Making the Case for Private Law and Defense From Scratch
Posted by nonconformist 9 months ago to Government
Video: https://youtu.be/SQsObJlzI2U
His definition of the state can use some work, but otherwise it is an excellent presentation. I would propose the same type of ideas and arguments except in some cases I think I have a little bit improved versions.
His definition of the state can use some work, but otherwise it is an excellent presentation. I would propose the same type of ideas and arguments except in some cases I think I have a little bit improved versions.
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/SQsObJlzI2U
Solution is already available. Grand Jury
US v Williams SCOTUS decision 1992
Grand Juries may investigate, issue subpoena and indict to bring trial into a court setting.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...
Under "Opinion" choose the version you wish to read. Midway through begins the expression of Grand Jury being fourth branch of government relegated solely to the people.
The following is one uptake in educating the folks of this country.
https://www.wethepeople2.us/common-la...
They have been hidden from the general population intentionally.
I've been off-handedly studying this for the past 20 years. The past 4 have been focused on Constitutional law and it's history, all the way back to the Treaty of Verona and The Magna Carta.
I'm actually defending my Right to Travel, Constitutionally, from my local municipality.
I looked into these concepts but all I see are arbitrary made up assertions that aren't necessarily backed by something irrefutable.
I refuse to accept the "Constitution" as something that I need to adhere to. The only way you are going to persuade me to do that is that if you can PROVE it somehow logically. Ya, if you can, I'll accept it. That hasn't been done, and probably never be done because I already see big problems with it from a mile away which can't be reconciled.
The Constitution, Magna Carta, etc are feeble attempts of the mentally and physically enslaved at attaining freedom. These didn't really do much. Slavery is still around, and it probably got worse.
I'm just going to cut to the final solution: abolition of the state. No more bullshit, kill it.
I think that they serve as models, when given a choice, to adopt as an individual, or reject, is proper.
These things are social contracts upon which we are indoctrinated ..... cult-ures. "CULT"
I deal with what is ... de facto. I don't like it under any context. I've only wanted to be left alone to trade as I will. All trade is equity. Agreed upon exchanged value for value. This is how I live, conduct my affairs and present myself.
The following is from an American prose interpretation of tao te'ching. The last four lines pretty much sum up my actions/philosophy. Of course, this is a simplicity beyond the complexity of what I have experienced. Yet, an apt model for behavior.
A realm is governed by ordinary acts,
A battle is governed by extraordinary acts;
The world is governed by no acts at all.
And how do I know?
This is how I know.
Act after act prohibits
Everything but poverty,
Weapon after weapon conquers
Everything but chaos,
Business after business provides
A craze of waste,
Law after law breeds
A multitude of thieves.
Therefore a sensible man says:
If I keep from meddling with people, they take care of themselves,
If I keep from commanding people, they behave themselves,
If I keep from preaching at people, they improve themselves,
If I keep from imposing on people, they become themselves.
This is objective philosophy that predates Rand by some 2600 years. Now, when another preaches, commands, meddles or imposes upon me, do I just kill them and be done with the matter?
When I talk to some of you guys, I am having to concentrate extra hard just to understand the points that some of you are making. Sometimes they make absolutely no sense.
For example, there was someone talking to me about free will as if it was a real thing. However, in my view it is just a made up word for something that nobody understands. How do you even prove anything about it? In my view, most of philosophy is just gobbledygook and a play on words that have nothing to do with reality.
There are 3 more options:
1. try to persuade them not to do it
2. make it physically impossible by increasing distance between you such that no effect can be had (the "run away" option)
3. enslave them
#2 if I steal aboard a boat bound for the farthest shores, I find that humanity follows me there .... saturation of the same difficulties.
#3 meddles, commands and imposes.
We try to agree upon codes of conduct where we are free of arbitrary aggressions of others, promising to not do the same. The Magna Carta is the first of these declarations. It's a start. Objective philosophy is the study of real Life interactions, tangible situations, reconcilable means resulting in Codes or LAW.
We have been indoctrinated into a cult-ure of LAW (Land, Air, Water) known as a Constitution. We were born without choice. The Constitution for the united States of America (note the spelling capitalization, it is important) is the first comprehensive attempt at codifying know philosophical contexts of agression and non-agression that limit the powers of government and acknowledge, the people, the Rights to amend the code should it prove inequitable. A conceptual idea of right and wrong, philosophically, was necessary to bring this code into being. John Locke is the purported source of the clearest iteration of the time. His writing being the most influential, yet not necessarily the objective maxim that may be expressed. If the US Constitution were to be re-evaluated through Rand's; The Objectivist's Ethics, substantive interpretive changes would result, along with the expression in LAW.
By my reasoning, one is under no obligation to abide by the social contract if the other fails to. Killing and enslavement is fair game if they refuse to cooperate on equal terms. Failure to abide by the social contract will require the offending party to make the other party whole to restore the contract or accept the consequences (possible death). Who will enforce it? The victim or an agent of the victim. If a free market is allowed to exist in defense of rights, there will be companies that will act on the victim's behalf in return for payment.
It would be hard for someone to follow you if you don't tell them where you went. Back in the day it was somewhat possible. I guess these days you would have to leave Earth on a space craft, which isn't practical at this moment in time. However, I hope that will become an option eventually.
When I read terms like 'government' and 'the people', I'm bailing out. Monopoly on violence is not legitimate and there is no such thing as 'the people', only individuals.
I don't see 'law' as something that can be mutable. I see it as math, something to be derived using logic. If something is right or wrong, it will be so since the beginning of time and for eternity. The Constitution is the law of the land in the United States of America. Yet, it can be amended. This doesn't make any sense. You can't amend a right or wrong. No attempt is made to prove anything. The Constitution is just a bunch of assertions that may or may not match the ACTUAL universal law.
I'm a bit of a fan of Rand's work, such as 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal', however, I think she doesn't take her reasoning far enough to arrive at what I think is the truth.