Friday, September 1, 2017

Understanding society, aka why your republic dont mean shit.

You know i hear alot about this magical republic, this union so just and free. The only thing is that NONE of the history, laws or accounts from back then seem to match up this "dream" with reality.

In order to understand why, we must first understand society.

Social contracts typically offer some form of mutual benefit and impose some mutual obligations or constraints. Citizens who are party to these agreements, for example, explicitly or implicitly accept obligations or responsibilities (paying taxes, voting, obeying rules and regulations, etc.) in return for benefits and protection by a state (e.g., maintaining order, fostering citizen well-being, and providing for education and health services). Social contracts also reflect a much wider principle, namely that human relationships should be regulated by agreements. Viewed as part of the Enlightenment project, much early social contract thinking evolved in a period of the expansion of the state, and the expansion of individual civil, political, and social rights (Mills 1997). 

Given the roots of social contract theory, it is not surprising that many argue that existing contracts are not neutral, and have not been applied equally to all members of society (Nussbaum 2006). Social contracts have prioritized power of some over others and have served as exclusionary tools for domination (Pateman and Mills 2007). Patriarchal, racial, and imperial structures have shaped the modern world and have left a legacy in modern society (Pateman and Mills 2007). As a model of governance, the social contract has been continually contested and challenged, particularly in relation to the way that the theories of social contracts have in reality codified and legitimated men’s domination of women (Pateman 1988) or the subordination of one race to another (Mills 1997)

Notice the first sentence and them talking of benefit and obligation. All societies are set up thru members contracting amongest themselves for mutual benefits and obligations. And how do they enforce these benefits and obligations? They create a government to govern every member according to what the whole thinks is in its best interest thru reps.

At any point in time, you can look up any society you want, and its always going to be the same thing. Benefits for obligations. Thats just the way it is, no one could even explain another way society could form.

Medieval society was built around feudal obligations – duties men owed to their social superiors in return for being allowed to live off the land. Perhaps the most important tool in recruiting an army, these obligations were used to recruit lords and gentry to serve as knights and men-at-arms, through the obligations they owed the king. They, in turn, were owed service by people living on their lands, who were obliged to turn up with specific armour and weapons depending on their wealth.

And here again, we come back to that old, benefits for obligations thing.......   

Understanding the relationship between the individual and society is one of the most difficult sociological problems, however. Partly this is because of the reified way these two terms are used in everyday speech. Reification refers to the way in which abstract concepts, complex processes, or mutable social relationships come to be thought of as “things.” A prime example of this is when people say that “society” caused an individual to do something or to turn out in a particular way. In writing essays, first-year sociology students sometimes refer to “society” as a cause of social behaviour or as an entity with independent agency. On the other hand, the “individual” is a being that seems solid, tangible, and independent of anything going on outside of the skin sack that contains its essence. This conventional distinction between society and the individual is a product of reification in so far as both society and the individual appear as independent objects. A concept of “the individual” and a concept of “society” have been given the status of real, substantial, independent objects. As we will see in the chapters to come, society and the individual are neither objects, nor are they independent of one another. An “individual” is inconceivable without the relationships to others that define his or her internal subjective life and his or her external socially defined roles.
The problem for sociologists is that these concepts of the individual and society and the relationship between them are thought of in terms established by a very common moral framework in modern democratic societies, namely that of individual responsibility and individual choice. Often in this framework, any suggestion that an individual’s behaviour needs to be understood in terms of that person’s social context is dismissed as “letting the individual off” of taking personal responsibility for their actions.
Talking about society is akin to being morally soft or lenient. Sociology, as a social science, remains neutral on these type of moral questions. The conceptualization of the individual and society is much more complex. The sociological problem is to be able to see the individual as a thoroughly social being and yet as a being who has agency and free choice. Individuals are beings who do take on individual responsibilities in their everyday social roles and risk social consequences when they fail to live up to them. The manner in which they take on responsibilities and sometimes the compulsion to do so are socially defined however. The sociological problem is to be able to see society as a dimension of experience characterized by regular and predictable patterns of behaviour that exist independently of any specific individual’s desires or self-understanding. 

But wait, there is more......

The relation between individual and society is very close. Essentially, “society” is the regularities, customs and ground rules of antihuman behavior. These practices are tremendously important to know how humans act and interact with each other. Society does not exist independently without individual. The individual lives and acts within society but society is nothing, in spite of the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. On the other hand, society exists to serve individuals―not the other way around. Human life and society almost go together. Man is biologically and psychologically equipped to live in groups, in society. Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise and to continue. The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the profound of all the problems of social philosophy. It is more philosophical rather than sociological because it involves the question of values. Man depends on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded and encompassed by culture, as a societal force. It is in the society again that he has to conform to the norms, occupy statuses and become members of groups. The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the starting point of many discussions. It is closely connected with the question of the relationship of man and society. The re- lation between the two depends upon one fact that the individual and the society are mutually de- pendent, one grows with the help of the other.

So before the state, before the union, before MUH REPUBLIC, you had the society, and the society(we the people) were sovereigns with no one to govern but themselves ( as individuals known as citizens ) who conform to the norms, occupy statuses (such as evidenced by your PERSON) and become members of groups (like political groups )

Your were not free the moment you pledged obligations that your reps could decide upon for the "public good".

IV.������ Social Organization
Social organization refers to the network of relationships among a society�s members.� These relationships make it possible for members to satisfy both their individual needs and the needs of society as a whole.� When we think of social organization we must think of it as a product of the interaction of culture and people itself consisting of 5 elements:� (1) individuals, (2) social positions, roles & statuses, (3) groups, (4) classes, and (5) stratification.
A.������� Individuals
Every society must cope with a constant turnover in its membership and older members die and newer one are reborn.� The means by which society copes with a turnover of membership is socialization.�Socialization is a complex process that begins as soon as the infant is capable of discerning that its actions generate reactions, and that some of those interactions are pleasant while other are not.� The socialization process is never entirely successful.� The concern for self which is part of our genetic heritage, together with the individuating nature of learning, combine to limit the extent to which people are to subordinate their personal interests to those of society (45).� Most of the time, however, most individuals conform to their society�s standards, partly because of their desire to obtain the rewards and avoid the penalties that can be expected, and partly because they have internalized society�s standards (46).
B.������� Social Positions, Roles, & Statuses
Individuals who occupy positions in a social structure are expected to fulfill a number of social roles.� These roles emerge and develop in response to recurring needs and problems in societies.� Roles in societies, like roles in theaters, have distinctive behavioral expectations and requirements attached to them.� The behavior requirements and expectations that are attached to real life roles are the norms discussed earlier.� It is important to recognize that roles differ greatly with respect to the prestige or social honor accorded them (46).
In most societies, individuals are organized into a variety of units we call groups.� These range from small family units to giant corporations.� Sociologists limit the term �groups� to an aggregation whose members (1) cooperate to satisfy common or complimentary needs, (2) have shared norms, and (3) have a sense of common identity (47).
Inequality is a fact of life in every human society.� Some individuals always control more of the society�s resources than other do and enjoy more than their share of benefits.� Human societies differ greatly, however, in the amount of inequality present among their members.� Class or stratum is defined on the basis of some important attribute that is the same for all members of the class and that influences their access to power, privilege and prestige (48).
Viewed as a whole, all of the statuses and class systems of a society constitute its system of stratification.� Stratification systems vary in a number of important ways, such as wealth, power, prestige, and race.� Stratification is one of the major sources of conflict within societies.� No system of distribution can satisfy everyone, since there is no obviously right or fair way to distribute society�s resources.

You had obligations to the other members of your society before you had the state, the union or MUH REPUBLIC. Subjects have obligations to people other then himself. 

No republic is going to save you, no union is going to save you, no state is going to save you. You want to be free, then you can not be a part of a society. It gets no more plain then this, can you understand the words coming out of my mouth?

Good luck citizens.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

The Dejure Republic

Hello folks, patriotdiscussions back to crush some beliefs, hopes and dreams. It seems one of the biggest beliefs in the freedom movement is this "Dejure Republic", a time when men were men and common law ruled, men were free from obligations and statutory law.

This is one of the biggest problems with the freedom movement, they believe something that never was, citizens were never free, not before the civil war, not after it. The only thing the 14th amendment did was change WHO are master was, that is all.

A simple look at a states laws before the 14th amendment will clearly show you that no such "dejure republic" of freemen existed.

The state could not wait to start regulating its new citizens.

take bottom of page 4, top of page 5 here

Notice how anyone who buys land in the county must register it with the sheriff, if not the land is considered "vacant".

They got right to work on the poor laws, you think it was the democrats that placed the poor on the public teet? More like the founders of your great republic states....

Here is a very extensive list of North Carolina's early laws.

I hate to AGAIN break these beliefs down, but a society of free men is not possible, it would be anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, and free men have no rulers.

This belief of this magical republic will in fact keep you a slave till the day you die.

Now not to worry friends,i know your response is the same as the guy in this video....

The good news is this, the truth will go on being the truth, it does not care if you think it is true or not. Truth naturally goes thru three stages

Why does truth go thru three stages? Because the mind does not hold as truth something that conflicts with a already held belief. As most truth comes to us as a replacement for an already held truth, it naturally finds friction

Who told you about this Dejure Republic where men were free to not listen to those who governed them? Oh i see, government approved and funded textbooks eh?

Lose this belief or lose any chance you have to become free......THIS is the second step.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

The regulated family unit, mandatory vaccines and why it must be so.

Hello folks, touching base on an important issue for lots of folks. Today a post on one of my vaccine FB groups caught my eye. Of course i don't think it needs to be said that i am anti-vax for a number of reasons, most non vaccine related. The post had to deal with mandatory vaccines, and i wanted to clue everyone into why these WILL be coming, the reasons behind it, and what you can do about it.

As the title suggests, we must start with the family first.

As we all know, or at least should know, the family is the most essential building block of ANY society. It forms the basis of any society you can think of, and as the basis for our society, and promoting the "general welfare" of our society, it is the states number one priority.

Lets look at some cases to see what the courts think or thought about the family unit. Now some of these are old cases, maybe even overturned. We are not writing a legal document however,we are simply looking for their reasoning, aka why they do what they do.

First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:
Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:
Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.
Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State
Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).
The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.
Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).
This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family.   The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.   Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.
Also, this case law states…
The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.
Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.

This thinking has "trickled down" to us thanks to government propaganda, and we become a self policing belief zombie like the author of this blog...

look at this gem in the rough that he posted....

Parents are responsible for protecting that interest as best they can, but matters of public health are also something we delegate to the state. The state has a responsibility to protect the interests of not only children but all of its citizens. Preventing disease and stopping epidemics is part of this.

So not only do you have to fight the state, you have these folks out there willing giving shit up. So be afraid friends because sooner or later, mandatory vaccines for the "general welfare, public good, public interest" will be getting forced down your throat.

They will do this in a problem, reaction, solution type of ordeal.

When they pass mandatory vax, if you run, hide, try to fight it out, you will get burned out like at waco, they will label you domestic terrorists and guys like the author of that blog will cheer about it.

What can you do? You are a subject, if you think you are not, try not paying your taxes. As a member of society, you are bound by their rules, thats the deal. 

The only way out is to not be a part of their society.

No this does not mean go live in the woods off grid, no this does not mean move to the Congo region. 

Society is a fiction, meaning it only exists in our minds. This concept seems strange to you because you think you can see society everywhere around you. Those are just men and women, cars and buildings. Society is the term we give for all of us collectively acting together for common goals.

There is no "state" of anything. Its made up, by us, to describe an area of land we hold power over. 

The old ways of thinking are over folks, you have to get on a higher level of critical thinking. Cast aside those beliefs, and hit the books, keep an open mind by not believing ANYTHING. Its ok to just have an idea, or a theory, there is no reason to hold a belief if at all possible.

This is not an easy path friends, its long hours of research and testing theories in discussion. You can not talk of most of your new knowledge, because most folks are to busy "living the dream" to have any interesting in learning something they are not forced to do (unless its a hobby). 

The workings of our government are easy to see for me because i see the true nature of how societies begin and work. I fear not the government because i know who i am, what my relationship is to them and my creator (be it God or Nature). The information to help one learn is there, the only problem is the will to learn and the ability to learn (beliefs play a part here).

I have tons of books in my file section of my FB group, and plenty of minds for out of the box discussion as well.

Remember, the more you know, the more you realize that you know nothing.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

The two roles congress plays.

Hello again, back to talk to you about an important concept in the constitution you might not know about. The two roles congress plays.....

Most folks know that congress is the legislative body for the 50 states, over a limited and enumerated few items mentioned in the constitution.

What they don't know was that congress is ALSO the legislative body over any and all federal territories, over an UNlimited amount of items of which anything is in their power to do.!/articles/1/essays/57/enclave-clause

The constitution does not apply in these federal territories because the constitution is a contract between the STATES and federal government.

To help show you what the difference in governing between a state and a territory, i would invite you to read "why Alaska needs statehood", here is a couple of pictures of the article so you can understand it better.

With terms like "era of neglect", we can see how territories dont have the same standing, nor do the folks in federal territories.

This quote below from a court case goes into a question we all need to ask....

Since Congress legislates in the same forms, and in the same character, in virtue of powers of equal obligation, conferred in the same instrument, when exercising its exclusive powers of legislation as well as when exercising those which are limited, we must inquire whether there be anything in the nature of this exclusive legislation which necessarily confines the operation of the laws made in virtue of this power to the place with a view to which they are made.

The question is thus....

When congress makes a law, did they make it as the body for the union states or did they make it as the body for the territories?

As we can see from Alaska's time as a territory, the laws congress can pass can be many or none, over any topic it wishes, only civil rights (bill of rights) apply.

Every state already had a bill of rights in their constitution, and even today rights in my state do not transfer to your state, we can see that in right to carry laws from state to state.

The bill of rights are civil rights state citizens/federal citizens had while in federal areas only. They could be regulated and taken away at the governments wish.

Hence this court case......

"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

They were held not to be protected because they applied to federal areas only, only after the 14th did congress and the courts incorporate these "natural rights"(really civil rights) onto the states.

Now if congress acting and passing laws for the territories and subjects living in those territories, how do they apply to us?

1. We claim to be us citizens due to a couple of misinformed beliefs.
2. the 14th amendment switched us from state citizens to federal citizens, again to our misunderstandings of the law.
3. after the civil war all the states rewrote their constitutions, swearing allegiance to the federal government, thus making them basically franchises or political subdivisions.

Is destroying someones mailbox a federal offense?

Mailboxes are considered federal property, and federal law (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1705), makes it a crime to vandalize them (or to injure, deface or destroy any mail deposited in them).

You agree that you are a resident in federal territory by using the two letter state code and zip code.

There is so much going on underneath what you think you know, that it boggles the mind, simply because we were not taught how to think critically or rationally.

Monday, July 31, 2017

Enumeration at Birth

For some of us, the time to wake up to reality never comes, for some, it takes A-ha moments, triggers or what i like to call "glitches" in the programming. This topic could be your chance to wake up.

As a parent myself, i know what it is like to be protective of my kids, and while thinking of what i can possibly give them/leave them when i am gone. Thinking long and hard about this, i realized that there is nothing i could leave them, nothing that would be safe. When the state can take anything and everything it wants, pretty much whenever it wants, what can you leave you kids?

Freedom, i can leave my kids freedom. No not the wanna be freedom US citizens now have, which are really nothing but civil rights that the government grants, regulates and takes away.

All of our lives we have been programmed to be this certain way and do things a certain way, we all were sold this "dream" about freedom and rights and the constitution. But it was nothing but lies, lies to make us feel warm, lies to make us not ask questions, lies to keep us restrained.

When you have reached the point where you understand your mind, how beliefs affect your intake and processing of information, then the question come, then the lies are revealed.

we each come to a point in our life where we must make a choice, live in ignorance and bliss hoping everything works out ok, or work on gaining the knowledge to make the truth known to us.

Let me quote a court case and point out a few things to show you what i see plain as day.

Its said, part of what makes our justice system great is that no man is above the law, the only problem with that is there is no man NAMED in the law.

Let me explain, the law does not say "no man shall/shall not", it says "no person shall/shall not". No problem you are thinking because every man is a person correct? Not so, in fact, not even close. A "person" is a man with a status, whats a status you ask? A status is a classification, slaves were "persons" and not men in law. You are a "person" and not a wo/man in law.   The state creates the status and can thus regulate and control it, it can not control a wo/man. We of course agree that we are the "person" because we dont know any better. Perhaps it is time we did know better, dont you think?

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U.S.C. § 1.


We have much more on the terms of art and person specifically on this blog. This post is about the SS number that most folks are now getting upon birth of their child. i know, i know, the tax benefits are so cherry, well so are the obligations.

Social security is voluntary to sign up, you don't need a number to live or work in the states. However there is a belief that you do. Most people reading this right now will be like, "um yeah you do" or the old "try getting a job without one". 

This is a perfect example of how a bad belief taints our understanding of truth. There has never been a law saying you MUST get a SS number, in fact many people hold religious exemptions to it because of the number of the beast link, Let me show you.

42 usc 666
(13)Recording of social security numbers in certain family matters.—Procedures requiring that the social security number of—
any applicant for a professional license, driver’s license, occupational license, recreational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application;

Enumeration at Birth Process (EAB)
Because of increased demand for SSNs for children at earlier ages due to tax and banking requirements, SSA developed and began to use the EAB process in 1987. SSA recognized that all the information needed to process an SSN application for a newborn was gathered by hospital employees at the child’s birth and verified with the respective bureaus of vital statistics. Nearly three-quarters of all requests for an original SSN are now completed through this process.
‘Enumeration at Birth’ is available in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and allows parents to indicate on the birth certificate form whether they want an SSN assigned to their newborn child. When a parent requests an SSN for a child through EAB, the State vital statistics office receives the request with the birth registration data from the hospital and then forwards this information to SSA. As a result of these procedures, the parent is not required to file a separate application for an SSN for the child. Based on the information the State forwards to SSA, we assign an SSN and issue a card for the child.
It is important to note that EAB is a voluntary program on the part of the hospitals and the States and other jurisdictions. No law requires State or hospital participation. The program is administered under the provisions of a contract between each state and SSA that includes safeguards to ensure that the process is not vulnerable to fraud. SSA reimburses the states for participation on a per item basis (currently $2.04 for each birth record). EAB is a far more secure way to enumerate newborns. In addition, the program provides significant savings to the Federal government and a convenient service option for the public.

Numbered at birth, has a nice ring to it doesn't it? We have numbered our children like cattle for the government. And while this "ranch" our cattle is on right now is the nicest "ranch" on the planet, it is still a ranch, and we are still the cattle.

Will this post motivate you to understand our whole life has been a lie? Perhaps, however the ego is strong when it comes to reinforcing the belief that you are the smartest person you know and you already know how things work. It is also so much easier to live in denial instead of facing the hard facts of life. And who knows maybe we do have a generation or two here at the ranch that will be ok. But all ranches cease to exist the same way forever, and sooner or later, they will need to thin the herd(vaccines,gmo's,war,etc).

Monday, July 24, 2017


 226. It is in the place of his domicil, where a man exercises his civil and political rights. After having shown how he acquires the enjoyment of the rights which constitute the civil state, and how those rights are proved, it is now proper to point out the rules which fix his domicil. 227. Domicil is the place where a person has established his ordinary dwelling, without a present intention of removal. (d)

A man cannot be without a domicil ; at his birth he acquires that of his parents, and this he retains until he gains another by his choice,(a) or by operation of law.By fixing his residence at two different places at the same time, a man may have, for some purposes, two domicils at one and the same time ; as, for example, if a foreigner, coming to this country, should establish two houses, one in New York and the other in New Orleans, and pass one half of the year in each, he would for most purposes have two domicils. (6) If a man has two places of residence he may elect which shall be his domicil.(c) But it is to be observed that circumstances which might be held sufficient to establish a commercial domicil in time of war, and a matrimonial, or forensic, or political domicil in time of peace, might not be such as would establish a principal or testamentary domicil, for there is a wide difference in applying the law of domicil to contracts and to wills. (d) There are three kinds of domicils, namely: 1, the domicil of origin, domicilium originis vel naturali; 2, the domicil by operation of law, or necessary domicil ; 3, the domicil of choice. These will be severally considered.

CHAPTER I.—OF THE DOMICIL OF ORIGIN. 228. By domicil of origin, is understood the home of a man's parents at the time of his birth, not the place ,where, the parents being on a visit or journey, a child happens to be born. The domicil of origin is to be distinguished from the accidental place of birth. (e)


229. There are two classes of persons who acquire or retain a domicil by operation of law. 1. Those who are under the control of another, and the law gives them the domicil of that other ; 2, those on whom the state affixes a domicil.


230. Among those who, being under the control of another, acquire such person's domicil, are— 1. The wife. She takes the domicil of her husband.^) On becoming a widow, she retains it until she changes it, which may be done in two ways ; first by removing to another place, with an intention of fix ing her domicil there, or by marrying again, in which case she immediately takes the domicil of her new husband. (6) 2. A minor. His domicil is that of his father, or in case of his death, that of his mother. (c) When his father and mother are both dead, the minor's domicil is in general that of his guardian, but to this there are some exceptions, (d) 3. A lunatic. In general the domicil of the lunatic is that of his guardian, curator, committee or other person who is lawfully appointed to take care of him. In this respect he resembles a minor. But the domicil of such a person may be changed by direction or with the assent of his guardian, either express or implied, (e)


231. It is but reasonable that a man who serves the public, and is compelled for this purpose to change his place of residence, should not on this account lose his domicil ; for this there is a double reason, first that the public should be better served, and secondly, be cause the officer did not intend to abandon his old domicil, but left it animo revertendi.

 232. Persons who thus retain their domicil may be classed as follows : 1. Public officers whose temporary duties require them to reside at the capitol, as the President of the United States, the several secretaries, etc. 2. American ambassadors and consuls who are com pelled to go abroad in order to fullfil the duties of then' appointments. And this privilege extends to their family or suite. 3. Officers, soldiers and marines of the United States do not lose their domicil, while thus employed. 4. A prisoner does not acquire a domicil where the prison is located, nor lose his old, because there is no intention on his part to do so.


233. The domicil of origin is retained until another is acquired by the act of the party, or by operation of law. In order to acquire a domicil of choice, there must be an actual removal with an intention of residing in the place to which the party has removed.(a) As soon as the removal is completed, with such intention, the new domicil is acquired, and the old one is lost. (6) A mere intention to remove, unless such intention be carried into effect, is not sufficient to operate the change, (c) When a man changes his domicil and gains another, and afterwards returns to his original domicil with an intention to reside there, his original domicil is at once restored. (a)

Sunday, July 23, 2017


138. The word state or condition of persons, has various acceptations. When we speak of a person, we consider only the part a man plays in society, without taking into view the individual. State and person are then correlative terms. If we inquire into its origin, the word state will be found to come from the Latin status, which is derived from the verb stare, sto, whence has been made statio, which signifies the place where a person is located, stat, to fullfil the obligations which are imposed upon him. (b) State, then, is that quality which belongs to a person in society, and which secures to, and imposes upon him, different rights and duties, in consequence of the differences of that quality.

139. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality, yet there are among them marked natural differences. The distinctions of sex, parentage, age, youth, etc., all come from nature. To these natural qualities, the civil or municipal laws have added distinctions which are purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the manners of the people, or the will of the legislature. Such are the differences which these laws have established between citizens and aliens, between magistrates and private citizens or subjects ; and between freemen and slaves.

140. Although these latter distinctions are more particularly subject to the civil and municipal law, because to it they owe their origin, it nevertheless extends its authority over the natural qualities, not to destroy or weaken them, but to confirm them, and to render them more inviolable by positive rules and by certain maxims.

141. This union of the civil or municipal law with the law of nature, form among men a third species of differences which may be called mixed, because they participate of both, and derive their principle from nature and the perfection of the law; for example, infancy, or the privileges which belong to it, have their foundation in the law of nature; but the age, and the term of these prerogatives, are determined by the civil or municipal law.

142. From these premises, it is easy to 'perceive that three sorts of different qualities, which form the state or condition of men, may be distinguished: those , which are purely natural, those which are purely civil, and those which are composed of natural and civil or municipal law.

143. If we analyze what are the qualities which compose the state of a person, we will find they have a necessary or essential connection with public or political, or private right, and that they are either qualities of state or distinctions of state, because they render the party either able or unable to participate to the public state or the private state.

144.—1. Let us commence, for example, with public or political right. It is a question as to his state, which settles, whether a man is a freeman or a slave, a citizen or an alien ; because if he is free and a citizen, he is qualified to render service to his country in all public stations or offices; if, on the contrary, he is a slave or an alien, he is excluded by both of these