I don't know why you guys don't get it, but it is as plain as day to me.
Here is some reading material - if you have any trouble getting it:
It is a lot of reading, and that is the tip of the iceberg. I stopped in this Topic to see if there was anything new.
You guys don't get it.
Here is another source:
There is a good explanation in that book as to the design of a voluntary government, and you can call it a Republic, or you can call it a Confederation.
The idea is to maintain a Free Market of Governments. There are many States, or Cantons, where each competitive government is a limited government, or Constitutional Government, and those Legal Fictions compete with each other for the market share (as if free market) of tax payers, or investors, or citizens, or any word you want to call free people, so long as the connection between government and people is still free.
The idea is to FORCE each State to compete for market share and then each State is FORCED to be higher in quality and lower in cost compared to the competition.
It is as if the free states decide to form an imperfect Union, a voluntary Union, not a Union like the the one here in the current Abomination called U.S.A., run by organized crime, both the organized crime with badges, and the organized crime without badges, not that kind of Union.
Not the kind of Union where the Union thugs arrive at the door and demand protection money (protection from those same collectors of money), not that kind of Union.
The idea, that you guys appear not to get, as in you don't "get it", is that the imperfect, or voluntary Union, of Sovereign and Separate States, agree, at the State level, to form this Union, or not form it, as each State may, or each State may not, join the Union, or not join the Union, and each State my pay the Union dues and remain in it, or each State may not pay the Union dues, and be free to go, so long as one State does not attack another State, and that was one of the selling points of forming an imperfect, voluntary, Union, which is mutual defensive FORCE.
So, not getting it as you do, the point is that the Federated or Confederated part of the government kept, on the books, a rule where people within the Union can move from one State to anther State without being accosted, robbed, or otherwise having their Liberty taken away by any person in any State, with or without a badge, so long as the person in question was not accused of some crime whereby the accused was protected by a due process of law that was due everyone, such as the concept of being presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by 12 people in a Trial by Jury, where all 12 people had to agree that the person who was presumed to be innocent was found guilty by all 12 Jurors, and all 12 Jurors could try the case, all 12 Jurors could try the law itself, and all 12 Jurors decided on the punishment, in each case, and all 12 Jurors were picked by random lot.
Someone, for example, accused of defending their Liberties by forming a military force that was rebelling against an unfair, unjust, and criminal tax, for example, in one State, having lost that revolution in that State, could, run to another State, a State that didn't have such despotic rules, criminal enslavement made legal, were not guilty of any "Federal" crime, so the guys hired by the States to run the Federal government were not given permission to "return runaway slaves" back to their "owners" in that way.
If the idea is to make government a free market commodity, then the Federal employees are not given the legal power to enforce Slavery in one State, upon all the slaves in all the States.
If you don't get it, then you don't, and your words so far indicate that you don't get it.
The Force at work in those days was that Free Market Force and in those days the people hired to run Massachusetts went by the way of all criminals, and those governors run amok started to do exactly what the previous Despots did before the Patriots ran those criminals out of the country.
So Daniel Shays and a bunch of ex-Revolutionary War Veterans continued the Revolution in Massachusetts, and you all aught to know that their duty to do so is all spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which is another good source of information.
So...that last battle of the Revolution was suppressed by the criminals in the Massachusetts government, and Daniel Shays, and others, fled to Vermont.
What could a guy hired to run the Federal Government do?
When the criminals running Massachusetts demanded their slaves back, to make examples of their slaves, the good guys running the Vermont government ignored this case of whatever "runaway slave law" was said to exist by anyone.
That is called voting with your feet.
That is called voting and not having your vote count, also known as the ballot box.
That is called voting with your rifle when the criminals have taken over the State government, also known as the cartridge box.
That is called voting with your feet when the Slavers offer only one choice: Obey.
It worked, and it was done that way on purpose, as to improve upon the competitive (free market) examples then working in Holland and Switzerland.
We The People even get our Trial by Jury taken from Magna Carte Days in England.
Here is a source for that:
So, you guys don't get it, or maybe your words just don't show how you do get it.
I don't know.
But the concept of a Voluntary, Free Market, Government did work, can work again, but it can't work if the criminals take over at the Federal Level because they make the government "consolidated" in that way, on purpose from the start.
You don't get it, sure, but you could get it if you read this:
You don't even have to get the book at Amazon, there are plenty of free market book sellers, so why not have many State Governments on the Shelf instead of just having one monopoly government power?
You don't get it. Sure, I get that part.
Taken from the first link:
"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion?"
It may be a good idea to stop wallowing in ignorance.
End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home (not to crush competition)