Thursday, December 28, 2017

Of the beginning of political societies.

Second Treatise of Civil Government John Locke (1690)

CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.

Sec.95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.


Sec.96. For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority: for that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see, that in assemblies, impowered to act by positive laws, where no number is set by that positive law which impowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole.


Sec.97. And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? what new engagement if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society, than he himself thought fit, and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty, as he himself had before his compact, or any one else in the state of nature hath, who may submit himself, and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit.


Sec.98. For if the consent of the majority shall not, in reason, be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make any thing to be the act of the whole: but such a consent is next to impossible ever to be had, if we consider the infirmities of health, and avocations of business, which in a number, though much less than that of a common-wealth, will necessarily keep many away from the public assembly. To which if we add the variety of opinions, and contrariety of interests, which unavoidably happen in all collections of men, the coming into society upon such terms would be only like Cato's coming into the theatre, only to go out again. Such a constitution as this would make the mighty Leviathan of a shorter duration, than the feeblest creatures, and not let it outlast the day it was bom in: which cannot be supposed, till we can think, that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only to be dissolved: for where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again.


Sec.99. Whosoever therefore out of a state of nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into society, to the majority of the community, unless they expresly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals, that enter into, or make up a commonwealth. And thus that, which begins and actually constitutes any political society, is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did, or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.

Sec.100. To this I find two objections made.
First, That there are no instances to be found in story, of a company of men independent, and equal one amongst another, that met together, and in this way began and set up a government.
Secondly, It is impossible of right, that men should do so, because all men being born under government, they are to submit to that, and are not at liberty to begin a new one.

Sec.101. To the first there is this to answer, That it is not at all to be wondered, that history gives us but a very little account of men, that lived together in the state of nature. The inconveniences of that condition, and the love and want of society, no sooner brought any number of them together, but they presently united and incorporated, if they designed to continue together. And if we may not suppose men ever to have been in the state of nature, because we hear not much of them in such a state, we may as well suppose the armies of Salmanasser or Xerxes were never children, because we hear little of them, till they were men, and imbodied in armies. Government is every where antecedent to records, and letters seldom come in amongst a people till a long continuation of civil society has, by other more necessary arts, provided for their safety, ease, and plenty: and then they begin to look after the history of their founders, and search into their original, when they have outlived the memory of it: for it is with commonwealths as with particular persons, they are commonly ignorant of their own births and infancies: and if they know any thing of their original, they are beholden for it, to the accidental records that others have kept of it. And those that we have, of the beginning of any polities in the world, excepting that of the Jews, where God himself immediately interposed, and which favours not at all paternal dominion, are all either plain instances of such a beginning as I have mentioned, or at least have manifest footsteps of it.

Sec.102. He must shew a strange inclination to deny evident matter of fact, when it agrees not with his hypothesis, who will not allow, that shew a strange inclination to deny evident matter of fact, when it agrees not with his hypothesis, who will not allow, that the beginning of Rome and Venice were by the uniting together of several men free and independent one of another, amongst whom there was no natural superiority or subjection. And if Josephus Acosta's word may be taken, he tells us, that in many parts of America there was no government at all. There are great and apparent conjectures, says he, that these men, speaking of those of Peru, for a long time had neither kings nor commonwealths, but lived in troops, as they do this day in Florida, the Cheriquanas, those of Brazil, and many other nations, which have no certain kings, but as occasion is offered, in peace or war, they choose their captains as they please, 1. i. c. 25. If it be said, that every man there was born subject to his father, or the head of his family; that the subjection due from a child to a father took not away his freedom of uniting into what political society he thought fit, has been already proved. But be that as it will, these men, it is evident, were actually free; and whatever superiority some politicians now would place in any of them, they themselves claimed it not, but by consent were all equal, till by the same consent they set rulers over themselves. So that their politic societies all began from a voluntary union, and the mutual agreement of men freely acting in the choice of their governors, and forms of government.


Sec.103. And I hope those who went away from Sparta with Palantus, mentioned by Justin, 1. iii. c. 4. will be allowed to have been freemen independent one of another, and to have set up a government over themselves, by their own consent. Thus I have given several examples, out of history, of people free and in the state of nature, that being met together incorporated and began a commonwealth. And if the want of such instances be an argument to prove that government were not, nor could not be so begun, I suppose the contenders for paternal empire were better let it alone, than urge it against natural liberty: for if they can give so many instances, out of history, of governments begun upon paternal right, I think (though at best an argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force) one might, without any great danger, yield them the cause. But if I might advise them in the case, they would do well not to search too much into the original of governments, as they have begun de facto, lest they should find, at the foundation of most of them, something very little favourable to the design they promote, and such a power as they contend for.


Sec.104. But to conclude, reason being plain on our side, that men are naturally free, and the examples of history shewing, that the governments of the world, that were begun in peace, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the consent of the people; there can be little room for doubt, either where the right is, or what has been the opinion, or practice of mankind, about the first erecting of governments.


Sec.105. I will not deny, that if we look back as far as history will direct us, towards the original of commonwealths, we shall generally find them under the government and administration of one man. And I am also apt to believe, that where a family was numerous enough to subsist by itself, and continued entire together, without mixing with others, as it often happens, where there is much land, and few people, the government commonly began in the father: for the father having, by the law of nature, the same power with every man else to punish, as he thought fit, any offences against that law, might thereby punish his transgressing children, even when they were men, and out of their pupilage; and they were very likely to submit to his punishment, and all join with him against the offender, in their turns, giving him thereby power to execute his sentence against any transgression, and so in effect make him the law-maker, and governor over all that remained in conjunction with his family. He was fittest to be trusted; paternal affection secured their property and interest under his care; and the custom of obeying him, in their childhood, made it easier to submit to him, rather than to any other. If therefore they must have one to rule them, as government is hardly to be avoided amongst men that live together; who so likely to be the man as he that was their common father; unless negligence, cruelty, or any other defect of mind or body made him unfit for it? But when either the father died, and left his next heir, for want of age, wisdom, courage, or any other qualities, less fit for rule; or where several families met, and consented to continue together; there, it is not to be doubted, but they used their natural freedom, to set up him, whom they judged the ablest, and most likely, to rule well over them. Conformable hereunto we find the people of America, who (living out of the reach of the conquering swords, and spreading domination of the two great empires of Peru and Mexico) enjoyed their own natural freedom, though, caeteris paribus, they commonly prefer the heir of their deceased king; yet if they find him any way weak, or uncapable, they pass him by, and set up the stoutest and bravest man for their ruler.


Sec.106. Thus, though looking back as far as records give us any account of peopling the world, and the history of nations, we commonly find the government to be in one hand; yet it destroys not that which I affirm, viz. that the beginning of politic society depends upon the consent of the individuals, to join into, and make one society; who, when they are thus incorporated, might set up what form of government they thought fit. But this having given occasion to men to mistake, and think, that by nature government was monarchical, and belonged to the father, it may not be amiss here to consider, why people in the beginning generally pitched upon this form, which though perhaps the father's pre-eminency might, in the first institution of some commonwealths, give a rise to, and place in the beginning, the power in one hand; yet it is plain that the reason, that continued the form of government in a single person, was not any regard, or respect to paternal authority; since all petty monarchies, that is, almost all monarchies, near their original, have been commonly, at least upon occasion, elective.


Sec.107. First then, in the beginning of things, the father's government of the childhood of those sprung from him, having accustomed them to the rule of one man, and taught them that where it was exercised with care and skill, with affection and love to those under it, it was sufficient to procure and preserve to men all the political happiness they sought for in society. It was no wonder that they should pitch upon, and naturally run into that form of government, which from their infancy they had been all accustomed to; and which, by experience, they had found both easy and safe. To which, if we add, that monarchy being simple, and most obvious to men, whom neither experience had instructed in forms of government, nor the ambition or insolence of empire had taught to beware of the encroachments of prerogative, or the inconveniences of absolute power, which monarchy in succession was apt to lay claim to, and bring upon them, it was not at all strange, that they should not much trouble themselves to think of methods of restraining any exorbitances of those to whom they had given the authority over them, and of balancing the power of government, by placing several parts of it in different hands. They had neither felt the oppression of tyrannical dominion, nor did the fashion of the age, nor their possessions, or way of living, (which afforded little matter for covetousness or ambition) give them any reason to apprehend or provide against it; and therefore it is no wonder they put themselves into such a frame of government, as was not only, as I said, most obvious and simple, but also best suited to their present state and condition; which stood more in need of defence against foreign invasions and injuries, than of multiplicity of laws. The equality of a simple poor way of living, confining their desires within the narrow bounds of each man's small property, made few controversies, and so no need of many laws to decide them, or variety of officers to superintend the process, or look after the execution of justice, where there were but few trespasses, and few offenders. Since then those, who like one another so well as to join into society, cannot but be supposed to have some acquaintance and friendship together, and some trust one in another; they could not but have greater apprehensions of others, than of one another: and therefore their first care and thought cannot but be supposed to be, how to secure themselves against foreign force. It was natural for them to put themselves under a frame of government which might best serve to that end, and chuse the wisest and bravest man to conduct them in their wars, and lead them out against their enemies, and in this chiefly be their ruler.

Sec.108. Thus we see, that the kings of the Indians in America, which is still a pattern of the first ages in Asia and Europe, whilst the inhabitants were too few for the country, and want of people and money gave men no temptation to enlarge their possessions of land, or contest for wider extent of ground, are little more than generals of their armies; and though they command absolutely in war, yet at home and in time of peace they exercise very little dominion, and have but a very moderate sovereignty, the resolutions of peace and war being ordinarily either in the people, or in a council. Tho' the war itself, which admits not of plurality of governors, naturally devolves the command into the king's sole authority.


Sec.109. And thus in Israel itself, the chief business of their judges, and first kings, seems to have been to be captains in war, and leaders of their armies; which (besides what is signified by going out and in before the people, which was, to march forth to war, and home again in the heads of their forces) appears plainly in the story of lephtha. The Ammonites making war upon Israel, the Gileadites in fear send to lephtha, a bastard of their family whom they had cast off, and article with him, if he will assist them against the Ammonites, to make him their ruler; which they do in these words, And the people made him head and captain over them, Judg. xi, ii. which was, as it seems, all one as to be judge. And he judged Israel, judg. xii. 7. that is, was their captain-general six years. So when lotham upbraids the Shechemites with the obligation they had to Gideon, who had been their judge and ruler, he tells them, He fought for you, and adventured his life far, and delivered you out of the hands of Midian, Judg. ix. 17. Nothing mentioned of him but what he did as a general: and indeed that is all is found in his history, or in any of the rest of the judges. And Abimelech particularly is called king, though at most he was but their general. And when, being weary of the ill conduct of Samuel's sons, the children of Israel desired a king, like all the nations to judge them, and to go out before them, and to fight their battles, I. Sam viii. 20. God granting their desire, says to Samuel, I will send thee a man, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hands of the Philistines, ix. 16. As if the only business of a king had been to lead out their armies, and fight in their defence; and accordingly at his inauguration pouring a vial of oil upon him, declares to Saul, that the Lord had anointed him to be captain over his inheritance, x. 1. And therefore those, who after Saul's being solemnly chosen and saluted king by the tribes at Mispah, were unwilling to have him their king, made no other objection but this, How shall this man save us? v. 27. as if they should have said, this man is unfit to be our king, not having skill and conduct enough in war, to be able to defend us. And when God resolved to transfer the government to David, it is in these words, But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, xiii. 14. As if the whole kingly authority were nothing else but to be their general: and therefore the tribes who had stuck to Saul's family, and opposed David's reign, when they came to Hebron with terms of submission to him, they tell him, amongst other arguments they had to submit to him as to their king, that he was in effect their king in Saul's time, and therefore they had no reason but to receive him as their king now. Also (say they) in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that reddest out and broughtest in Israel, and the Lord said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.

Sec.110. Thus, whether a family by degrees grew up into a common-wealth, and the fatherly authority being continued on to the elder son, every one in his turn growing up under it, tacitly submitted to it, and the easiness and equality of it not offending any one, every one acquiesced, till time seemed to have confirmed it, and settled a right of succession by prescription: or whether several families, or the descendants of several families, whom chance, neighbourhood, or business brought together, uniting into society, the need of a general, whose conduct might defend them against their enemies in war, and the great confidence the innocence and sincerity of that poor but virtuous age, (such as are almost all those which begin governments, that ever come to last in the world) gave men one of another, made the first beginners of commonwealths generally put the rule into one man's hand, without any other express limitation or restraint, but what the nature of the thing, and the end of government required: which ever of those it was that at first put the rule into the hands of a single person, certain it is no body was intrusted with it but for the public good and safety, and to those ends, in the infancies of commonwealths, those who had it commonly used it. And unless they had done so, young societies could not have subsisted; without such nursing fathers tender and careful of the public weal, all governments would have sunk under the weakness and infirmities of their infancy, and the prince and the people had soon perished together.

Sec.111. But though the golden age (before vain ambition, and amor sceleratus habendi, evil concupiscence, had corrupted men's minds into a mistake of true power and honour) had more virtue, and consequently better governors, as well as less vicious subjects, and there was then no stretching prerogative on the one side, to oppress the people; nor consequently on the other, any dispute about privilege, to lessen or restrain the power of the magistrate, and so no contest betwixt rulers and people about governors or goveernment: yet, when ambition and luxury in future ages* would retain and increase the power, without doing the business for which it was given; and aided by flattery, taught princes to have distinct and separate interests from their people, men found it necessary to examine more carefully the original and rights of government; and to find out ways to restrain the exorbitances, and prevent the abuses of that power, which they having intrusted in another's hands only for their own good, they found was made use of to hurt them.
(* At first, when some certain kind of regiment was once approved, it may be nothing was then farther thought upon for the manner of governing, but all permitted unto their wisdom and discretion which were to rule, till by experience they found this for all parts very inconvenient, so as the thing which they had devised for a remedy, did indeed but increase the sore which it should have cured. They saw, that to live by one man's will, became the cause of all men's misery. This constrained them to come unto laws wherein all men might see their duty before hand, and know the penalties of transgressing them. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 10.)

Sec.112. Thus we may see how probable it is, that people that were naturally free, and by their own consent either submitted to the government of their father, or united together out of different families to make a government, should generally put the rule into one man's hands, and chuse to be under the conduct of a single person, without so much as by express conditions limiting or regulating his power, which they thought safe enough in his honesty and prudence; though they never dreamed of monarchy being lure Divino, which we never heard of among mankind, till it was revealed to us by the divinity of this last age; nor ever allowed paternal power to have a right to dominion, or to be the foundation of all government. And thus much may suffice to shew, that as far as we have any light from history, we have reason to conclude, that all peaceful beginnings of government have been laid in the consent of the people. I say peaceful, because I shall have occasion in another place to speak of conquest, which some esteem a way of beginning of governments.
The other objection I find urged against the beginning of polities, in the way I have mentioned, is this, viz.

Sec.113. That all men being born under government, some or other, it is impossible any of them should ever be free, and at liberty to unite together, and begin a new one, or ever be able to erect a lawful government.
If this argument be good; I ask, how came so many lawful monarchies into the world? for if any body, upon this supposition, can shew me any one man in any age of the world free to begin a lawful monarchy, I will be bound to shew him ten other free men at liberty, at the same time to unite and begin a new government under a regal, or any other form; it being demonstration, that if any one, born under the dominion of another, may be so free as to have a right to command others in a new and distinct empire, every one that is born under the dominion of another may be so free too, and may become a ruler, or subject, of a distinct separate government. And so by this their own principle, either all men, however born, are free, or else there is but one lawful prince, one lawful government in the world. And then they have nothing to do, but barely to shew us which that is; which when they have done, I doubt not but all mankind will easily agree to pay obedience to him.

Sec.114. Though it be a sufficient answer to their objection, to shew that it involves them in the same difficulties that it doth those they use it against; yet I shall endeavour to discover the weakness of this argument a little farther. All men, say they, are born under government, and therefore they cannot be at liberty to begin a new one. Every one is born a subject to his father, or his prince, and is therefore under the perpetual tie of subjection and allegiance. It is plain mankind never owned nor considered any such natural subjection that they were born in, to one or to the other that tied them, without their own consents, to a subjection to them and their heirs.

Sec.115. For there are no examples so frequent in history, both sacred and profane, as those of men withdrawing themselves, and their obedience, from the jurisdiction they were born under, and the family or community they were bred up in, and setting up new governments in other places; from whence sprang all that number of petty commonwealths in the beginning of ages, and which always multiplied, as long as there was room enough, till the stronger, or more fortunate, swallowed the weaker; and those great ones again breaking to pieces, dissolved into lesser dominions. All which are so many testimonies against paternal sovereignty, and plainly prove, that it was not the natural right of the father descending to his heirs, that made governments in the beginning, since it was impossible, upon that ground, there should have been so many little kingdoms; all must have been but only one universal monarchy, if men had not been at liberty to separate themselves from their families, and the government, be it what it will, that was set up in it, and go and make distinct commonwealths and other governments, as they thought fit.

Sec.116. This has been the practice of the world from its first beginning to this day; nor is it now any more hindrance to the freedom of mankind, that they are born under constituted and ancient polities, that have established laws, and set forms of government, than if they were born in the woods, amongst the unconfined inhabitants, that run loose in them: for those, who would persuade us, that by being born under any government, we are naturally subjects to it, and have no more any title or pretence to the freedom of the state of nature, have no other reason (bating that of paternal power, which we have already answered) to produce for it, but only, because our fathers or progenitors passed away their natural liberty, and thereby bound up themselves and their posterity to a perpetual subjection to the government, which they themselves submitted to. It is true, that whatever engagements or promises any one has made for himself, he is under the obligation of them, but cannot, by any compact whatsoever, bind his children or posterity: for his son, when a man, being altogether as free as the father, any act of the father can no more give away the liberty of the son, than it can of any body else: he may indeed annex such conditions to the land, he enjoyed as a subject of any common-wealth, as may oblige his son to be of that community, if he will enjoy those possessions which were his father's; because that estate being his father's property, he may dispose, or settle it, as he pleases.

Sec.117. And this has generally given the occasion to mistake in this matter; because commonwealths not permitting any part of their dominions to be dismembered, nor to be enjoyed by any but those of their community, the son cannot ordinarily enjoy the possessions of his father, but under the same terms his father did, by becoming a member of the society; whereby he puts himself presently under the government he finds there established, as much as any other subject of that common-wealth. And thus the consent of freemen, born under government, which only makes them members of it, being given separately in their turns, as each comes to be of age, and not in a multitude together; people take no notice of it, and thinking it not done at all, or not necessary, conclude they are naturally subjects as they are men.

Sec.118. But, it is plain, governments themselves understand it otherwise; they claim no power over the son, because of that they had over the father; nor look on children as being their subjects, by their fathers being so. If a subject of England have a child, by an English woman in France, whose subject is he? Not the king of England's; for he must have leave to be admitted to the privileges of it: nor the king of France's; for how then has his father a liberty to bring him away, and breed him as he pleases? and who ever was judged as a traytor or deserter, if he left, or warred against a country, for being barely born in it of parents that were aliens there? It is plain then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father's tuition and authority, till he comes to age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to: for if an Englishman's son, born in France, be at liberty, and may do so, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father's being a subject of this kingdom; nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors. And why then hath not his son, by the same reason, the same liberty, though he be born any where else? Since the power that a father hath naturally over his children, is the same, where-ever they be born, and the ties of natural obligations, are not bounded by the positive limits of kingdoms and commonwealths.

Sec.119. Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent; it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man's consent, to make him subject to the laws of any government. There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present case. No body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government. The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, cloth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government.

Sec.120. To understand this the better, it is fit to consider, that every man, when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexed also, and submits to the community, those possessions, which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government: for it would be a direct contradiction, for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property; and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government, to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject. By the same act therefore, whereby any one unites his person, which was before free, to any common-wealth, by the same he unites his possessions, which were before free, to it also; and they become, both of them, person and possession, subject to the government and dominion of that common-wealth, as long as it hath a being. VVhoever therefore, from thenceforth, by inheritance, purchase, permission, or otherways, enjoys any part of the land, so annexed to, and under the government of that common-wealth, must take it with the condition it is under; that is, of submitting to the government of the common-wealth, under whose jurisdiction it is, as far forth as any subject of it.

Sec.121. But since the government has a direct jurisdiction only over the land, and reaches the possessor of it, (before he has actually incorporated himself in the society) only as he dwells upon, and enjoys that; the obligation any one is under, by virtue of such enjoyment, to submit to the government, begins and ends with the enjoyment; so that whenever the owner, who has given nothing but such a tacit consent to the government, will, by donation, sale, or otherwise, quit the said possession, he is at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other common-wealth; or to agree with others to begin a new one, in vacuis locis, in any part of the world, they can find free and unpossessed: whereas he, that has once, by actual agreement, and any express declaration, given his consent to be of any commonwealth, is perpetually and indispensably obliged to be, and remain unalterably a subject to it, and can never be again in the liberty of the state of nature; unless, by any calamity, the government he was under comes to be dissolved; or else by some public act cuts him off from being any longer a member of it.


Sec.122. But submitting to the laws of any country, living quietly, and enjoying privileges and protection under them, makes not a man a member of that society: this is only a local protection and homage due to and from all those, who, not being in a state of war, come within the territories belonging to any government, to all parts whereof the force of its laws extends. But this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws, and submit to the government he found there. And thus we see, that foreigners, by living all their lives under another government, and enjoying the privileges and protection of it, though they are bound, even in conscience, to submit to its administration, as far forth as any denison; yet do not thereby come to be subjects or members of that commonwealth. Nothing can make any man so, but his actually entering into it by positive engagement, and express promise and compact. This is that, which I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any common-wealth.

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Teaching, what to watch out for....

A lot of people profess to have a lot of knowledge on topics, but when questioned they fall apart like a wet paper bag. When dealing with law, if you can not find mention of it in REAL law books, chances are its just some patritard crap. You see, even though today's law books wont tell you crap, 200-300 years ago, they spelled it out for you. Mainly because there was no other way for them to teach those who needed this information. The further back you go, the closer to the truth you will find.

What started me on this post was a group on FB teaching common law, but yet i dont think any of them have read a single real law book on the common law.

There is this belief that there is some mythical common law that will save you. That's not going to happen. The common law is the law we have made thru our representatives that we feel is for the "public good".


If man never existed, would there be a common law or just natural law?

Of course the answer is natural law.

what if one man existed? It will still be only natural law.

Its only when two or more men exist AND they agree upon what the "law" should be, do we then have "common" law. And common law is only common to those in the society practicing it as such. The Blackfoot had different common law then the Pawnee, just as the English had different common law then the Spanish.

Just like American common law is different then English common law. Its what is "common" to US.

And what is common in American law is that citizens, be they state or federal have always been subjects. Over 200 years of court cases and law books stating as much.

Some people like to imagine that words like "the people", "state citizens/nationals" or "republican form of government" somehow negate what society is and how it operates and has always operated.

If someone says "common law is our key", ask them what books they have read on the common law, real law books that is. Chances are they have read absolutely NONE.

Sunday, December 3, 2017

I'm Batman, ok not really but i'm trying to prove a point.

 I love using the Batman to help explain a concept that seems to be giving a lot of patriots a hard time. The all capital letter name, the person. Is it a fiction, a corporation, or a trust? Can i capture it? Tame it? use it in commerce?

The answer is right in front of you.

The person is a wo/man with a status. The status attaches to the living man thru domicile of origin.

The birth certificate is the creation of the person only in the fact that it is showing evidence of the status attaching to you.

Think of Bruce Wayne as the living man, and Batman as his status, thus together they form a person.

All law deals with the "person" and no law deals with the living wo/man, persons are always found in societies and living wo/man in nature. when living wo/man enters society, s/he acquires a status, which is the applications of a legal personality, something capable of legal rights and obligations.

Why is a fetus not a person? Because it can not have any legal rights or obligations attached to it as it is not a member of society yet.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

BURGE ON COLONIAL AND FOREIGN LAWS.


This looks to be a great find for those of us looking to find answers, as always i will upload the whole book to my groups files, you can also grab it off google books for free.

And as always, some quotes......



Chapter 2

The law of the place of the domicile prevails to so great an extent in determining, not only the status, capacities, and rights of persons, but the title to move-able, or personal property, that it is necessary to ascertain what constitutes the domicile, how it is acquired, and how it may be changed.


It is acquired at the time of birth, and is called the natural, or paternal, but more frequently, and more appropriately, the domicile of origin. It is that which a child receives from his parents, and which he retains after their death, until he has made choice of another domicile.


The place of birth constitutes that which is termed the domicile ratione originis. This may not be the place in which the birth actually happened, as where the mother was delivered of the child on a journey. (a) The domicile of origin of a child born on the high seas, is the domicile of his parents. (b) The civil law regarded those born in any of the islands, as natives of the state to which the island belonged. A child born in wedlock acquires the domicile of his father, " Patris originem unusquisque sequitur." But an illegitimate child acquires that of his mother, " Ejus, qui justum patrem non habet, prima origo a matre." (c)



------------------------MESSAGE---------------------------------------------


The presumption of law is, that the domicile of origin is retained, unless the change is proved. The burden of proving the change is cast on him who alleges it. (a) The domicile of origin prevails, until the party has not only acquired another, but has manifested, and carried into execution, an intention of abandoning his former domicile, and acquiring another as his sole domicile. (6)


The presumption in favour of the domicile of origin exists only when it is doubtful whether any other place has been chosen as that of a permanent or principal residence. It is repelled, when it clearly appears that all connexion with it has ceased, and the person's establishment has been formed in some other place. The latter is the domicile of choice.



-------------------MESSAGE-------------------------------------------------------


A new domicile cannot be acquired by intention alone : " Domicilium re et facto transfertur non nuda contestatione ;" (f) but having been once acquired, it may be retained by intention, without actual residence. Neither can it be acquired by residence alone, however long, without that intention. But, on the other hand, a domicile maybe acquired by residence for a single day, if that intention be clearly established.


The place of residence is, prima facie, the domicile, unless there be some motive for that residence, not in consistent with a clearly established intention to retain a permanent residence in another place.


 As the intention with which the new residence is taken may be often the subject of doubt and uncertainty, the Code affords the means by which it may be established, by permitting the party to declare his domicile to the mu nicipality of the place which the party has abandoned, and to that of the place to which he has transferred his domicile. Such declaration affords conclusive evidence of the existence of the intention. (a)


CHAPTER 3



As the intention with which the new residence is taken may be often the subject of doubt and uncertainty, the Code affords the means by which it may be established, by permitting the party to declare his domicile to the mu nicipality of the place which the party has abandoned, and to that of the place to which he has transferred his domicile. Such declaration affords conclusive evidence of the existence of the intention. (a)


Boullenois admits that the status of the person de pends on the law of his actual domicile, but he makes an exception in respect of the status of majority or minority, which he insists depends on the law of the domicile of origin. (c) Merlin, in the earlier edition of his '* Repertoire Universel, strenuously maintained the same opinion. (d) He has, however, since changed it, and is to be added to the number of those who consider that the status of majority or minority is governed by the law of the actual domicile, and not of the domicile of origin, (e)



page 131.....

It is an indispensable rule of law, as exercised in all civilized countries, that a man who contracts in a country, engages for a competent knowledge of the law of contracts in that country. If he rashly presume to contract without such knowledge, he must take the inconveniences resulting from such ignorance upon himself, and not attempt to throw them upon the other party, who has engaged under a proper knowledge and sense of the obligation which the law would impose upon him by virtue of that engagement. (a)




Saturday, November 4, 2017

Institutes of American Law 1851


A very informative book that i would suggest you take some time out to look over. I of course have taken the liberty of quoting some of it here for your reading and understanding.

TITLE II.—OF LAWS. 8. To make a law, there must be a superior, who has authority to make it, and an inferior, who is bound by it. To complete the definition of law, we must say that it is a rule prescribed by a lawful superior.




CHAPTER HI.—OF MUNICIPAL LAW. 11. Various definitions have been given of munici pal or civil law. According to Mr. Justice Blackstone, it is "a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the supreme power in the state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." This definition has been justly criticised, the latter part has been considered superabundant, and the first too general and indefinite, and too limited in its signification, to convey a just idea of the subject. Mr. Chitty defines it to be " a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what shall be done and what shall not be done."(6) But this does not appear to distinguish between a law which may have the form of a judgment and a general law, as, for example, that Primus shall pay Secundus a certain sum of money. Laws should apply to all the citizens, (c) Civil or municipal law is a rule of conduct prescribed to all the citizens by the supreme power in the state, in conformity to the constitution, on a matter of common interest. It is the solemn declaration of the legislative power, by which it commands, under certain penalties or certain rewards, what each citizen should do, not do, or suffer, for the common good of the state. In order fully to comprehend the subject, let us con sider the several parts of this definition. 1 . It being the civil law, it of course prescribes rules of civil conduct only. This distinguishes it from the moral law, which is regulated by the law of nature or the revealed law.



In considering the people of the United States they may be classed as follows : those born in the country, and those born out of it. CHAPTER I.—OF THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY. 40. The natives, or persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, in any state or territory, have not all the same rights, some being citizens, and others not; some having all their civil rights, and others being deprived of them.



CHAPTER II.—OF THE STATE OR CONDITION OF A PERSON. 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 per son 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.


PART II.—OF THE ENJOYMENT AND LOSS OF CIVIL RIGHTS. TITLE I.—OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 196. Whatever may be the theories which have been adopted in other countries in order to establish a civil state, or the combination of all the power of a society of men under a particular direction, in the United States we need not have any recourse to them, because the foundation of our government is a com pact or agreement of the people establishing the civil state, the constitution. The first law of the civil state is the establishment of a public power to cause the execution of the laws, which shall not be exercised by any individual of the society : he is not permitted to do himselfjustice, but must appeal in all cases when required to the deposi tories of the public authority, or to the power of all for the surety of all, whenever he can have recourse to it. Hence the maxim that all the people are under the protection of the law. All rights flow from the same source, the whole of the laws which concern the state ; but they may be divided conveniently into political rights and civil rights.



200. In entering into society, man yields up a part of his natural independence in exchange for the advantages he receives from society ; and in consideration of those advantages he becomes bound to obey the laws which the majority have established. This species of constraint is far preferable to the ferocious liberty of a state of nature ; for if he is restrained, others are also prevented from doing him any injury.


CHAPTER m.—OF THE DOMICIL OF CHOICE. 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 resid ing in the place to which the party has removed.(a) As soon as the removal is completed, with such inten tion, 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)



SECTION 2. OF THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE THE OBJECTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. 423.—2. Things extra patrimonium, or those in which no private property can be had by individuals, exclusively from the rest of mankind, are, 1, those which are common to all men ; 2, those which belong to the public generally; 3, those which belong to cities or municipal corporations. § 1.—Of things common. 424. Things common are the heavens, the light, the air, and the sea, which cannot be appropriated by any man or set of men, so as to deprive others of the use of them. (a) It is evident that no private property can be had in the heavens, the light, the air, and the sea, which belong equally to all men, and are indispensable to their existence. All men have the right to navigate the sea, and to fish there, (b) § 2.—Of things public. 425. Res pvblica, or things public, are those the property of which is in the state, and their use is common to all its members, as navigable rivers, harbors, the sea shore, highways, bridges, and the like.




Sunday, October 29, 2017

OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE CIVIL STATE

TITLE III.—OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE CIVIL STATE. 223. After having examined how civil rights are acquired and lost, it is proper now to consider how the civil state is proved. This may be done by proof of possession, by witnesses, by private writings and by public registers. And this proof relates to the birth, marriage, or death of the individual. When written evidence exists as to the time and circumstances of the birth, marriage, or death of an individual, made by public authority, or a register such as is recognized by law, it must be produced as being the best evidence the case will admit, but, when such writ ten evidence does not exist, parol evidence may be given to establish those facts. 224. Proof of the birth of a child may be made by giving evidence of possession. When a child lives with his reputed father and mother, as such, proof of these facts will, in general, be sufficient prima facie to establish the fact of his legitimacy, and that he is what his condition represents him to be. His civil state may also be proved by the testimony of witnesses, as where the witness was present at the accouchement ; or by private writings, such as entries in a bible ; or by the correspondence of deceased members of his family, (a) It may also be established by public registers, authorized by law to be kept. (6) 225. The civil state of marriage is proved either by direct evidence, establishing the fact, or by evidence of collateral facts and circumstances, from which its existence may be inferred. What is evidence for this purpose will be more fully considered when we come to examine what are the sufficient proofs of a marriage. (c)


Institutes of American Law 1851

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Step 3

Now that we have got the learning part down, we can actually start to apply what we are learning. The intent part is the longest part of changing our domicile and status. Only thru a mans actions can you tell his intent. And what is his intent, what is he trying to say thru his actions?

Two modes in life.
1. Subject, usually a member of a society, but in some places might actually still be a slave.
2. Free man, not a member of society, owing nothing to anyone but himself/kin.


Would a free man be getting a local library card by saying he is a member/resident of the fictional society? Or would he be paying a few dollars extra for the non resident card?

Society has a lot of benefits they use to entrap you with, it ain't all food stamps and section 8.

National banks are instrumentalities of the federal government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States. It follows that an attempt by a state to define their duties or control the conduct of their affairs is absolutely void wherever such attempted exercise of authority expressly conflicts with the laws of the United States and either frustrates the purpose of the national legislation or impairs the efficiency of these agencies of the federal government to discharge the duties for the performance of which they were created. These principles are axiomatic, and are sanctioned by the repeated adjudications of this Court.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/161/275/case.html

How else besides not engaging in the benefits for obligation scheme the government has going can we express our intent? 




I love to use public declarations, lets tell everyone what we are thinking, let us match our words to our actions, in order to create the intent.

Intent is a huge part, if you want to be free in the future, i suggest you start showing your intent today.


STEP 3 part 2

Statutes and statutory construction

One thing everyone needs to understand, if you can not read this stuff, you are better off just being a sheep. In order to find out if laws apply to us, or why they apply to us, we have to understand what they are telling us.

For the sanity of us all, never ever take another mans word on what something means, be it a case, statute, contract or anything else of importance in your life. Everyone sees things differently because of their beliefs.

I went and grabbed a link for a book to help you with this part, the hard part is tearing yourself away from the tv/facebook in order to read it. Remember knowledge only comes to those who look for it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_Qw9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=statutes+and+statutory+construction&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj45ryH9o_XAhWHSSYKHdkzBdUQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=statutes%20and%20statutory%20construction&f=false



Time to get busy folks.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Both these groups should be avoided....

It seems the guru's are at it again, fighting among themselves. Sadly both of them are idiots of the highest order, only fun times in jail with these folks leading the pack.

http://annavonreitz.com/reignofheavensociety.pdf


Judge Anna Von Ditz

Vs

The government of the united states of america 1781/ T - R.O.H.

https://reignoftheheavens.com/?p=2491


I love being subject to idiots, and these folks do not disappoint. All the drama, action and excitement you can handle.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Step 2


After reading the 1st step (http://iamman51.blogspot.com/2017/06/understand-this-or-you-will-never.html), we are now ready to take information from any source and view it objectively.
Our second step is also an exercise in understanding, that understanding takes us back to the days when wo/men first walked the earth. We must understand how societies formed, how they operate before we can understand how we are trapped in this society.
My research has shown that societies form when wo/men come together for some mutual benefit, back then, protection was almost a given as the reason. As with any contract, obligations were added as well as benefits.
Looking at any society in history, you will see certain benefits each society gave to it's members, and also the obligations each individual had to the whole.
How did society know which member owed what obligation and was owed what benefit?
Enter the concept of "status"
Hoebel tells us in his book "man in the primitive world", in which he has a whole chapter dedicated to status. Its actually to long to type so i will include a picture of the pages.
Suffice to say, every society has broken down its members by whats known as "status". We all know slaves were considered property, but what most dont know is it is the concept of status that allowed them to be classified as property.
Status is still active today in our society, status is simply the roles we play with respect to the different rights and duties associated with each one.
The status of Husband/Wife has different rights and duties then the status of Father/Mother.
Status plays such an important part of your life, and here is how. Google your state statutes or google US code. Notice that most law applies to "person/s".
A person is a wo/man with a status, blacks law defines it as a man according to the rank he holds in society.
Status can also be researched by looking up "legal character" or "legal personality".
Notice how the law says that a fetus is not a "person", that should of been a clue to all of us.
Of course the concept goes much deeper then my little post here, but hopefully we can now understand that a society can not have members that are free. And as society proceeds any form of government they may pick, it really matters little what form of government they do pick, as they are members and subjects under each and every one of them.


Saturday, October 14, 2017

Minnesota rule 220

I find instead of being able to spend time researching real law, i have to spend my time battling nonsense put out by the patritards. In this edition we hear that Minnesota rule 220 (which only applys to court procedure for folks domiciled in Minnesota) is somehow proof that your BC is a title to your legal fiction.

I am so excited to get started and finally see the proof, as you are as well i am sure, so lets take a look shall we?

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule.php?type=gp&id=220

Rule 220.Birth CertificatesThe Registrar of Titles is authorized to receive for registration of memorials upon any outstanding certificate of title an official birth certificate pertaining to a registered owner named in said certificate of title showing the date of birth of said registered owner, providing there is attached to said birth certificate an affidavit of an affiant who states that he/she is familiar with the facts recited, stating that the party named in said birth certificate is the same party as one of the owners named in said certificate of title; and that thereafter the Registrar of Titles shall treat said registered owner as having attained the age of the majority at a date 18 years after the date of birth shown by said certificate.
Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption
This rule is derived from 4th Dist. R. 11.05.



                                                                                                                                                           I dont see anywhere in there it saying the BC is title to your fiction, do you?
                                                                                                                                                           Let me quote it again and this time i will add in my comments.

                                                                                                                                                           Rule 220.Birth CertificatesThe Registrar of Titles is authorized to receive for registration of memorials(correction) upon any outstanding certificate of title an official birth certificate(basically this is saying that when a correction is made on an outstanding cert of title, a BC can be used to prove age, as noted below) pertaining to a registered owner named in said certificate of title showing the date of birth(because the BC is used to verify age) of said registered owner, providing there is attached to said birth certificate an affidavit of an affiant who states that he/she is familiar with the facts recited, stating that the party named in said birth certificate is the same party as one of the owners named in said certificate of title; and that thereafter the Registrar of Titles shall treat said registered owner as having attained the age of the majority at a date 18 years after the date of birth shown by said certificate.
Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption
This rule is derived from 4th Dist. R. 11.05.


                                                                                                                                                           This "rule" which does not apply to 90% of Americans, still does not mean what they try to say it does.

Here is another link discussing this very same rule .......


                                                                                                                                                           This is whats called patritard crap folks, lets put our thinking caps on shall we?

Monday, October 9, 2017

POLYDORE V. PRINCE.

An interesting case that discusses domicile and its effects. It is from 1837, so the information in the case pretty much invalidates the 14th amendment did it crew, as well as the BC/SSN sold us into slavery theorists.

POLYDORE V. PRINCE. [1 Ware (402) 411.]

The general doctrine of foreign jurists seems to be, that the state of the person, that is, his legal capacity to do, or not to do, certain acts is to be determined by the law of his domicil, so that if he has by that law, the free administration of his goods, or the right to maintain an action in a court of justice there, he has the same capacity everywhere; and if that capacity is denied to him by the law of his domicil, it is denied everywhere; that the laws determining the civil qualities of the person, called by the foreign jurists personal statutes, follow the person wherever he goes, as the shadow follows the body, and adhere to him like the color of the skin which is impressed by the climate.

Personal statutes are those which relate primarily to the person, and determine the civil privileges and disabilities, the legal capacity or incapacity of the individual, and do not affect his goods, but as they are accessory to the person. Such are those which relate to birth, legitimacy, freedom, majority or minority, capacity to enter into contracts, to make a will, to be a party to an action in a court of justice, with others of the like kind. Repertoire de Jurisprudence, mot “Statut.” According to this principle, a person who is a major or a minor, a slave or a freeman, has, or has not a capacity to appear as a party to an action in a court of justice, stare in judicio, in his own country, has the same capacities and disabilities wherever he may be.

The Code Napoleon has erected what seems to be the prevailing doctrine among the continental civilians into a positive law. “The laws concerning the state or capacity of persons govern Frenchmen, even when residing in a foreign country.” Code Civile, art. 3. If this general principle is to be received without qualification, it would seem to decide the present case at once, for it is admitted that in Guadaloupe where the libellant has his domicil, he can maintain no action in a court of justice. But though the principle is stated in these broad and general terms, yet when it is brought to a practical application in its various modifications, in the actual business of life, it is found to be qualified by so many exceptions and limitations, that the principle itself is stripped of a great part of its imposing authority. No nation, it is believed, ever gave it effect in its practical jurisprudence, in its whole extent.

Among these personal statutes, for which this ubiquity is claimed, are those which formerly over the whole of Europe, and still over a 952 large part of it, divide the people into different castes, as nobles and plebeians, clergy and laity. The favored classes were entitled to many personal privileges and immunities particularly beneficial and honorable to themselves.

It cannot be supposed that these immunities would be allowed in a country which admitted no such distinctions in its domestic policy. If a bill in equity were filed in one of our courts against an English nobleman temporarily resident here, would he be allowed to put in an answer upon his honor, and not under oath, because he was entitled to that personal privilege in the forum of his domicil? I apprehend not. In like manner the disqualification and incapacities, by which persons may be affected by the municipal institutions of their own country, will not be recognized against them in countries by whose laws no such disqualifications are acknowledged.

In England a person who has incurred the penalties of a premunire, or has suffered the process of outlawry against him, can maintain no action for the recovery of a debt, or the redress of a personal wrong. But would it be contended that because he could not maintain an action in the forum of his domicil he could have no remedy on a contract entered into, or a tort done to him within our jurisdiction? The reasons upon which an action is denied him in the forum of his domicil are peculiar to that country, and have no application within another jurisdiction. The incapacity is created for causes that relate entirely to the domestic and internal polity of that country. As soon as he has passed beyond its territorial limits, the reason of his incapacity ceases to operate, and in justice the incapacity should cease also.

It follows that the peculiar personal status, as to his capacities or incapacities, which an individual derives from the law of his domicil, and which are imparted only by that law, is suspended when he gets beyond the sphere in which that law is in force. And when he passes into another jurisdiction his personal status becomes immediately affected by a new law, and he has those personal capacities only which the local law allows.

The civil capacities and incapacities with which he is affected by the law of his domicil, cannot avail either for his benefit or to his prejudice, any further than as they are coincident with those recognized by the local law, or as that community may, on principles of national comity, choose to adopt the foreign law. Though the civilians, as has been observed, generally, hold that the law of the domicil should govern as to the personal status, it is by no means true that they are universally agreed. Voet, one of the most eminent, of whom it has been said that by his clearness and logic he merits the title of the geometer of jurisprudence (Merl. Quest de Droit Confession, § 2, note 1), after stating that such is the opinion of the majority, “plurium opinio,” gives his own opinion in decisive terms, that personal statutes, as well as those relating to things, are limited in their operation to the country by which they are established; and he supports his opinion by the authority of the Roman law, as well as by that plain and obvious axiom of the jus gentium, that the legislative power of every government is confined to its own territorial limits. Ad Pand. lib. 1, tit. 4, pt. 2, notes 5, 7, 8. Gail, who has been styled the Papinian of Germany, maintains the same opinion in terms equally positive. Pract. Obs. lib. 8, Obs. 122, note 11

“The entire change of the legal character of individuals, produced by a change of local situation, is far from being a novelty in the law. A residence in a new country introduces a change of legal condition, which imposes rights and obligations totally inconsistent with the former rights and obligations of the same persons. Persons bound by particular contracts which restrain their liberty, debtors, apprentices, and others, lose their character and condition for the time, when they reside in another country, and are entitled as persons totally free, though they return to their original servitude and obligations upon coming back to the country they 955 had quitted.”




You can read the whole case in my groups files section   https://www.facebook.com/groups/2109106235982251/

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Public declaration for claim on vehicle.

                             

   Now comes Randall Flagg, a living man, demanding that any person or entity that has a claim/ security interest and/or legal title to my automobile (make/model/vin) make themselves known or forfeit their claim forever.   Also be it known that any property related or attached to my private property, in the form of any ownership documents must be returned to me. If found to be in possession of my private property after this date, the fee associated for unlawfull being in possession of my private property will be 10,000. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, this is your notice. If someone uses my ownership documents and/or legal title to gain jurisdiction over my automobile, or to convert my automobile into a motor vehicle, the liability for those actions are 25,000.

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

7 Deadly beliefs

  I have cut back my online debate time because as expected, the information is not getting thru the belief structure the gubermint has beaten into our head. Further time spent discussing these 7 deadly beliefs will not be forth coming from me friends.

1. Secured party creditor.

   Who came up with this crap theory, most likely big daddy government. First off, you are a subject, you always have been. The government, your master, is able to make whatever it wants as currency. As a member of society, you gave your right to decide what payment is mandatory to the collective "we the people". This theory does not even address domicile, much less discuss it in any depth for a successful change of status. These folks also seem to get into the most trouble with their TDA's, fee schedule's, lien's and the such. What an impressive way to not only get the people who want to think, to not only identify themselves with these bogus paper work pushing, but even to commit crimes. Ingenious!

Follow this line of thinking, if thinking is something you dont normally do.


2. State national

Another rampant belief that is just bait for the non thinking. A magical society/government where men were free to do what they wanted and owed no obligations. These folks think that the form of government has something to do with them being free. totally ignoring the obligations placed upon them by society before they ever even picked a form of government. Claiming allegiance to a man made fiction like a "state" is no different then claiming allegiance to the feds.


3. Tda's, hidden accounts, redemption,etc

These represent the financial aspect part of the freedom movement, and some of the least thinking among us. They somehow think the government ( 20 trillion in debt) has billions in every persons "secret" account. That they can access this money and use it and somehow not set off hyper inflation. Usually part of the secured party creditor crew, spending time in these groups shows you that no one in them has a clue. These people are not interested in becoming free, but on getting a free ride.

4. The common law

Misconceptions abound in the freedom movement about common law, mainly by folks who have never read a legal book on the subject, but instead have read patritard white papers on it instead. The common law is only common to the subjects of the society in which said common law is administered. Free men govern them self under natural law, not common law. I would suggest picking up some books on these subjects, i have many in my FB group files section....  https://www.facebook.com/groups/2109106235982251/


5. Defacto/ Dejure

How about defucktard? What does it matter if the government is either one, free men are not a part of either one. Another time robber, dismiss this shit out of hand.

6. The constitution/ founders

Another supreme mind jack, this document is what allows subjection to the federal government with no recourse. Most people have the totally wrong ideal about this document and our founders intent. I have many resources on this area and time in history for you to reevaluate your belief on the subject.

7. That you will ever become free without understanding your beliefs.

I keep telling people how to free themselves, but it seems like they already know it all, but yet are still not free. People struggle with admitting they might be wrong about something they always thought they knew. Oh well, i can only inform, its up to each and every one of us to decide how much we really want to know.

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)


https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art12/


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.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/8-ways-soldiers-recruited-medieval-england.html/2




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).
Groups
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).
Classes
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).
Stratification
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.