think being judged by a group of our peers is a good thing, the number in my mind should be an odd number otherwise we get hung juries.

All that being said, these details have been resolved and finessed over many generations to be the situation we have today, for good or ill. In my mind the biggest problem with voting for large scale changes in a so called democratic fashion is that in the best cast scenario forty nine percent of the group are left unhappy with the result.

The gargantuan size of our countries and unions makes this problem even more pronounced. This disillusion of almost half the group often leads to rebellion, large and small. So the system is flawed by design to cause at best unhappiness and at worst downright rebellion.

My own view is that trying to change what is by pointing to the set up or original intent of our respective communities is no more potent than peeing into the wind. The ruling elite do not benefit and the masses who simply want an easy life and to be left alone, do not benefit, ergo, there is no will to change backwards, so the system continues forwards to serve the wealthiest and most mobile of us.

IMHO a restart is the only thing that will cause real change, not a WEF style reset mind you. My own view is that power should be held by the smallest of communities, not in the top down approach we have today......x...... N

[ozmirage]

Posted by Nasu (here)
I can see no other purpose for government other than administering the will of the community and perhaps diplomacy between service and resource providers and other communities.

Pray tell, what "will" of what majority is involved in securing endowed rights democratically?

What diplomacy is involved in adjudicating disputes (civil actions)?

What diplomacy is needed in prosecuting criminals?

Why would a popularity contest winner be more suited to be a public servant?
Even pirate ship crews voted for their captains.