An Anarchist Explains How to Be Truly Free

[What does it take to live in America as a truly free person?  More sacrifices than you  might imagine, actually.  The author of the guest commentary below, self-described Anarchist Carole Gibson, never lets the government dictate the terms of her life. That means, for one, avoiding airports and commercial jets, where she would be subjected to all of the rules and intrusions that most of us have come to grudgingly accept. Not Carole, though. A regular contributor to the Rick’s Picks forum, she explains below how she strives to keep herself beyond the reach, both legally and literally, of Government. RA]

Tired of living under the heavy hand of government? My advice is to stop complaining and do something about it. No, I don’t mean demonstrate, write “your” representatives or vote; I mean take your life into your own hands and create the freedom you desire without waiting for someone else to do it for you.  I have found ways to exist in this world maximizing my personal freedom and you can do it too. I believe that the best government is that which governs least.  In fact, my beliefs about government are anarchical.  My definition of anarchy is “a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society”.  Under this definition, I am absolutely an Anarchist.

Governments that use force to impose their will on people without the people’s consent are incompatible with a free society.  When I write “consent,” I specifically mean each individual’s consent to be governed; I do not mean any implied consent supposedly given by the collective.  For example, my neighbor, my neighbor’s ancestor, or my neighbor’s representative cannot give their consent for me to be governed.  When governments like that of the U.S. use force through fines, taxes, licenses, property confiscation, violence, or jails to achieve their goals of control,  those who live under it are not free; for, freedom means one has the power to make one’s own decisions about one’s own life, body, and property, including one’s labor (which is also one’s property).  I laugh when I hear people talk about themselves as being free in the U.S., as they obviously have no idea what freedom means.  As Goethe stated, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”!  When I speak to people who are oblivious to this idea (most everyone, that is), I often call the U.S. “the land of the fee and home of the slave”.

Since Anarchy (or any sane political system) is not going to come about in my lifetime, I decided to create my own freedom.  This journey started with an intense study of law and history.  I fell just shy of a J.D. degree during my studies of the law.  I have defended myself in courts many times, up to and including the level of State Supreme Court, and in multiple actions.  I have been jailed twice for my political beliefs but for only 72 hours each time, as I discovered they can’t hold you any longer without your consent.  Many of these situations I intentionally put myself in so that I could further my studies.  I failed in some but I also succeeded in some.  But what I learned was priceless!

 

USA ‘Just a Corporation’

What I found out is that governments really don’t have any authority over anyone if you know what you are doing.  You see, governments (Federal and State) are nothing more than corporations — fictions dreamed up in the minds of greedy elitist.  (28 USC §  3002 (15)-  “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation). These governments are really no different from Wal-Mart.  When one is working for Wal-Mart, they most certainly can control one’s hours, pay, conduct,  dress and benefits, etc.  Similarly, under U.S. law, you are presumed to be working 24/7 for U.S. Inc.  Why? When you (or your parents) applied for Social Security benefits, you became eligible to receive retirement and survivor benefits from U.S. Inc., and by this act you became, under U.S. law, “federal personnel” (5 USC §552a (a)(13),  the term “federal personnel” meaning   “… individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits)”).  Also look into the charter that created the GEICO insurance company.  Do you know what the acronym GEICO stands for?  Government Employees Insurance Company.  How can you buy insurance from them when their corporate charter states that they will sell insurance only to government employees?  Also try to buy insurance from them without providing evidence that you are federal personnel (i.e., having  a Social Security number).

14th Amendment and Citizenship

A friend of mine once asked “if my mother gave birth to me while she was staying at a corporately owned Boy Scout camp, would I be born a Boy Scout?”  The obvious answer is, of course not.  So why is it that we have bought into believing that we are all “U.S. citizens” by virtue of where our mothers happen to have been when they gave birth to us?

Since the United States is just a corporation, how then could a living being be born in a corporation?  The “person” referred to in the 14th Amendment who is “born” (i.e., brought into existence)  in the “United States” (a corporation) is in fact nothing more than a new corporate entity created and owned by U.S. Inc.  When reading the 14th Amendment, one should also notice, using English grammar rules, that if the 14th Amendment had referred to a landmass, it would have stated “born on the United States”.

Natural law, or the law of nature, holds that corporations cannot control their creators, the people; however, corporations can control their own creations – other corporations.   Since U.S. Inc creates the “person,” under natural law the U.S. can most definitely control, regulate, and dictate everything for its creation.  Any statute that you may have read will always refer to the statute being applicable only to “persons” and never to people.  Because government corporations only deal with the “person,” you are tricked into thinking and acting as if that “person” were you!

 

Be an Alien!

Since U.S. Inc only controls its own creations, if you want true freedom you must conduct yourself and your business as an alien to their corporation:  “An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government, or to our constitution, laws, or proclamations. A citizen subject is bound to obey them all.”.

Take, for example, Obama’s Health Care Act, which clearly states that aliens are exempt from having to be covered by any health insurance policy that is mandatory for U.S. citizens.  Most Americans read that as some kind of benefit to the “illegal aliens,” whereas what it really means is that U.S. Inc. is admitting it has no authority over entities that it has not created and does not own.  If you take the time to understand all of this, you’ll realize that you can enjoy true freedom by conducting yourself as an alien to U.S. Inc!  (And luckily,  it is quite possible).

Steven F., a frequent contributor to the Rick’s Picks forum, used to write about allodial titles for owning land.  Allodial means the landowner is the highest authority on his land.  What Steve did not mention is that allodial property rights still do exist today, as all land was passed from the King or the U.S. government after their conquest or purchase using land patents/grants to private people.  These land patents/grants passed all rights (including mineral, water, taxation, etc.) to the patent/grant holders and “their heirs and assigns forever”.  For instance, if the original land patent/grant said the land was not taxable (some do), then it still is not taxable today once that claim is brought forward and defended.

With the information that I have learned, as revealed above, I have been able to find a moderate degree of freedom while living on the landmass known as the United States.  However some of the areas that I have not been able to find any freedom are: flying on a commercial airline without being irradiated or sexually assaulted by TSAA (so I choose not to fly any longer, remembering that flying is not an absolute right); being intentionally poisoned with fluoride and other toxic chemicals in my food and water; and keeping my currency from being debased.

***

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • David Lee October 20, 2011, 3:45 pm

    Joshua, thanks for the comments. Jesus the libertarian of the Bible, paying our debts! I have often thought about the scripture, ‘let you communication be yeah or nay, anything more is a sin’. I used to think it was a warning about swearing in general, but the Word is very deep and detailed on matters of freedom and money. So I agree with you, that this is more a warning about contracts. The anti-Christ globalists are creating ever more debt (sin). Christ died and paid for it all. The enemy can create as much sin (debt) as they like, because it is paid in advance. Eventually, men will have to claim their true inheritence that God the Father provided though the blood atonement of His Son Christ.

  • Scott October 18, 2011, 3:16 pm

    This is a wonderful article and series of comments. Thank you Carol, et, al.

  • PA October 17, 2011, 7:49 pm

    there is a website, private-person.com ,that is gathering PROVEN information on our human rights, mainly for Canada but also for the US (as it grows). Carol’s points are considered accurate. To defend your rights, one also needs to know that they should “attend” court in case it is necessary, but not “appear” – IOW don’t cross the bar, don’t answer to, and accept liability for, the “name”.

    There is more information on this topic in the so-called ‘batman’ recordings. I hope these links will work for you; if not sign up for the free membership at private-person.com. BTW skip the first 50 minutes of part 1 –

    http://private-person.com/1member/imid/FreeMemberCourses/batman-interviews/imbatman57part1.mp3

    http://private-person.com/1member/imid/FreeMemberCourses/batman-interviews/imbatman57part2.mp3

    http://private-person.com/1member/imid/FreeMemberCourses/batman-interviews/batman-TS-499202.mp3

  • mava October 17, 2011, 1:40 am

    Steve, are you kidding me? I am an adult.

    • Steve October 17, 2011, 2:28 am

      What have you done mava ? I see just a little of Carol’s resume’. What is your resume’ mava? Have you personally, at cost, defended Carol’s Covenant Endowments – show me Missouri !

  • Steve October 17, 2011, 1:28 am

    mava,
    One can lead a horse to water, but; one cannot make the horse drink. Pretty much this writting is tripe, rotten tripe at that. Justify the need for a corporate structure with a ‘charter’ containing the same words as the Constitution to engage in commercial business. Explain exactly with law cites the need for the Federal Government to conduct commercial business as a private corporation.

    Newest Age Song- – – –
    You love’a having a king to rule you’a, don’t you, don’t you just love having a king don’t ya, don’t ya, don’t ya.

    And ain’t it just grand, just grand, just grand, living for da king, da king, da king, don’t cha, don’t cha, don’t cha.

    I’d tell you about predator drones, the justice department, and treaty laws, and conventions, protocols, but; it is useless to use the law to show sin.

    How much do they pay you as a provocature. This is the mystical magical mysterious incantations of the “THEY”.

    What I will say absolutely – someone on this thread is a government man. Every day the words written here are read by a government man. Every email to Rick is covered by a Big Blue Computer. I knew that before I knew who Rick was – and I was just a common police officer quite a few years ago.

    mava, want me to tell you how to get a warrant from Big Blue – NO

    mava, want me to tell you what I know from experience just as Carol has – NO

    Go play a fiddle mava, write a tune to the words I give you above.

    There is a complete total lack of respect for Carol in your words mava. What Carol has done and experienced by while you have done exactly what mava?.

    Exactly and concisely mava, what have you done for Liberty? What has mava done to pay the only obligation owed to the Covenant Endowments of the Individual Carol?

    I suspect you are a guvernmunt person who has done nothing to gain the respect due Carol for her efforts for your Libery mava.

  • mava October 17, 2011, 12:16 am

    I keep looking these up. Such as the 28 U.S.C. 3002(15), and find nothing wrong with those code pieces.

    28 U.S.C. 3002(15), for instance, has a spooky (to a person not familiar with corporations) language, where it defines United Sates as literally, a corporation.

    It deals with how United Sates are going to go about collecting debts.

    Let us say, that you owe 1 million dollars in taxes. Then you “skip”, by leaving the US and hiding out with your money, say in Costa Rica. What is United States to do?

    Send an army? Really? This is what you’d done?
    Hire an Agent, a bounty hunter, to bring you back?
    Yes, that would work, except you cannot hire any, because you’re a government. This is the reason cities incorporate, – in order to conduct business. Within this scope, the United Sates of America had established a corporation to represent itself in business matters as a business entity.

    And so, while defining all parties about to be mentioned in 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) which is going to prescribe how US is going to deal with skippers, when the wording “United States” is encountered it is to mean a corporation, i.e. the incorporated city of Washington D.C., which is a commercial, business entity, formed on behalf and by of The United States of America, so that it can, for instance, hire a bounty hunter.

    Now, this is pretty corrupted mess, because the purpose of corporation is to escape the responsibility of it’s own actions in it’s historical roots and today. However to say that US is deeply messed up and corrupted, is NOT the same as to say that it is governed by a secret law.

    So, again, just duly following links, and discovering nothing unusual.

  • Steve October 16, 2011, 9:00 pm

    Lost in the mystery of the internet is a writting for Carol that disappeared with a ‘disconnect’, which I will offer summary for:

    Each several State Citizen owes Carol the obligation of defending her blind contract. That is the only thing a Citizen of a several State owes anyone, or any government individually.

    Each u.s. 14th amendment citizen owes his very creation as a person to the legislative act and the legislature creating him as a subject.

    Want to talk Commerce Clause, legitimate taxation of commerce Okay. First, will need to talk about breach of contract by the legislators and individuals who allow the breach of contract to continue.

    Want to talk territorial powers – Okay – after each one of you pays the only obligation of State Citizenship – defend Carol’s Unalienable Right.

    I do not have space to list the obligations of a u.s. subject under the 14th amendment. I believe the heathcare bill was over 2000 pages. Each 14th amendment citizen is contracted to obey each and every word of the contract. The State Citizen – No Way.

    Still, I cannot keep any individual from breach of contract – can I.

  • Seawolf October 16, 2011, 6:35 pm

    Carol, I have a whole shopping list of questions that I would like to ask, but I don’t think I should on a public forum. I have to ask one though. Can you cross international borders?

    • Carol October 17, 2011, 11:26 pm

      Yes I have a “world passport” that I bought years ago. Used it a couple times but not since 9/11 as I have not traveled international since then. Also since I now refuse to fly international travel is much more difficult.

  • SD1 October 16, 2011, 6:27 pm

    You have presented a lot of great material, here, Carole. Thank you!

  • Seawolf October 16, 2011, 4:58 pm

    Carol, have you found a way to protect yourself from the “planted evidence ploy” so that you don’t have to defend yourself later, especially now with the increase of traffic stops for revenue gathering.

    • Carol October 17, 2011, 11:24 pm

      Thought the thread was dead so haven’t been on after my last post. Good to see those who hung in.

      Yes that is no problem, once you understand it is all contract and consent. If they plant something on me or my private household goods, I still expect to spend 3 days in jail before they finally give in and let me go. No name will ever be given or accepted. No signature will then ever get from me on anything!

  • David Lee October 16, 2011, 4:09 pm

    Our God given natural rights predate the Constitution. Civil rights are merely BENEFITS of various contracts we have knowlingly or unknowingly entered into. A contract is not valid unless it is executed using free will and is not coerced.

    When Lucifer tempted Christ in the desert for 40 days, Christ ‘resisted the devil and he fled’. Another way of looking at this is that Christ did not ACCEPT the OFFER and no CONTRACT was executed. That the corruption of creation is accomplished through CONTRACT makes perfect sense. Only through an act of free will can man take exception to the Law of God. If man could not do this, there would be no free will. The deal with the Devil is our licenses to work, reside, drive etc. We are even registed into the kingdom of Satan with a birth certificate which is used as evidence against us that we SUBMIT to Rome’s authority.

    I belive that the ‘born again’ experience has a spiritual application to be sure. However, I am beginning to suspect that there may be a more physical and practical (here and now) application to being ‘born again’. Is it possible that in order to ‘Come out of Babylon’ we have to take on new identities so as to untangle the contracts that ensnare us?

    • Jill October 16, 2011, 8:30 pm

      Interesting. All you Biblically oriented folks, check this out:

      The Gospel Of Mary Magdalene, discoverd in the late 19th century, not published until 1955. And then mostly ignored. I didn’t know about it myself until I took a class on the Gnostic Gospels.

      http://www.gnosis.org:80/library/marygosp.htm

    • Steve October 17, 2011, 1:41 am

      Sounds like the Istar and Nimrodian theory in matriarchal linage.

    • Joshua Barnes October 17, 2011, 8:26 pm

      Matthew 5:37
      “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes ‘ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”
      http://bible.cc/matthew/5-37.htm

      James 5-12
      But most of all, my brothers and sisters, never take an oath, by heaven or earth or anything else. Just say a simple yes or no, so that you will not sin and be condemned.
      http://bible.cc/james/5-12.htm

      I think Christ was attempting to teach freedom from contracts over and over so that we can exercise our free will to serve God. I believe that entering contracts is literally a form of idolatry because it forces you to serve something other than God. There are many examples of Christ showing people how to be free of contracts so that they may focus on God by loving one another. Through Christs death our contractual “debt” has literally been “paid” for and is “forgiven”. More and more I personally think of Christ as the Bible’s libertarian. He didn’t do away with the law, he simplified it and paid for our outstanding debts. Today we are total slaves to earthy laws, debt, and contracts. Where are the Churches to remind us of this? In the “land of the free” where we’re supposed to have the freedom of speech and religion but most pastors are vanilla, pop message masters who’ve signed their own contract, the ol’ 501(c)(3) for financial purposes. It’s sad but true. In effect the pastors of America have agreed to hide the candle, the word/light of God, in exchange for financial security. I don’t think the average pastor has any idea this is going on, gratefully God is merciful and forgiving.

      Christ’s temptation on the mountain was a very simple contractual offering by Satan. Obviously Jesus wouldn’t bow to Satan in exchange for power. I believe that this basic dilemma was presented to us as inspiration not to let our yes be more than a yes, to not enter into contracts in an attempt to have something earthly.

  • David Lee October 16, 2011, 3:12 pm

    Today’s corporate 501C3 churches preach FUTURISM. They argue about pre, mid, or post tribulation, but the doctrine actually originated from Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) who was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 9:03 pm

      Oh snap I forgot one huge piece of evidence to show that all governments and government agencies are just corporations.

      To all those doubting thomas’s go look up on Dunn and Bradstreets corporate ratings ANY town, city, agency, court, state, federal agency (including IRS, dept of ___, etc) and you will find all their corporate information like when they were incorporated, who/what incorporated them, who/were is their registered agent, what is their bond rating, etc.

      Now any who do the above and STILL do not beleive me what would you say if I told you ALL governments – towns, cities, courts, police, etc have tax id numbers! Call any court or city administrator and ask what their tax id number is. First they will tell you “we are a government agency, we don’t have tax id numbers” BUT if you persist you will eventually find the person in the organization that know they do have such and will freely give it to you.

      Do it, I have and I know this as fact.

  • David Lee October 16, 2011, 3:09 pm

    The concept of the Pope ruling the world by occupying the office of the Anti-Christ is not at all new.

    A treatise of Martin Luther written shortly before his death in 1546 was entitled, “Against the Roman Papacy; an Institution of the Devil.” Luther began the holy tirade thus:

    “The Most Hellish Father, Saint Paul III, in his supposed capacity as the bishop of the Roman church…” (Luther’s Works, Fortress Press, Volume 41, pg 263). In that treatise he says that the pope is “the head of the accursed church of all the worst scoundrels on earth, a vicar of the devil, an enemy of God, an adversary of Christ, a destroyer of Christ’s churches, a teacher of lies… a brothel-keeper over all brothel-keepers and all vermin, even that which cannot be named; an Antichrist…” (ibid., page 357-358).
    In Calvin’s treatise of AD 1544 entitled “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” (Selected Works of John Calvin, Volume 1, part 1, Tracts, Baker: 1983), Calvin says, “I deny that See (the Roman Catholic’s throne of authority: BLG) to be Apostolical, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostasy — I deny him to be the Vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist…” (pp. 219, 220).

    The Westminster Confession, Presbyterian creed of the next century, includes an article in which it boldly identifies the pope as Antichrist.

    “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God” (chapter 25, art. 6).
    As heirs of the Reformation and as those told to discern the signs of the times, we, too, are concerned with the Antichrist. We will consider, then, Antichrist’s identity, his purpose and method, our calling to oppose him, and his certain destruction.

    Today’s churches are corporations (501C3) and have rejoined Rome through CONTRACT. The doctrine of today’s ‘protestant’ churches was written by a Jesuit.

    • Steve October 16, 2011, 5:44 pm

      How often does the Pope come to each land mass to kiss the Soil in renewing his claim.

  • Chris M October 16, 2011, 11:01 am

    I am just curious as to whether or not you have tested the 72 hour incarceration law/policy lately – since the Patriot Act most specifically. This act seems to overrule consent, contract, rights, and well…just about everything.

    Thank you for blazing this road, however. I, myself, have always tended to lean in this direction. I have never owned a credit card or taken out a loan and, therefore, have never been in debt. What I usually tell people is that it is good and bad. It has been good that I have never been in debt, but it is also bad in the sense that, w/o credit, if my “money” ever runs out then I will be sleeping under a bridge and showering at the YMCA.

    I have never regretted living the way I do, especially having seen just about everybody I know either get buried in debt or go bankrupt at one time or another and, consequently, settling for a compromise which puts them even further under the system’s control in my opinion. I have never accepted handouts – from anybody – and despite what some people may say, getting an education beyond high school is virtually impossible living this way unless somebody gives you money upfront to cover it (even grants/scholarships can be tricky). Mind you, the “education” one actually receives nowadays is something I could do without. The learning process has been so diluted in this current system that it can be seen as nothing less than a travesty. But that is a different issue altogether.

    Remember, I do not accept loans or credit. I have been lucky I think, so far (I am 46 – I may be working towards some sort of record, here!), that I always had just enough “money” to get by but now that I find myself unemployed I just might experience some of that fresh air – living on the street. Of course I will not accept unemployment compensation or food stamps – I simply will not allow myself to be indebted to anyone.

    I am quite curious about this alloidal land deal you are talking about. I have never been able to find a way to actually own land – really OWN it that is. In the unlikely event that I ever have enough “wealth” to afford to purchase some outright, that is what I would definitely do. I am going to look into it, even though I am not sure that you are saying that it can be actually “owned” by a subject such as I. I have learned that when buying land that getting the mineral rights is always important (for income purposes mostly) but the laws of imminent domain still appear to me to suggest that it could be taken away from you – no matter what. I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about this (imminent domain).

    I doubt many people think about things like this, but I personally find it difficult dealing with the fact that everyone born on this planet is born into slavery, without any rights at all, but this is, in fact, very sadly true. It just does not seem natural to me. Unless you are born into one of these “elite” families (very rare, indeed) then it is true that every breath you take and every dollar you earn is not without their permission (the VAT tax, once it is fully implemented, is basically taxing the air you breathe – for being alive, if you break it down), and yet I am also quite sure that even they (the elite) are not “free” either. In addition to living within their strict family laws, they also have the added situation of a revolt to always be guarding against.

    I have played the game presented to me, followed “their” (the ever-present, ever-infamous “they”) rules, the best way I could – just without the compromise that most have – and I am glad to see that others such as you are attempting to do the same. The differnce between you and I, perhaps, is the fact that I have accepted the fact that I am just a subject/slave but I am going to work better at freeing myself, as I always have been, and I just may try some of your processes and hope that things may change for the better in the future in the meantime. I think, however, that it eventually does come down to a threat of force if we shall ever be able to create a world game that is played fairly. Attempts of “citizens” to petition for redress have been abysmal failures recently, having been practically laughed out of court and that should be a warning to us all that the “government” will accept nothing less. Even the Magna Carta would not have been agreed to had it not been for the fact that the king saw that the “people” had the possibilty to overpower his forces. Force begets force and that is how these rules of the current game have been imposed upon us. Something for the revolutionaries out there to consider. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are about as close as anyone has gotten in proposing “God-given” rights, but they have not been upheld in a honorous way and look where it has led us because of it – to the brink of world collapse.

    • Seawolf October 16, 2011, 3:31 pm

      No one is born a slave. Everyone is born with free will. Free will is nothing more than the ability to make either/or Choices. Slavery becomes a choice made through fear. The level of a persons freedom is determined by their level of fear.

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:31 pm

      Chris “I am just curious as to whether or not you have tested the 72 hour incarceration law/policy lately – since the Patriot Act most specifically. ”

      Yes my two short term incarcerations where in 2005 and 2007. Nothing has changed by the Patriot Act. US Inc has exclusive 100% jurisdiction over their creations – us citizens – both before and after that Act. The only thing that changed is that they are getting ever so bolder in how they deal with their slaves/citizen/subjects that is all.

    • Steve October 16, 2011, 5:38 pm

      Carol gave everyone the corporate act of 1871 that was required to create Roman Civil Law for the slaves who had no law after the 13th amendment, except Master/servant Law under the congress in the district of Columbia. There are a number of constitutions for united States, UNITED STATES, united States of America. The Original thirteen States have constitutions older than the Original contract Constitution A.D. 1787. The several Southern States were required to adopt new constitutions inferior to the Orignals, or Equal Footing to the Original Constitutions under military powers of rebellion by the senate in 1866. The most often used case White v. Texas states that this state may not leave the union. There is a difference between “this state”, “the State”, and that State. The 1859 Oregon Constitution secures the Right to abolish the government. The later Texas state is “federal union of states”, while the Originals are the ‘several States’ in union. California, Texas, Oregon were all Sovereign countries in 1846. They each had to be supplanted by force, or treachery. Seawolf errors on slavery. The black sold into slavery by his native people was an involuntary slave in his native land. Here in the united States of America the only equality of these races is in slavery under corporate creation. No black or, the git of a black slave here is born free, that reserved to their native Sovereignty [Country]. The equality that everyone now embraces is corporate enfranchisee character under the creation of citizenship via the voluntary political act 14th amendment.

  • Steve October 16, 2011, 9:41 am

    Carol,
    Great job of presenting the information. Had I been engaged maybe I could have helped out from time to time. I’ve just finished writing about 40 pages on this subject matter along with some of my personal experiences over the past 16 years. But, I’ve decided not to do anything with it. First, because of statements by persons who believe there is nothing worth fighting for, and who stand for nothing. And second, because of the masses who will not turn loose of sin even when shown Good. How many times must 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) be printed to prove UNITED STATES is a foreign corporation? How many times must Ore. 73, ch. 836, sec. 13 be cited to prove there is “this state”, and “the State”?

    The fear of change must become less than the fear of not changing. There is no fear of change because there is unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, and the sin of unjust weights and measures. Evil is rewarded today. Good is punished. Many, many very good posts written on this thread. If ya all are afraid to stand up for Liberty and Right, then in fact ya all will receive what is deserved; except the few who blow the Shofar.

    Carol, truly you will live life to the end. And you Carol, live fully to and for the Tree of Liberty. You have blown Shofar and still the ignorant will argue and not hear. Truly, you have learned that there is nothing worth living to die for. But you Carol, live fully even if that living requires the sprinkle of blood to fertilize the Tree of Liberty. To those who live in fear and excuses, you are already dead though your body lives.

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:29 pm

      Yea Steve, thanks for the support. No one here understands anything I am trying to show them except you. I truly miss you on this forum.

    • redwilldanaher October 17, 2011, 4:42 am

      “Yea Steve, thanks for the support. No one here understands anything I am trying to show them except you. I truly miss you on this forum.” – This is an overstatement at the very least. You have no proof of this Carol.

      In response to John Jay above you claim that you refuse to live as a slave etc. I can empathize with you, truly I can but the fact remains that you have and will continue to serve as a slave of some kind. Nearly all of us have and will have to continue to do so. You conceded in your essay that you have succeeded to only a moderate degree which means that you’re not technically entirely free and thus are restricted in some ways. That being the case, you are not completely free and thus are serving TPTB in some capacity even if only by having to remain restricted from areas that you should enjoy true liberties.

      I wouldn’t bet or take chances with respect to psychopaths unless he risk/reward justifies it, which is not the way you seem to suggest that you’re willing to do so. As John Jay essentially asked, Why? Why sweat the small stuff? Why not become more strategic about? Why not operate with a plan to dismantle it? You’re not completely free now and you never will be as long as the apparatus remains in place and is functioning.

      As much as I applaud your efforts and empathize with you, I have to conclude that you’re deceiving yourself if you don’t think that you could lose what you perceive to be freedom in very short order.

    • Carol October 17, 2011, 11:55 pm

      Red,
      “As much as I applaud your efforts and empathize with you, I have to conclude that you’re deceiving yourself if you don’t think that you could lose what you perceive to be freedom in very short order.”

      I know I am not free in this world and have never made beleive otherwise, but between my ears where it really counts I am 100% free and that is the difference. And that freedom I can NEVER LOSE.

  • Jill October 16, 2011, 5:20 am

    I’m with you there, John Jay. Carol, you are a brave one. I am not that high a risk taker myself. Getting arrested can be a wildly different experience from one place to another, and from one cop to another. I’m not personally willling to take such risks.

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:28 pm

      why are you all so afraid? This is why the world is so lost, everyone is so afraid.

      I would much rather take my chances that “they” will illegally imprison me than them LEGALLY imprisoning me. See since I am not one of their slave/subject/federal personnel/us citizens the only way they can do anything to me is illegally. I will take my chances any day that those in power respect laws than expect them to “be nice” to their slave who they have no obligation to respect or treat humanly.

    • redwilldanaher October 17, 2011, 4:54 am

      “Why are you all so afraid? This is why the world is so lost, everyone is so afraid. ” – I’d suggest that modify your approach Carol. I wouldn’t be so quick to characterize so many as “afraid”. Have you ruled out decades of psychological conditioning and indoctrination via the public education “system”. Is it possible that most people respond in a way that they’ve been programmed to respond? Is it irrational fear? Do the eons of man’s inhumanity to man not suggest that in some cases one should proceed with caution? Should folks forget about the hundreds of millions that were mass murdered? Should parents not weigh leaving their babies parent-less? Some of the arguments in the forum are leaning a little to “academic” in my opinion. Yes babies may be born with free will but a case can be made that their parents unknowingly sign them into slavery of many forms. If you’re not considering risk/reward, if you’re not proceeding strategically, if you’re not risk-adjusting the returns of your outcomes, then you’re simply acting recklessly and I must frankly conclude that you’re taking victory laps far too prematurely.

  • John Jay October 16, 2011, 4:40 am

    Carol,
    I think you should pick your fights with great care.
    If you become a thorn in the side of the establishment, they may “discover” enough dope in your car to put you away for 20 years. There was some rich guy that had a big piece of property in Southern California he refused to sell to the government that bordered either a state or national forest. Next thing you know, they “discovered” or they may have only “suspected” he had a marijuana grove on his property. Well they pulled one of their heavily armed, trigger happy, no knock raids, and the guy got shot dead and I think they got the property. He was a wealthy man, but it did not matter. The jails are full of innocent people framed by the authorities. Ask yourself how far you are prepared to go to prove your point. Is it worth turning your life upside down for the price of a drivers license, registration and liability insurance that you can obtain for not much money?

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:24 pm

      John, thanks for your concern but I refuse to live as a slave to any corporation. Life on this planet is temporary and I am here to live, love, and learn. If my learning requires that kind of outcome, then so be it. I do not desire such but I refuse to lick the boots of my master and therefore I accept the possibility that those bigger and stronger than I am will abuse, rape, murder, or imprison me.

  • gary leibowitz October 16, 2011, 4:25 am

    I am an anarchist. 7 for 7 bets made. Charting out SPX 1257 as the top. Flash crash between 21st and 25th.

    Governments have been too lax and unregulated. Not exactly the scenario everyone wishes to paint. Truth be told we have always been more stable and have had a higher standard of living when the government is hands on. Were the 50’s more or less restrictive? Good benchmark since that was our most productive period.

    • Jill October 16, 2011, 5:17 am

      Gary, thanks for your market predictions. While no one has a crystal ball on the markets, I admire folks who have the guts to make predictions. Let us know if you start your own stock newsletter one day.

      Gary, you have been looking at facts regarding government regulation– rather than the propaganda everyone has been fed by corporations wishing to keep themselves from being regulated, broadcast by news media who want the revenue from corporate advertisements. Good for you!

      There is so much money to be made by broadcasting and printing propaganda that it’s a wonder the problem isn’t even worse than it is. Hard to even find facts any more. I love to go look up things on factcheck.org but most folks don’t want to be confused with the facts. Stories, emotions, and believing whatever their friends or family believes, or whatever the TV says, suffice.

    • gary leibowitz October 16, 2011, 6:44 am

      Propaganda becomes reality when the govenment is complicit. The government is complicit when they become bought. Vicious cycle. Always end when people take notice. People only take notice when it becomes a personal hardship.

      You can easily fool the masses by diverting blame amongst each other. It’s only when the number of fearful outnumber the complacent that it starts unraveling. Hard times unite people with a common cause, self preservation.

    • Jill October 16, 2011, 8:23 pm

      “Hard times unite people with a common cause, self preservation.”

      Good points once more, Gary. Perhaps we have to hope for hard times then. The Divide and Conquer strategy has worked very effectively for many years now. Thanks for your insights. I think you are correct. I actually look forward to hard times now, as they could provide a way out of this mess.

      Perhaps our society will “hit bottom” like an alcoholic, and, having lost just about everything, will be then finally motivated to crawl back up to a workable way of living and facing reality, by cooperating with one another to achieve common goals– rather than continuing to be “divided and conquered” by the Powers That Be.

  • Seawolf October 16, 2011, 2:37 am

    Laws and contracts are only as valid as the depth of belief in them. A higher power is not needed to enforce them. Only your belief that there is a higher power is needed.

  • mava October 16, 2011, 2:24 am

    Ok, yep, I am not ready for that answer. Papal Law. Thus, Vatican rules. This, of course, satisfies the principle of contract as enforced trade agreement.

    There are few problems with that though.

    First, it brings the question of nations not subscribed to Christian faith. Where do they belong in this framework? Although, it easily explains the current crusades against Islam. What about Buddhist World? Israel? Others? Obviously, this is not a critical objection since it is necessary and sufficient that there be entity more powerful than the United States (not necessarily than the whole world), for the United States to seek incorporation from that greater power.

    Second, if Papal law is the dominating power that holds control over the US Government, forcing them to release those not signing into the contract, then what is the motivation here? Obviously, the Pope would like such a provision for himself and his subordinates, but why would he endow everyone with such right? Namely, you. Why would Pope be interested at all in your rights and freedoms. He is not seeking consent from the masses, as he is not ruling formally and openly.
    Remember, that a secret rule does not require any law, as there is no requirement for consent, only for sufficient power.

    Third, the references you give are dated before 1776 (two of them), and therefore are irrelevant to the United States. The two other references are withing the time frame that does not exclude the relevance, but where are the sources? Could you provide the links to the source you found those in? I hope those links are not a web page, not to say that everything on internet is a lie, but only to say that for every page there are twenty pages that thoroughly debunk it.

    Finally the link to nikolasschiller.com. I do not want to use ad hominem, but his site does not impress me as a blog of someone qualified in the matters at hand. Compare to newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm , a blog of Edwin Vieira, a widely recognized expert. (Vieira is not a supporter of anything our modern government represents, therefore, I think he can not be disqualified as a party interested in upholding the status quo for the United States today. I have read his material and I did not detect any mention of what you allege is the fact.

    I would hazard to say that Popes are allowed to think and write whatever they want in their little books. How, for instance, the Elements of Ecclesiastical Law hold any power in the United States? If I find the book, written by some dude that denies this assertion, or asserts him as the supreme leader, then how do we reconcile which one wins over?

    I am starting to be inclined to think that you have learned this story from one of those “conspiracy” emails that circulate from time to time.( I include the word conspiracy in quotes here, because I do not want to appear as if I do not believe in any conspiracies.)

    Like I said before, everyone on this forum knows my views “extremely independent” views, and I, for one would want to have a “secret law knowledge” against the ever abusive government. There is no denial, that my view could be affected by years of schooling and propaganda, – I am not in a position to be the judge on that, – but what you are saying “does not compute” in my stupid head.

    For this reason (possible incompetency of mine), I am not debunking what you are saying. I am simply saying that I have found your arguments not satisfying my own standards only. Everyone else conclusions are none of my business.

    Again, I appreciate the attempt you have made to reason with me. Thank you.

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:39 am

      “Finally the link to nikolasschiller.com. I do not want to use ad hominem, but his site does not impress me as a blog of someone qualified in the matters at hand.”

      I used that link because on the page he has published a copy of the original act. Read the act, I don’t know about of care about anything on the blog, read the act!

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:52 am

      Although I am certain you will never open your mind, what does it mean if one person were to get down on the ground and emasculate himself before another and kiss the superiors ring? I think it means that the one emasculating himself on the floor knows he is under, or of lower stature, than the “superior”, no?

      Ok if you want to really open your eyes look around the web for pictures of ALL the worlds’ supposed leaders Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish. etc on the ground before and kissing the ring of their superior – the pope. Look, go ahead and look for these pictures they are available.

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:53 am

      darn I must have used the wrong words as my posting needs moderation. Here it is again …
      Although I am certain you will never open your mind, what does it mean if one person were to get down on the ground and emasculate himself before another and kiss the superiors ring? I think it means that the one emasculating himself on the floor knows he is under, or of lower stature, than the “superior”, no?

      Ok if you want to really open your eyes look around the web for pictures of ALL the worlds’ supposed leaders Christian, Buddhist, Isl..m, J..ish. etc on the ground before and kissing the ring of their superior – the pope. Look, go ahead and look for these pictures they are available.

  • Carol October 15, 2011, 11:40 pm

    Mava “the idea that the states are now corporations does not make sense to me. And for the same basic reason as outlined above.”

    I really don’t know how to make it any clearer. See the above post where I show clearly that Massachusetts was started by the “Massachusetts Bay Company” using a charter from the King. Then look into the 1871 District of Columbia Organic Act (http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/01/30/2215/). The evidence is there if you just look.

    “To admit that the states (countries) now are corporations, necessitates the presupposition that there is a defined law that governs all of them. Which law is that?”

    I don’t think you are ready for the answer. Really papal laws rule the world, because as the popes beleive themselves to be God incarnate so they beleive they own the world!

    Look up:

    The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)

    The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)

    The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)

    The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44)

    • Rich October 16, 2011, 5:08 pm

      The Hawaiian Republic might be a good example of what happens when government authorities annex and conquer with greater force than the locals can muster.
      After British and Russian Occupation from 1778 when Captain James Cook landed, as the Sandwich Islands, and American Annexation as Missionary Family owned Territorial Trusts and then as the 50th State.
      Like South Africa, the Hawaiians say:
      “The Missionaries came and taught us to bow in prayer for our sins. While we were praying, they stole our lands.”
      Some property today is Royal Hawaiian Alii (alloidal). Most property in HI is still not fee simple, but leasehold, with Hawaiian Missionary families like the Bishop and Robinson Trusts owning the land.
      The former, the largest private landowner in HI, owns the private Kamehameha Schools, which curiously successfully won discrimination lawsuits for only admitting Native Hawaiians. Perhaps the explanation was that Bishop Trustees received up to $900,000 a year and were extremely well-connected nationally and politically, despite repeat allegations by disgruntled insiders of pervasive fraud.
      The IRS revoked their tax-exempt status until they paid a billion dollars in back taxes and penalties.
      (No problem.)
      What was most interesting is that Barack Obama, despite no obvious Hawaiian ancestry, went there, only the third non-Hawaiian to be admitted…

  • Carol October 15, 2011, 11:39 pm

    Mava “the idea that the states are now corporations does not make sense to me. And for the same basic reason as outlined above.”

    I really don’t know how to make it any clearer. See the above post where I show clearly that Massachusetts was started by the “Massachusetts Bay Company” using a charter from the King. (http://www.celebrateboston.com/history/massachusetts.htm). Then look into the 1871 District of Columbia Organic Act (http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/01/30/2215/). The evidence is there if you just look.

    “To admit that the states (countries) now are corporations, necessitates the presupposition that there is a defined law that governs all of them. Which law is that?”

    I don’t think you are ready for the answer. Really papal laws rule the world, because as the popes beleive themselves to be God incarnate so they beleive they own the world!

    Look up:

    The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)

    The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)

    The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)

    The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44)

  • mava October 15, 2011, 11:21 pm

    While I certainly had not found a bottom of this hole yet, the idea that the states are now corporations does not make sense to me. And for the same basic reason as outlined above.

    Corporation is an entity within a defined law. To admit that the states (countries) now are corporations, necessitates the presupposition that there is a defined law that governs all of them. Which law is that?

    In the way, such a theory then would work in the same way if you’d declare that you are independent from yourself. What would be the point?

    So, as long as we suppose (since we are not certain) that there is no greater power on Earth than that of countries or states, then that greater power must necessarily be sovereign. It then can not, and would not need to become a corporation, as it has nothing to protect itself from.

    An exception would be, obviously, a presupposition that there is, indeed, the world government. Such an entity would be more powerful than any individual state, and thus there is then a possible meaning to an individual state becoming a corporation within a defined law of the world government.

    Or, if there were overlords on earth wielding an immense power, I am talking about reptilians and such. Again, then the state corporation would have a meaning, if not purpose.

    Or, if God existed in our reality in unquestionable way and exalted his punishment in a detectable and non ambiguous way.

    Without a greater power, there does not appear any meaning to the states (nations, countries) being corporations, as there is no framework to define them as corporations.

    • Rich October 16, 2011, 4:39 pm

      There is a greater power, referred to by our founding father as Our Creator, but not everyone appreciates, respects or understands how helpful it is to be on His side…

  • David Lee October 15, 2011, 10:31 pm

    Back to governments being corporations, doesn’t the end of the Civil War and reconstruction play into this? I know States constitutions were ‘approved’ by the North in order to be readmitted into the Union. Secession clauses were not allowed in the new constitutions. Was this a mass ‘incorporation’ of southern states? It was around this time that DC was incorporated too. Seems like a master plan to me.

    • Carol October 15, 2011, 11:25 pm

      Yes the federal and state government changed drastically by and through the civil war and the reconstruction acts.

      Long story short … At the start of the civil war the representatives of southern states walked out of congress and the original federal entity (not a corporation but a confederacy/union/contract of states that had NOTHING at all to do with the people) dissolved and the elites wanted to rebuilt it bigger and better (Helgainian Dialect). So the congress people that were left after the southern states walked out created/incorporated a “new” corporation for Washington DC to handle the federal needs and named it “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” corporation. Previous to this happening the US Constitution was a contract between the states and had no effect on any of the people.

      Then with the passage of the 14th amendment all “persons” were then made “subjects” of this new corporation (US Inc). Then the southern states were forced at gun point to create new State (not state) Constitutions that took away the right of succession as well as many other rights of the states and the people.

      The states were corporations both before and after this happened. The original states were incorporated by a charter from the King. Look up the Massachusetts Bay Company for an example (“In 1629, the Massachusetts Company obtained a charter from the king” – http://www.celebrateboston.com/history/massachusetts.htm).

      What really happened by the reconstruction acts was the states lost their ability to “own” the persons in their territories who by the 14th now “belonged” to US Inc.

      Master plan — yes indeed.

  • mava October 15, 2011, 10:15 pm

    Or, let me put it in another way:

    Do you think that you would be allowed to leave within 72 hours, if you were held by, let us say, Stalin? Do you think he would want you to sign anything at all?

    Why not? What makes Stalin to ignore any need to enter into a contract? What makes this government to necessarily attempt to enter into a contract with you, and if you refuse to enter (by signing), then to let you go free?

  • mava October 15, 2011, 10:09 pm

    Thank you, Carol, for trying to explain this to me, as you certainly do not have to. I appreciate that.
    =====================================
    Perhaps, I am still unclear.

    A contract. What is a contract? Let me try. A contract is an agreement of two or more parties to conduct an trade with consent that the said agreement shall be enforceable by a third party. Is this good enough of a definition?

    Say, I contract you to write a book about sovereignty by this year’s end. If there is no book, I take you to the court. I show an evidence of contract, and the court applies penalties to you. Or, if I did not pay, then you do likewise.

    What would this contract become, if there is no enforcement? Null. It becomes a trade. If you have a book by the end of the year, then I may buy it, but I don’t have to. If you feel like writing it, then you may do so, but you don’t have to. My point is that a trade without enforcement is not a contract.

    So, I guess, my question then is: You mention contract. A contract between which parties? (I am guessing that you meant the government and the governed). Secondly, who enforces it?

    Please, note, that the answer to the question of enforcement can not possibly be “the government”, because that would ruin the definition and the meaning of a contract.

    For instance, if the agreement between you and I, was enforceable by either yourself or I, then there would be no need for a contract as we could achieve our goals by enforcement only or a threat of thereof.

    The whole “enforcement by a third party makes the contract, since we can now be reasonably sure that the agreement will be upheld, and that if it will not be upheld, then again, the third party will enforce it, therefore such an agreement becomes a possibility between two parties that have unequal violence potentials.

    If the government is the enforcer, then it doesn’t need you to sign anything to enter into contract, as it can force you to do what it wants to begin with.

  • Seawolf October 15, 2011, 10:06 pm

    Every person on this planet is as free as they want to be.

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:49 pm

      Absolutely! Freedom is found only between your ears no where else.

  • mava October 15, 2011, 8:24 pm

    Carol,

    So, here is what bugs me about this whole “sovereign” concept. I am in no way trying to laugh at this, or make any pun of you, but since you have spent a lot of time studying this, you are the perfect being to ask.

    1. Let us say that everything you describe is really taking place. Let us say that you are improperly detained through a traffic stop. You are in the cell for over 72 hours, and you have gotten no judge yet. You are refusing to sign anything.

    You say, they must let you go. I find it strange, because there is no such thing as “law” as far as I understand. There is only a threat of force.

    Thus having presented the situation, what is your next move? Who would the government be afraid, in order to let you go upon 72 hour stay? Who are you going to call to defend your rights? You are going to defend your rights in front of what body?

    ===============
    I have heard this line of reasoning before. And God is a witness how much I wanted this to be true. Unfortunately, this makes no sense to me.

    The world, according to mava, has no guild, loyalty, honor, fairness or justice. The world is simply a fight of survival, where literally everything is permitted.

    If we had God here on earth, then he could dictate the laws, because he could enforce them. Since the God, existing or not, is not evidenced himself on Earth, then the physical forces represented by crowds are able to create the laws, as again, they are able to enforce the laws they create.

    No government is ever interested in upholding the justice, unless there is someone watching and able to physically make them do so.

    The ratio of amount of wealth desired per capita of government, to the existing wealth per capita of all the rest, determines the ratio of those governing to those governed. Which, in these days is so negligible, that any population is completely capable to physically extinguish any government, should they only decided to do so. Because of this predicament, to achieve desired level of wealth, most existing governments absolutely must maintain the illusion of concent.

    This means, that if the government breaks the law visibly, then the rest of population is going to make a judgment on that fact, which may result in the loss of concent to be governed.

    This is the reason that a modern government behaves according to the book of laws that the country in question adheres to.

    Now, you are defending the idea, that the authority, T.P.T.B., are behaving according to some secret book of law, that the majority is incapable of understanding, and therefore is incapable to make a judgment on, and therefore is incapable of withholding it’s consent to be governed, therefore being no threat to the authorities even so in much greater numbers.

    This leads us back into presupposition that since there is no threat, then the current government system you are explaining to us, must therefore be guided by morals.

    Is that what you hold as the center stone of the view that you had found? That the corporation that we are talking about here, what we call the government, is motivated and guided by MORALS?

    Thank you, I am sorry to jump on the end so late in the discussion.

    • Carol October 15, 2011, 8:57 pm

      Mava,

      “You say, they must let you go. I find it strange, because there is no such thing as “law” as far as I understand. There is only a threat of force.

      You are incorrect. You are correct there is no law but you are incorrect that there is only force because there is only contract. Contract is the law, the law is contract. However, force is always there in society, in governments, in police , in jails, in courts. Men are by nature violent beasts. There is no way around that.

      “Who would the government be afraid, in order to let you go upon 72 hour stay? ”

      The government is not afraid of me or anyone else they are big bullies but they do know that they have to get the consent of the person to hold them. They may not know why or even HOW but they do know they need a name and a signature to keep you this I know that they know because I have refused to provide either and HAVE been let go after 72 hours – twice. My experience and similar experience of my friends that did the same thing proves to me that they know this much. Now I am not saying that they will make your life easy during that 72 hours or that they will not try to coerce you to consent during that time. But if you know what I know and conduct yourself accordingly you would have much less fear. 72 hours is not some kind of fairtale timeline, it is the time that it takes under their laws to finalize a contract. If their contract offer is not finalized (by consent) within that time frame there is no contract and they KNOW they have to let you go.

      “I have heard this line of reasoning before. And God is a witness how much I wanted this to be true. Unfortunately, this makes no sense to me.”

      that is your problem you don’t understand it is all contract and consent. Once you truly understand and have EXPERIENCED first hand that it is all contract and consent it may make more sense to you.

      “The world is simply a fight of survival, where literally everything is permitted.”

      see, more evidence that you do not understand what is going on around you.

      “Now, you are defending the idea, that the authority, T.P.T.B., are behaving according to some secret book of law, that the majority is incapable of understanding”

      I never said there is any secret law there is only contract. Now the fact that there is no law and you are being ruled by contract might seem like a secret but now that you know it is no longer a secret is it? You just need to understand that and you can’t or won’t but until you do you will just see it as all hocus pocus and force, it is not so.

    • Rich October 16, 2011, 4:36 pm

      Re 72 hour holds to cement a contract, Martin Armstrong, Princeton Economics, successful currency adviser to sovereigns and their corporations, son of a lawyer and Lt Col under Patton, turned down a business offer by an intelligence agency he could not refuse.
      MA was falsely accused of theft of client funds by Republic Bank and the CFTC, ordered held in Manhattan for contempt of court by a cousin of the Bush family. He was held in jail and prison without bail, jury trial and lawyer for seven and one half years, his assets seized by Goldman Sachs and O’Melveny & Myers.
      When MA refused to plea bargain, a violent inmate was placed in his cell who beat him to the point of death like Alan Stanford.
      Blinded and denied adequate medical care like Jim McDougal, who died in prison after he agreed to testify against the Clintons re Madison S&L/Whitewater RE, MA was placed into solitary confinement until the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond.
      It is worth noting now Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor upheld the Contempt order at the appeals level, noting it stank.
      After the MA habeas corpus case made Forbes, New York Times and Wall Street Journal, the Judge was replaced. The contempt order was vacated, all charges but conspiracy were dropped, and the Court allowed an argument for time served.
      When MA pled out, the government persuaded the court to refuse time served.
      The new Judge ordered no restitution was due after Republic (Gold) Bank’s new owners HSBC paid $606 and pled guilty with immunity.
      (Republic’s Owner Edmond Safra and his nurse died shortly after the HSBC acquisition in a mysterious Monaco Penthouse fire after his Mossad Bodyguards were given the night off by his black widow wife and a Green Beret nurse was attacked and set up.)
      MA was finally let out under house arrest and the case continues, working its way again to the Supreme Court. It will make one heck of a movie.
      Meantime, justice delayed is justice denied, so I prefer not to get myself arrested.
      There are so many American Greed, Corporate Sole, Diplomatic Immunity, European Drivers License, False Passport, Leo Wanta, Lis Pendens, Militia, Nigerian Fundraiser, Sovereign Lien Tax scams going around, it may just be better to err on the side of common sense with simplicity than wave a red flag…

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 5:24 pm

      Rich,

      once MA contracted with the courts to accept being the defendant there is NO LAW. The judge is the captain of his ship of state under admiralty, he can do ANYTHING he wants to do.

      Was MA a us citizen? Did he ever answer to MARTIN ARMSTRONG? Did he ever sign a plea bargain? I bet he did all of these things. He accepted their power and authority over him and then expected justice? This is more evidence that if you don’t understand that it is all contract and consent and NOT LAW, you will be hung from the highest lamppost.

  • Other Paul October 15, 2011, 7:32 pm

    Carol,

    Let us know how things go for you with the authorities and the other party if, God forbid, you cause bodily injury to someone while driving your car.

    • Carol October 15, 2011, 8:27 pm

      Wow that was uncalled for. You are so conditioned to think and accept limited liability you can’t even consider that men and woman are suppose to be responsible for themselves or their own actions.

      Should I ever harm anyone I would compensate them probably better than any insurance company would.

    • Carol October 15, 2011, 9:14 pm

      Oh and by the way I forgot to mention this in the above post but I have read editorials in the newspaper (and yes I know that just because it is there it is not always factual or true) that was complaining about “illegal aliens”. The editorial was saying that he was hit in his car by an illegal alien (non us citizen) and the alien did not have a drivers license or registration or insurance! But the worst part about it was the cops refused to do anything about it. Refused to ticket or arrest the “illegal alien” or make him do anything. Wow! Of course now that we all know the cops couldn’t do anything because the “illegal alien” didn’t have any contracts with US Inc it should be clear why they could not and did not do anything about it.

      Now I don’t think it is proper that the guy (illegal alien) did not take responsibility for his actions, he should have, but this is just more evidence that there Mava (see below) is correct – there is no law BECAUSE there is ONLY CONTRACT!

  • John Jay October 15, 2011, 7:07 pm

    Wow Carol, you really are hard core!
    I am content to just keep fixing my old car, and deprive the State of California of sales tax by not buying a new car at all. Registration is only $50 a year. I only have liability insurance, I dropped collision and comprehensive years ago. You might be correct with all the research you have done, but I don’t want to argue Constitutional Law with some mentally unstable cop and his Watch Commander. I might not survive even 72 hours in jail. In addition, if someone crashes into your car and you are severly injured, I believe you can’t sue for damages in CA if you have no auto insurance yourself, and the other driver does. But if you feel that strongly about it, I admire your integrity.

  • Carol October 15, 2011, 6:09 pm

    Hey is that my ol friend David?

    Yes all governments today that I am aware of (there could be exceptions) are just corporations. All towns and cities are the same whether they state they are incorporated or not.

    The only “governments” that are not corporations are those that have a King/Queen as the ruler (think France, England, etc in days gone by).

    You see this MUST be the case because all men are equal. We are all born sovereign individuals whether some government entity agrees to that declaration or not. No man is born entitled with some “divine right” to rule over others, although many Kings “claimed” such right, it does not exist and is just a fraud. Therefore the only form of government that exists is a corporation that has NO POWER or authority over any other sovereign man or woman unless they consent to such authority. The problem is that consent is construed in such sneaky, wicked, fraudulent ways that it SEEMS that we do not have to give consent any longer but we still do. And you can stop consenting the day you figure out how you have been giving your consent.

  • David Lee October 15, 2011, 4:50 pm

    Carole, you say there are no more countries but only corporations. Are all so called ‘governments’ really just a form of corporate governance? If so, does this occur when a city, state, or country incorporates? Is the previous common law entity abandoned? What about towns and counties that do NOT incorporate. There are many in Tennesee?

  • JT October 15, 2011, 4:21 pm

    Carol, A. Rand Fan, Andy B, Chet, others: As I indicated above, and as I can tell from several of Carol’s responses she is fully aware, that Chris Hansen’s famguardian.org and associated links (esp. SEDM) provides ‘THE BOOK” you’re asking for. The Book will, as Carol has rightly stated, take years to fully grasp (get your head turned around straight), as it contains or references or summarizes all relevant statutes, court cases, decisions, etc. For myself, I started a little late in life to implement all the life modifications that Carol has made, but made sufficient number to remain substantially detached. Incidentally, reference to the question of travel by motorized contraption, or by foot or by horse for that matter, all such motorized contraptions come from the manufacturer with a Statement of Origin (an ORIGINAL ‘pink slip’), which all the official government DMV offices their State’s licensed re-seller’s to “disregard, and about which purchasers need not be informed as your sale will require that they complete the registration procedure and secure proof of ownership via the State-issued Certificate” (quote is from the DMV compliance handbook issued by California’s DMV to all licensed sellers/resellers in California). It’s easy to secure the copy of this document, but licensed dealers will NOT sell you a vehicle if you do NOT agree to State registration, which is usually accomplished in CA by having the purchaser sign two blank powers of attorney, which are then used as your written grant of ownership of the new vehicle to the State of California. Nifty.

    • Carol October 15, 2011, 6:01 pm

      Yup absolutely correct in CA and every other state.

      I, being informed at the time of my last acquisition of more household goods educated the dealer (he took some arm twisting to “let go of the MCO” without giving the car to the state) to indeed give me the MCO. The MCO along with bill of sale evidence true ownership of the “household goods”.

  • Steady Eddie October 15, 2011, 4:12 pm

    None of us can be free until we eliminate the property tax and the income tax. If you could get a parcel of land and live an agrarian lifestyle without ever having to pay any kind of ‘rental’ fee to the government then you will never lose your land. That is how one can live more free.

  • Chet October 15, 2011, 1:36 pm

    Thank you Carol,
    Please publish something on this subject and announce it on this site. I agree that this information is valuable and worth paying for.

  • Andy B October 15, 2011, 11:29 am

    Yes, Carol, you should write a book. Perhaps published with a pen name, if you like to protect your privacy. It could have the law as you understand it, and then your personal experience in testing and experiencing its application.

    Best to you and your adventures!!

  • A. Rand Fan October 15, 2011, 6:57 am

    Carole, I appreciate your efforts pursuing the Truth. You should write a book. I would pay with silver.

  • Terry S October 15, 2011, 5:48 am

    Hi Carol, I really like your posts. But re: the cop stop, I must agree with Mario. After facilitating 2 day traffic programs since 1994, must likely you would be arrested in San Diego, CA.

    • Carol October 15, 2011, 2:29 pm

      Terry,

      that is sad to hear because what I have done and what I am advocating is 100% legal within their laws and statutes so if I was arrested it would be 100% false arrest and they would be held accountable for such.

      Now how would I handle a false arrest? Easy, I would not resist or fight them as clearly they are big bullies. I would never give a name or NEVER sign anything. Having been jailed twice I am quite aware of how they handle arrests. They will never ever allow you to “see a judge” without first consenting to such. That is, they need your signature and your name before they will book you, mug shot you, or fingerprint you. Most are fooled into signing innocuous looking paperwork that says they took personal items from you like earrings, or “money” out of your pockets. BUT don’t sign it not matter how innocuous it looks. Because to sign it you have to ADMIT being the “defendant” or “accused” or a “person”. So by law they can only hold you (remember they are only a corporation) for up to 72 hours. If you don’t consent within 72 hours they must let you go. Then when they let you go you can get them for false arrest.

      So yes again I am not afraid of being arrested (although I do not like it or do not want it to happen) I accept it as a possibility and act accordingly.

  • Carol October 15, 2011, 12:12 am

    Angry, “Clever Citizen Carole,”

    first I am not a Citizen (= subject) of any corporation and the only thing left on the face of the earth right now are corporations ONLY. NO countries are left.

    As to the world wide protest I am saddened. The people do not understand what has happened to them and worst they don’t understand what the good solutions are so they will be hoodwinked into begging for more big government “solutions” which will just embolden their masters even more.

    I do not want the “revolutions” that are taking place as I feel that we will get something even worst than we already have. The solution the only solution is one man or woman at a time standing, as I have done, and legally NOT CONSENTING to being one of their slaves any longer.

  • Angry Anarchy Abroad Fibonaccing Feverously Fast October 14, 2011, 11:54 pm

    Clever Citizen Carole, how does the current planetwide virally spreading raging envy anarchy, cause you to feel?
    Mad, sad, glad, or just… plain scared?

    LONDON (Reuters) – “For an October revolution, dress warm. That’s the word going out – politely – on the Web to rally street protests on Saturday around the globe from New Zealand to Alaska via London, Frankfurt, Washington and, of course, New York, where the past month’s Occupy Wall Street movement has inspired a worldwide yell of anger at banks and financiers.

    How many will show up, let alone stay to camp out to disrupt city centers for days, or months, to come, is anyone’s guess… Rome expects tens of thousands at a national protest of more traditional stamp.”

    It’s mob time, Curious Carole. And there’s very little time, until it’s guillotine time.

    And no one cares, how well you thunk. For all that matters, is how well you run.

    Or, better yet, becoming bosom buddies, with your local Madame Defarge.

    Hahahaha.

  • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:49 pm

    Farmer, I appreciate your time to read and try to understand.

    However as you stated only residents (US persons living in foreign lands – foreign to Washington DC – where they are legally domiciled) can request and get government benefits like food stamps so yes if you want any government benefits you must be a US person which means government issued id, etc.

    As to the markets, they baffle the hell out of me. I used to trade them but have been unable for awhile now since they are truly in some kind of fantasy land.

  • Farmer Tom October 14, 2011, 11:40 pm

    Your article is way over my head Carol so I won’t presume I can get involved in the conversation except to say that there are still ways one can live within society and still stand apart from it. Keeping your independence is no easy task. Living without credit is a perfect example and this is surely one of the ties that bind us all as money is at the heart of population management. Hell, even food stamps come on plastic and you must produce picture ID on demand if asked (so we keep being told) while not doing so is a reason to get locked up.

    That aside, did you watch todays markets? We are within a whisper of 1223.00 on the S&P but could not seem to quite get there.

    My best guess is we will fall back Monday and there will be another attempt the next day. I was fascinated by the comments of Mr Cohen that Rick had published yesterday (can’t seem to locate them now) wherein he suggest we could be headed for a period of serious inflation and therefore a terrific bull run could be the outcome.

    The commoditization of stocks may just be getting underway, well ahead of schedule. He may be right. We will have our answer within weeks depending on the actions prescribed by Germany and France to ring-defend the Euro banks. Is a European QE coming to match that just introduced by England? This will be a very interesting month to watch, no doubt.

  • Chris T. October 14, 2011, 11:27 pm

    One more comment:

    Irving Schiff and those other income tax protesters may acutally be legally correct (don’t know, but it would fit with the above), but it is no help to them.
    They still go to jail, their attempts at vindicating their rights are foiled at every step.

    not to mention Martin Armstrong….

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:44 pm

      NO unfortunately Schiff and most other tax protesters really are incorrect. I have studied most of their theories and could shoot holes through them big enough to drive a truck through. Their hearts are in the right place but their understanding of the laws (contract, etc) are not developed well enough to see where they are wrong.

  • Chris T. October 14, 2011, 11:17 pm

    Carol,

    “What breaks a clean title chain?
    …. happens EVERY time there is a foreclosure OR a levy on the property from some taxing agency. ”

    I am still confused about this.
    I thought the idea of allodial property rights (unless I am confusing this with allodial title, not clear on how both differ) was that the property COULD not be encumbered, at least not involuntarily.
    So, yes, if the owner chooses to encumber it by pledging as lien, then a foreclosure would seem possible.

    But how can a levy be placed on it as a tax, when the idea of allodial rights is that no such levy can be placed (because the levy implies less than full, non-obligation ownership)?

    And if something allodially titled/having allodial property rights can be taxed even so, what ultimately would such a right still mean?

    In any case, here in the East Coast, most of those rights emanated from grants by the Crown in the 17th century, and devolving from there.
    It would seem that for much of the land in the orig. 13 colonies (up to the Mississippi these went at one time), such an unbroken chain would be impossible to document.

    On top of which, even 350 years ago, there were fights between the various colonies as to how far their granted territory extended.
    In the case of NY and the rest of former New Holland, also Delaware, it gets worse, because they weren’t even originally British colonies, having been stolen by the Brits in various wars…

    I love the concept, esp. if one can prove the unbroken chain for some land somewhere, but wonder how many of us could ever find it / get there…

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:39 pm

      Chris,

      allodial title is not available as slaves are not sovereigns and therefore are not able to own land. Also all land has been pledged as of 1933 to the bankers to “save us” from bankruptcy. So allodial title can’t be had.

      However, since contract is still available and it is about the only right that US Inc still upholds (as everything they do is by contract) you can still CLAIM your contract rights as one of the “assigns” of a land grant/patent. However this can only be done IF you can prove you truly are a “assign” that is there is a clean title back to the original grant/patent. Ok that is how they differ.

      Now on to pledging the land. Yes an owner could mortgage the land BUT any time the land is taken/stolen/levied then the chain of title breaks and you cannot CLAIM “allodial property RIGHTS” on a piece of property that YOU can not proved you are an “assign”. I think the confusion might be because you don’t understand what takes place when a piece of property is stolen by a bank or taxing agency. They just take it and sell it. When that happens the previous owner did NOT assign it to the new owner so there is a break in the title chain. This is because the new owner (who buys it after it was stolen) is now NOT legally the real owner. Ownership cannot LEGALLY transfer through a theft; even if that theft LOOKS legal. So anyone who buys foreclosed or levied property is not a real owner of the property that is why “title insurance” is needed because the real owner may smarten up and figure out how to take his property back!

  • Kenneth Wulff October 14, 2011, 8:29 pm

    If there are any other websites that elucidate the legal matters discussed above, and/or effective remedies for these problems, I would greatly appreciate anyone posting them in the comments. Thanks to all contributors for your comments.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:05 pm

      Kenneth there are tons of other web sites. The problem I found is that things are so complicated and so many have so many theories it takes years to wade through all the garbage and find truth. I feel after 10+ years of full time study I have not only found but tested the truth. Unfortunately there is no one site to find the answers.

  • SB October 14, 2011, 8:07 pm

    Thanks to Carole and Rick for bringing this topic up. Glad to see there are also several others who have ventured in to this “No Man’s Land” of law.

    For what it’s worth, look up your state statute’s regarding vehicle licenses. Technically, they are only required if you are engaged in commerce. Vehicles are those methods of transport used to carry some item of commerce. Passengers are those that pay a “driver” for transport. If you are merely travelling with guests in your engine powered device, the roads are open for your use, without license (supreme court precedent). You are still liable for damages to other persons or property under common law, but as far as speeding, red light cameras, etc. you can simply opt-out as the infamous traffic court only has jurisdiction over vehicles and drivers. Google up common law defenses for traffic infractions, you will be able to find several.

    Also, anyone intersted in having alloidal property, look up land patents. This was how land was originally distributed to “the people” after our independence from England. You have to start looking yourself as a sovereign for this to make sense, which all of “the people” are. Soon I will buy a chunk of cheap dirt to go through the process of gaining a land patent. Then, once I’ve successfully learned the lawful process, I will work on my home.

    This all started, for me, when someone explained to me that, instead of saying The Constitution FOR the United States of America…which is correct, it is now called The Constitution OF the United States of America. Seems like someone wanted us to think that the Constitution was created by Fed Gov to govern the people, when it is actually The People creating the Constitution to establish Fed Gov with the rules of how Fed Gov is supposed to govern listed within. If you are the creator of a government, doesn’t that make you a sovereign? The subjects, originally meant to be those engaged in government service, are now the “citizens” by using some very specific language.
    Good luck to all in your efforts to attain more freedom.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:03 pm

      yup you are on the right path. Keep studying.

    • Chris T. October 14, 2011, 11:25 pm

      Ken,
      would you mind posting the Scotus precedent case reference you mention? Would like to look that up.
      In addition, that one has not been overuled?

      Finally by license, do you mean the one of the person, the driver’s license, or the one of the car, the license plate, or both?

  • Mario cavolo October 14, 2011, 6:37 pm

    you say “I am a non u.s. Citizen and non-resident.”

    And at which moment in time the authority person facijg you says to you, how’s that ma’am.? They don’t bother asking? Driver’s license? Nope. Ahh, Travel visa then?

    You then produce what document besides your passport which definitively and legally designates you as such
    claimed?

    I am in fact a U.S. Non resident citizen, living overseas more than 335 days per year. That gives me a first $92k income tax exemption IF I file on time and not too much
    else.

    If I live in the u.s. and just told a cop i am not a u.s. citizen and the cop for some reason decides not to pursue the veracity of my statement, it is indeed my lucky day the cop is too lazy or stupid to pursue it, but that doesn’t mean it is the inalienable truth and that I am free to be bouncing around planet earth as I wish.

    Govt has laws, many of which suck big time and many of which you are deeply thankful for, lest the society you live in would be a much worse and inconvenient nightmare than you bother to allow yourself to imagine. If you don’t believe me, just google a bit of history about daily life in the Dark Ages of Europe or the early years of the American frontier.

    Your approach Carole is appreciated as much as possible, yet so noted is it’s impractical and unrealistic idealism in the real world. There is nothing I want less than for some 3rd party to tell me what to do or that I somehow am supposed to give a substantial portion of my money or rights or free will to them for some bizarre reason which undoubtedly serves them more favorably than me. However that idea is my own unrealistic idealism which I may or may not be able to fulfill. Living overseas in China I am able to reasonably avoid much of such oppression and demand, from both America and China, which I judge unreasonable, however doing so is often quite
    inconvenient to say the least.

    Cheers, Mario

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:01 pm

      Mario,

      they can ask all they want they can’t demand. See above script of a typical stop. I have never given any evidence that I am one of their slaves and they know without that evidence they have no authority over me. Evidence = title, registration, drivers license! I have none of those to give. I also refuse to give a name (= a signature on a contract = consent). See above script, works every time.

      Don’t say my approach is impractical or unrealistic because for me – “give me death or give me liberty” is my motto and I shall live and die by it. I am extreme, yes, but I have my morals and I refuse to be anyone’s slave!

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:22 pm

      “give me death or give me liberty”

      Opps meant

      “give me liberty or give me death” Patrick Henry

    • Mario cavolo October 16, 2011, 4:16 am

      Carol I want to appreciate as much as I can about your experience and insights but I am certain that you are not driving around freely and legally on public roads in a chunk of formed plastic, metal and glass with four wheels rotating on bearings without a drivers license. You are not free to do so in any way shape or form and I am forced to caution any reader here on the misdirection of your ideals. I am thankful for the good things govts do to create and maintain civility and protection of people in a given small or large community. You still haveny answered the inquiry of why you were pulled over in the first place and the presumption of “evidence” such as the crinme of speeding or running a stop, which an officer possesses giving him full rights to ask for your license to operate behind the wheel of the chunk of metal with four
      wheels on the public roadways.

      Are you STATING clearly that there is a free, clear and legal way to drive a vehicle on the public roads without needing to be able to have in your possession a driver’s license, which gives the society and people amongst which you are driving some assurance you are aware of the rules governing the roads and have been properly trained in the skills to drive a vehicle , which itself is also freely allowed to be rolling on the road? Yes or no, is there a clearly free and known and legal way that is procedurally executable which does not land you in jail if it were to come to the ‘ state’s attention? Or, is it a ‘punishable’ crime but in fact it is impossible to get caught? A person is ‘free’ to accept cash as payment for an effort or widget they just provided and easy to remain unknown to any one else. However, It is regarded as an impossible to catch hidden punishable ‘crime’ none the less until it may be revealed somehow.

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 3:09 pm

      Mario,

      please see my above response to you.

      I can assure you that I am MOST DEFINITELY traveling around the public roads in my “chunk of formed plastic, metal and glass with four wheels rotating on bearings” and I LEGALLY DO NOT NEED a drivers license because I AM NOT DRIVING!

      You obviously have never studied the law have you? No you have not. In the law words mean specific things. “Driving” means that I am involved in commerce. I am not involved in commerce so I am not driving. Now before you run out and ditch your drivers license you must understand the law. You are most definitely involved in commerce if you are operating a “motor vehicle” which in the law means a commercial vehicle. Now once the new car has been registered with the STATE you can’t just say it is not a commercial motor vehicle because it is most definitely such or you would not have given it to the state. You cannot just unregister it and say “oopps I didn’t mean to mis-characterize my new car. It is really NOT a commercial motor vehicle. My bad”. But there are legal ways to do that that I will not go into here on this forum.

      Please Mario quit making claims about the law as you obviously have NEVER studied the law at all!

      Mario >>”You still haveny answered the inquiry of why you were pulled over in the first place and the presumption of “evidence” such as the crinme of speeding or running a stop, which an officer possesses giving him full rights to ask for your license to operate behind the wheel of the chunk of metal with four wheels on the public roadways. ”

      I have answered above. I missed these posts earlier and just found them. Even IF I had been stopped because I ran a red light or whatever, the cop (code enforcement officer, employee of US Inc) has NO authority over non – US Inc employees – PERIOD!

      Mario, you have no idea what you are talking about, you have never studied the law, and you are talking totally and completely from a place of ignorance which was drilled into you by your ignorant parents, neighbors, and public school teachers. Until you study the law don’t comment on anything I have said on this forum.

    • Farmer Tom October 17, 2011, 12:06 am

      “Until you study the law don’t comment on anything I have said on this forum”.
      ——————–
      I see you are getting to be fierce Carol. You must be a warrior. I was kind of curious about the driving without a license idea too. How on earth do you get away with driving without license plates though? Assuming you registered your vehicle. I mean, that is an automatic stop anywhere I have ever been. You would not last one afternoon on the road.

    • Carol October 17, 2011, 12:37 am

      Farmer >> “I was kind of curious about the driving without a license idea too. How on earth do you get away with driving without license plates though? Assuming you registered your vehicle. ”

      I know this forum is difficult to follow with all the varied posting but where did I ever say that my vehicle was registered? Nor did I ever say or incinuate that I was “getting away” with anything. I am following the law. Listen up guys, I am within their laws always! In fact I am following the law CLOSER than you are because I am sure you are not actually involved in commerce with your car so you LIED to the State when you said you were!

      When the “vehicle” is first registered that ACT does two things:
      1) classifies the car as a commercial motor vehicle. Which means it is conducting business and using the PUBLIC roadways to make a profit. This is like taxi drivers and trucks that carry goods for sale.
      2) you give ownership of the vehicle to the State. It now belongs to the state.

      Once the ownership to that vehicle is with the State, the State is NEVER going to give it back to anyone, so after that initial mis-classification and GIFT, it belongs to the State forever. So when you think you are selling it you are only selling the beneficial use of it. The State still owns it and can therefore require you to license, tag, insure it etc.

      I have never ever titled my personal car with ANY State ever. So it is not a commercial motor vehicle WITHIN THE LAW so I do not need a license to use it.

      And Farmer I have been legally doing this for over 12 years and have NEVER EVER had ANY problems with it.

  • redwilldanaher October 14, 2011, 5:45 pm

    I’ve been expecting Rick to publish something of this flavor for a while and I’m glad to see that he has done so. It’s nice to see Steve F. mentioned since he repeatedly raised similar issues many times.

    Carole’s freedoms are temporary. I’m glad that she has found them but they remain temporary. Absolute Tyranny is never as far off as the facades would have you believe IMO.

    Brilliance from the 1860’s courtesy of Lysander Spooner: No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority:

    The libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard, leader of the more modern anarcho-capitalism movement, called No Treason “the greatest case for anarchist political philosophy ever written.”

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

    Search further and you’ll find nuggets that “modernize” this masterpiece somewhat.

    Wayne

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 10:56 pm

      Red life is temporary everything on this earth is temporary. Just because something is tenuous or temporary does not mean it is not a worthy goal. I refuse to be any ones slave. Many of my friends over the years have called me crazy and don’t understand my motivation. Well I can’t answer that other than to say I am cut from a different bolt of cloth than most 🙂

      ps I agree Lysandar Spooner’s no treason is an EXCELLENT read.

    • redwilldanaher October 16, 2011, 1:44 am

      Carol, I made no case that it wasn’t a worthy goal. My point is that it is an illusion that could change at anytime and for literally billions over the course of history it has, and suddenly. For example, you could become a political prisoner next week. I’m sure you are aware that it the good old USA holds political prisoners. In other words, while I applaud your circumvention, it will cease to be effective when TPTB decide that more persuasive measures are necessary.

  • Mark Uzick October 14, 2011, 5:43 pm

    Carol: I’m sorry about the mess. I give up; if you care to know what I replied, then just insert my 3rd reply between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of my 1st reply. For some reason, the comment box won’t let me do it.

    • mava October 14, 2011, 9:04 pm

      There is some sort of bug in the code of this forum. I noticed it as well. For me it is this: I’d decide to make a correction somewhere as I type, and so I try to click there, to place the cursor at the position I want.

      Then, say, I need a new line there, so I hit enter.

      Doing so results in cursor jumping to an unpredictable location within a post I am typing.

      If this is what is happening to you, and you are not watching for this, then you will end up typing in a wrong spot.

      &&&&&

      My apologies for this problem. I will bring it to the attention of my web site manager. RA

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 10:54 pm

      been having trouble myself 🙁

  • Mark Uzick October 14, 2011, 5:33 pm

    One more try to get it all together:

    Carol:

    >>>Again if there is any issue with the word “anarchy” that I used it is not your definition (As “anarchy” means the absence or failure of government) it is my definition that I gave (“absence of all … or coercive government as a political ideal”).<“a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society”. <<>>“a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society”. <<<

    is not actually "liberty", but is really a definition of "pacifism".

    While the state uses force and coercion to implement its aggression, voluntary government also requires force and coercion, in a defensive mode, to enforce legitimate law.

    • Seawolf October 14, 2011, 6:31 pm

      While this is not one of the formal definitions of anarchy it is how I like to define it “I allow the world to live as it chooses and I allow myself to live as I chose”.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 10:53 pm

      Seawolf – agree mine too!

  • Mark Uzick October 14, 2011, 5:26 pm

    I don’t know why this keeps happening. The following is missing between the 1st & 3rd paragraphs of both attempted comments, that otherwise make no sense:

    First: Thank you for listening; not merely reacting, as most “anarchists” would, to what I’ve said.

    I’m fully aware that you’re using a different definition, but I have two issues with your definition:

    1. The whole point that I was making is that the definition of “anarchy” that I believe you mean, which is different than the one you state (I’ll get to that in issue #2.) : “voluntary, IE legitimate government” or “liberty” is the statist inspired definition of anarchy; it’s how statists describe “liberty” to discredit it; it goes against the word’s etymology and the common understanding of what “anarchy” means.

    Sure, you can choose to define a word anyway you wish, but there ought to be some sense to doing so. You could also choose to define “Stalin-ism” as “liberty”; you, of course wouldn’t and for the same reason you shouldn’t use “anarchy” that way.

    2. The actual definition of “anarchy” that you use:

    >>“a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society”. <<<

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 11:19 pm

      Mark, that definition that I use I actually cut and pasted from wiki so I did not make it up. However, there are other definitions there that are more inline to what most assume anarchy to be so I wanted to make sure I defined my definition. Whatever word I use I think it is clear what I mean (I hope) to my readers here.

  • Mark Uzick October 14, 2011, 5:12 pm

    Carol:

    >>>Again if there is any issue with the word “anarchy” that I used it is not your definition (As “anarchy” means the absence or failure of government) it is my definition that I gave (“absence of all … or coercive government as a political ideal”).<<>“a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society”. <<<

    is not actually "liberty", but is really a definition of "pacifism".

    While the state uses force and coercion to implement its aggression, voluntary government also requires force and coercion, in a defensive mode, to enforce legitimate law.

    • Mark Uzick October 14, 2011, 5:17 pm

      I don’t know why my previous comment became so mangled. This is how it should have read:

      Carol:

      >>>Again if there is any issue with the word “anarchy” that I used it is not your definition (As “anarchy” means the absence or failure of government) it is my definition that I gave (“absence of all … or coercive government as a political ideal”).<<>“a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society”. <<<

      is not actually "liberty", but is really a definition of "pacifism".

      While the state uses force and coercion to implement its aggression, voluntary government also requires force and coercion, in a defensive mode, to enforce legitimate law.

  • John Jay October 14, 2011, 5:01 pm

    Carole,
    I bought my car brand new in 1986 and I had to pay the California sales tax back then. That was 379,000 miles ago, and the registration should come back down to $50 at the next renewal. The title is in my name, not the State of California. Did you buy a new car for cash, and never registered it or received a title to it from the state you reside in? That might provoke the authorities if you get involved in a traffic stop.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 10:52 pm

      John,

      Yes the “certificate of title” names you as the “beneficial owner” not the real owner just one who has beneficial use rights.

      yes I bought (not purchased since I used money – silver) a car new, never registered it with any state.

      NO since I have no contracts with them and the car is not theirs I does NOT provoke any of the authorities if done correctly which I do. See above.

  • Carol October 14, 2011, 4:36 pm

    I am enjoying discussing with you all about my ideas but I have a commitment that will take me away from my computer for a few hours. Please continue to comment or ask me questions I will respond later this afternoon (est).

  • JT October 14, 2011, 4:08 pm

    For very detailed, lucid discussion of all the points raised by Carol and more, visit Chris Hansen’s site @ famguardian.org. Unfortunately, the fraud and misrepresentation in this country has proceeded to the point that it takes nearly forever just to figure out what a “statutory US citizen” is (Carol’s US Person) versus one whose citizenship derives from having been born within one of the sovereign commonwealths or republics and who has not yet sought “federal recognition.” And then as soon as you get this far, you discover that every single one of these originally sovereign entities in which you were born has been corrupted by “vote of the people” who ignorantly checked the box ‘US Citizen’ ensuring that the document thus approved by vote was one with Federal Zone status only — the result: jurisdictions such as “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” where originally there existed the Republic of California under its constitution of 1849. Thank you for your Newsletter, Rick, and the contributions of your incredibly talented subscribers.

  • John Jay October 14, 2011, 3:48 pm

    If Carole decides to disengage from the government as much she can, good for her. As long as you do not provoke them with a threat to their money or power, they don’t care. My own plan is to game the system as much as I can. I want to draw Social Security as soon as I can, and study their rules, and pay as little taxes into the system as possible. I am going to keep driving my old car. I am not going to give the State of California sales tax and annual registration revenue on a new car.
    I always return plastic bottles to get the $.05 back, I won’t toss them in the trash and give the state even a nickel if I can help it. Unless someone comes along with a grassroots movement to change the rules in our favor, passive/agressive resistance is the only option available to us.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 4:06 pm

      Good for you John and that is what each of us should do. Find as much freedom and self direction in any way and at any time that we can. I always say practice civil disobedience!

      Further, this is not an all or nothing deal! Each interaction with the “authorities” gives us a new chance to take control to the degree we want to.

      I agree about not provoking them and opening myself on this forum is not what I usually do just for that reason (I am very private most of the time).

      As far as not giving the State of California sales taxes etc for your car that may be a real issue. You see when that car was originally purchased the original owner gave it to the State (they now own it) and it was categorized as a commercial motor carrier. You (or the original owner) was then given the privilege to use it (not own it) and that is evidenced by the “certificate of title” and the tags that are issued and owned by that State. Can a corporation put their property (tags) on your property (car) if they did not own it? Of course not. Therefor it is the States property and they can do with it what they want (including taking it back, seizing it) and forcing you to get a license to drive their car. So be careful doing those kinds of thing.

      I myself bought a new car (in 2004) using silver and frns and never gave it to the State so it is my property and not theirs. Therefore I legally need no insurance or license to travel in it.

    • Mario cavolo October 14, 2011, 6:03 pm

      About the car… Oh really? And so when you are pulled over what then??

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 10:50 pm

      Mario,

      see above! I have never been arrested at a traffic stop, never had my car impounded!

    • Chris T. October 14, 2011, 11:37 pm

      that is cool.
      Here in NJ though, wouldn’t make to work on any day for the number of times I would be pulled over, if not arrested….

      If one chose to do as you, but voluntarily consent to obtain private insurance for it, would that convert it to state ownership?

    • Carol October 15, 2011, 12:01 am

      Chris, oh yes you would. I never said what kind of “tag” is on MY car. I use a collectors tag that looks very much like a “real” tag so I have never ever been pulled over because some cop though I was up to something 🙂
      and since it is my car I can put anything on it I want.

      I could insure it if I wanted to but I would have to insure it as “household goods” because it legally is not a motor vehicle and to get “car insurance” it has to be a motor vehicle (a commercial vehicle titled and registered as such).

  • jeff kahn October 14, 2011, 3:42 pm

    Thought provoking. But I don’t get the “hows.” How do declare yourself an alien? Who recognizes this declarartion? What happens to your soc sec number? How do buy allodial land? Or how do you declare you land to be allodial? Do you have a bank account? Didn’t you need a soc sec number to open it? Love to hear some details.

    Thanks,
    jeff

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 4:19 pm

      Jeff, that is a difficult one. It took me 10 years and tons of full-time study to come to the conclusions and direct my life as I do now. I would be most unable to give you a formula in a forum like this. I can give you high level details but to do it properly you would have to understand what you were doing and that would take study and time. There is no short cuts here.

      “How do declare yourself an alien? Who recognizes this declarartion?”

      While I have done such in the past I have come to the conclusion that any such declaration using “your” name is worthless as that name truly is a US Inc owned corporate entity so how can IT declare that IT is not a US Inc owned corporate entity? It can’t. So no you do not have to and can’t declare to anyone that you are an alien. You do it when you are approached by any “authority”. My answer is always – “I am a non US citizen and a non-resident”. They almost always leave me alone after that statement!

      “What happens to your soc sec number?”

      Nothing! Even though I tried to relinquish it, it is not possible. It is their number they own it, you can’t get rid of it. If you don’t want it just don’t use it! I have existed for the last 15 years without one. If I wanted to collect SS when my “person” is old enough I still can (if it is still available and I am that desperate that is).

      “How do buy allodial land? Or how do you declare you land to be allodial? ”

      Yes you have to do a through title search and if you can find a clean title that has been specifically assigned all the way back to the original land patent/grant then you can CLAIM (in court) those rights and they will be yours!

      “Do you have a bank account? Didn’t you need a soc sec number to open it?”

      I use non-resident alien, non statutory “trusts” to conduct my business. They are non taxable even though they do have TIN (irs tax id numbers) so they can open brokerage accounts (non taxable) and bank accounts.

    • Robert October 14, 2011, 6:25 pm

      “You do it when you are approached by any “authority”. My answer is always – “I am a non US citizen and a non-resident”. They almost always leave me alone after that statement”

      – Fascinating- do they ever ask you for a passport or some other document to confirm your claim?

      I know others who have gone through the effort of establishing residence in another country under an assumed name. There are countries noted for being cooperative in issuing passports after one year of established residency. You could conceivably use such a passport to “travel” within the US as a foreign tourist.

      “I use non-resident alien, non statutory “trusts” to conduct my business. They are non taxable even though they do have TIN (irs tax id numbers) so they can open brokerage accounts (non taxable) and bank accounts.”

      -Very interesting.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 10:49 pm

      Robert – Fascinating- do they ever ask you for a passport or some other document to confirm your claim?

      Yes they always “request” such but if you understand both consent and contract what they are asking you is to consent to entering a verbal contract with them. I do not consent. Traffic stops pretty much go like this –

      cop – MAY I see your drivers license and registration please (see they are asking you to contract with them).

      me – I am not a us citizen, nor am I a resident, this is not my vehicle. Am I under arrest?

      cop – no

      me – am I free to go?

      cop – no

      me – then you must be conducting a custodial investigation. Do you have any evidence that I have committed a crime?

      cop – no

      me – am i under arrest?

      cop – no

      me – then am I free to go. (repeat as needed)

      cop – yes go on.

      no id, no papers, no nothing!

    • Mario cavolo October 16, 2011, 3:46 am

      Carol, sorry but WAY too many holes in your representations. If it was a traffic stop my dear then you needed a driver license, if you were pulled over it was for a reason which an officer has the right to ask about further to clarify in his civil role. Why were u pulled over in the first place? To be randomly harassed or what ??

    • Carol October 16, 2011, 2:52 pm

      Mario,

      the only time I have been pulled over in the last 12 years (since having no papers) was in traffic road block/drunk driving checks/nazi paper check points. At those stops I did NOT need a drivers license because I was not DRIVING! Driving is a legal term that means I am using the PUBLIC roads for profit (e.g, a taxi driver, or hauling other peoples property). I am not driving so I don’t need a license. I am traveling not driving. I have a right to travel on the public roads, but I don’t have a right to drive. Therein lies the difference.

      Now the problem with people like you arises when you first bought the car from a new car dealer you VOLUNTARILY gave your new car to the STATE and when you did this you told the STATE that you would be using the new car for commercial purposes! Now that new car belongs to the STATE and you are thereafter REQUIRED to be licensed, insured, wear a seat belt, etc. I never did this so I have NO legal obligation to do those things.

      Please open your eyes you are so blinded by what you have BELIEVED to be true your whole life. No one made you give your new car to the STATE you did it yourself through IGNORANCE. That is not the STATE’s problem as they NEVER forced you to do that. Take responsibility for yourself and quit telling me I have done something illegal, unethical, or immoral.

  • RichardB October 14, 2011, 2:57 pm

    An interesting article today. I enjoy reading these since I do learn from them.

    It is my understanding that although the courts used to be independent and superior to the state, the legislation passed after 9/11 includes a method for the state to bypass legislation by a presidential declaration. That is the reason for CIA prisons, people tried in secret, spying on their own citizens, and many other such things.

    If that is true, the obvious question is how something ultra vires could come about to invert the power of the people yet again.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 3:03 pm

      Richard,
      the people still have much power for they are the creators of this whole corporate nonsense (in the collective that is). BUT persons have NO power whatsoever and are at the total whim of congress. Since all US persons are domiciled in Washington DC and congress has exclusive 100% jurisdiction (authority) over its persons/creations without ANY limitations, congress can “legally” do whatever they want to US persons without any limits. The only limits that they use now are to “pretend” that there is still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights so that the people do not riot in the streets and hang them from the lampposts as I think might happen should the people wake up and see the truth.

  • Benjamin October 14, 2011, 9:30 am

    The 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Become a foreigner in a foreign land, and you lose all those rights. You can be searched without a warrant, beaten into a confession, jailed/executed without a trial, denied the right to keep and bear arms… And you’d live free-er than the rest of us suckers, how?

    “So why is it that we have bought into believing that we are all “U.S. citizens” by virtue of where our mothers happen to have been when they gave birth to us?”

    Because it allows us to overcome the obvious problem of a baby (born to citizen parents) being unable to decide for itself if it will stay in the country, and enjoy the rights and protections of the United States Constitution, or leave for elsewhere. Naturally, this citizenship status must remain until either the parents or the adult person legitimately decides otherwise. Legit, self-surrendured citizenship simply means obtaining citizenship elsewhere. Why is that the only legitimate way?

    Because of the protections which are yours by birth. That protection of personal choice means that neither government, neighbor, friend, family, or total stranger can just arbitarily revoke your birthright. Nor can you yourself just up and say you’re not a citizen. Why? I’ll put it like this…

    If it is sufficient to just say that one renounces their citizenship, then it equally suffices for anyone to just say that they are a citizen. And that being the case, everyone in the world would have to be considered a U.S. citizen.

    (Kind of like we already do for known, foreign jihadists or anyone that just plain hates this country and our Constitution (up to and including the illgegal government and central banking system that has taken root here)).

    And if one can interpret certain actions or inactions (like not flying) to be sufficient revocation, then I can just easily say that flying Southwest Airlines makes me a U.S. citizens (but if I chose British Airways, I guess I would instantly become a Brit?).

    In other words, because it would be both silly and dangerously close to NWO to recognize anything less than a legitimate change in citizenship status.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 2:37 pm

      Ben,

      the 14th amendment gives “US citizens” (= corporate persons) “privileges” whereas non 14th Amendment people have unalienable rights whether they were born on the North American continent or not! Would you rather be “covered” by the Bill of Rights (available ONLY to non 14 amend citizens) or be “covered” by congresses exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC? (which includes all US citizens who are domiciled by definition in Washington DC and are therefore under US Incs jurisdiction).

      citizenship is only available to people within countries NOT persons within corporations. You can’t even renounce citizenship any longer as there is no united States country from which to give up! It is all a fraud.

      You are still wearing the blinders on that was sold to you in public school.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 3:29 pm

      Ben,

      let me also add that within US Inc (its agencies, courts, police, etc) it is illegal and you can be thrown in jail for saying that you are a US citizen (US person) if you are not such BUT there is no law that say it is illegal to say you are NOT a US person if you are!!!

  • Chris T. October 14, 2011, 9:10 am

    Carol,

    very thought provoking.

    One question though:

    I had read the wiki entry about allodial title before, and you link to it above.
    That article rather clearly states that true allodial title is rare (nonexistent in the UK).
    They characterize our land-ownership as being “in fee simple”, and that there is, for the reasons given, no true allodial land in the US either.

    That doesn’t seem to agree with your comments above.
    Of course wiki always needs to be taken with some caution, so perhaps you can fill in the blank here.

    Thanks!

    BTW: wish it were so easy to forego flying, but when one has to / wants to go to Europe, there is virtually no choice.
    I choose the groping, it is offensive, but at least one does not get exposed to the scanners, whose waves were just recently revealed, by MIT, to damage DNA.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 2:42 pm

      Chris T,

      Correct don’t beleive everything in wiki.

      Yes Steve F. was correct that 14th amend citizens do not have the privileged of owning land with allodial title any longer. BUT if you understand land grants and that fact that they will never die AS LONG AS there is a clear title (assignments) all the way back from present owner to the actual land grant/patent!

      I tend to think the present foreclosure crisis was in small part a way to “mess up” the titles to most land on the land mass known as the United States so that there would be a unclean title chain back to the land grants/patents to do away with “allodial land RIGHTS”. But that would just be my skeptical mind at work.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 3:52 pm

      Sorry for not being clear. I tend to shoot something off my hip and do not always explain myself very well. So let me try to better explain myself as to “allodial land rights”.

      With allodial land rights (not “allodial title” which is no longer available in US Inc) people can claim the “rights” that were originally granted by the original patent/grant (whatever those original rights were) as long as there is a clean title chain on that land (notice I didn’t say property). These land rights will legally pass to all “heirs and assigns forever” from the original patent/grant holder. But to CLAIM those rights you must be able to prove you are a true assign (or heir) of that original patent/grant holder. So to do that you must be able to show that the land was ASSIGNED from that original patent holder all the way down to you in a clean title chain or you must be able to show that you are an heir to that original patent holder (and all previous owners were heirs – most unlikely).

      What breaks a clean title chain? The only way to break a clean title chain is to steal the property (or confiscate it) from its owner and then sell it without any assignment from that owner. This happens EVERY time there is a foreclosure OR a levy on the property from some taxing agency. Bottom line is if the land you now occupy was ever confiscated for a tax lien or a foreclosure there is an unclean title chain and the original land rights can NOT pass to you.

      This is why I suspect the present “foreclosure crisis” as playing a part in destroying what was left of the allodial property rights on the land mass known as the United States.

  • Mark Uzick October 14, 2011, 7:56 am

    Anarchy means: “without rule” or “without government” so, as ideologues of the totalitarian state that we know as communists can tell you: Anarchy is the ultimate culmination of the absolute state.

    A thief is not a ruler.
    A slave master is not a ruler.
    Only free men can be rulers.

    Therefore:

    Only voluntary government is real government.
    The state is anarchy.

    I regret having to append “voluntary” to “government” as the term is redundant; after all, any legitimate organization conducts business on a voluntary basis.

    The state is not a form of government at all; at least, not any legitimate or legal form of government. How can an aggressive monopoly of the use of force be considered a government? Of course, real governments – entities that govern or control – are ubiquitous to civilization: from the self-government of the person to organizations of ever-increasing complexity, that if at least partly legitimate, to the extent that they are so, derive their right to govern from the governed’s consent, through the governed’s voluntary delegation of his right to non-aggressive self-government.

    Again; this time I regret having to append “non-aggressive” to “self-government”; after all, ”government” means ”control”; while you may assume that a criminal is in control of his actions, criminal behavior is not what we mean when we insist that he exercise self-control, nor should it mean the exercise of self-government nor government on any scale.

    There is no ruler without rule, lawmakers without law or government of a state; only tyrants, criminals and slavery.

    Because tyrants and criminals of the state have no authority, cannot, as slaves themselves, be said to rule and constitute no real government, they, as a deception to help perpetuate their power, support the pretense of possessing authority, being rulers and running a government.

    A tyrant wants you to believe he is a ruler and has authority, but a true ruler is no tyrant and his authority comes only from consent of the governed.

    Do you have the right to rule your own life? Yes? Then you are a ruler.

    As “anarchy” means the absence or failure of government and the resultant disorder, a society of voluntary government is the opposite of anarchy and it does have rulers.

    Unlike anarchic fantasies (the absolute state) voluntary government is not some stupid Utopian fantasy; it exists everywhere you find any degree of civilized order and as it approaches its pure form, it won’t implode.

    To the extent that voluntary cooperation rules, you have civilized order. To the extent that the state suppresses the people’s government of their lives, you have poverty, waste, environmental destruction, crime and violence, anarchy, chaos, and war.

    If society hasn’t descended into anarchy; to whatever extent that civilized order exists, then to that degree there is self-government and all of its complex, multi layered and connected extensions of its authority.

    Liberty is a principle that governs human social order, not some state of Utopian purity. Even an inmate or a slave has some small degree of liberty.

    You may have heard the saying: “He who controls the language controls the debate.”

    The statists control the language; when we agree to the illogical, self-serving, statist notion that the state is the only legitimate meaning for “government”, then the notion that the state is an unfortunate but necessary evil logically follows; and so does the insane notion that a stateless society represents “anarchy”.

    In the bizarre statist view of the world, liberty is anarchy, so the state must regulate everything to keep us from hurting ourselves and each other; you may think that “statist-speak” is not confusing; and you think that telling people that we can live without government is not confusing, but that is a result of a lifetime of inculcation in the statist controlled language that causes anyone who expresses fundamental truths to sound insane and worthy of summary dismissal.

    Worse yet is that this corruption of language has a corrupting effect on our thinking process.

    By conflating liberty with anarchy, libertarians are prone to confusing liberty with anti-libertarian anarchist beliefs, such as the notion that hierarchical social structure is authoritarian. A hierarchical social structure is an important component of human nature. Hierarchical organizations are not inherently aggressive any more than people or non-aggressive any more than people. If I choose to voluntarily delegate authority to a person or an organization, what right do you have to prevent me from doing so if this organization commits no aggression? A stateless society can and probably would have many very large governmental structures, both civil and common. And so finally we come to another of my objections to the use of “anarchy” as a classical liberal ideal.”

    “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell

    I admit that the statists are in control of the language. That’s why I’m forced to use a redundant term like “voluntary government” to avoid any confusion and why, in the vernacular, I understand that “the government” is referring to the state.

    Until society is enlightened to libertarianism, the parts of my observations that the state is really no government at all and is, in fact, what is anarchic in society might not be easy for the general public to digest, but then is there anything about libertarianism that’s easy for the public to digest? I think that the argument, once it sinks in, is intuitive, powerful and easier to accept than anarchy.

    • Carol October 14, 2011, 2:51 pm

      Mark,

      I think we are saying the same thing. I was limited by Rick in the number of words I could use so I didn’t get into what you have eloquently shown, but I agree with you that >>>

      “Only voluntary government is real government.
      The state is anarchy.”

      Mark >> “As “anarchy” means the absence or failure of government and the resultant disorder, a society of voluntary government is the opposite of anarchy and it does have rulers.”

      Again if there is any issue with the word “anarchy” that I used it is not your definition (As “anarchy” means the absence or failure of government) it is my definition that I gave (“absence of all … or coercive government as a political ideal”).