Comment: I was just thinking of these issues myself

(See in situ)


I was just thinking of these issues myself

First of all, my position is that if our current 'government' actually followed the law then we would have a lawful anarchy. That is because there is no defined rulers within our form of Constitutional Government and the only authority is the People over those in government obliged themselves to the people's authority. The Constitution does not grant the authority of government to make applicable law to the people. The government's only scope of applicable legislation is limited to regulating commerce and itself. The proper process of common law is within our government is for agents to only operate on consent of the governed which means that lawful agency can only be obtained via a liable principal of the governed. Without lawful agency to a liable principal ANY action of government is unlawful, period.

So I presume you mean to completely tear down the government as it stands which I fully support because it is not government at this point; it is a criminal gang of insane criminal lunatics who for some reason think they are the law.

To answer your questions with my humble opinions:

1. Nuclear weapons- We should dismantle all nuclear weapons in an orderly way regardless of whether we tear down the government. The government is 100% guaranteed to fall no matter what. It is a guaranteed fact from observation of history and especially seeing what the insane lunatics are doing now and the very fact the nuclear weapons exist means we are in danger from them being utilized on us with or without the government.

2. Yes there will be criminal gangs who use violence to attempt to steal from and enslave others. That is a guaranteed fact. Guess who these people will be. They will be the same criminal gangs and mercenaries in the government now. When their paychecks stop coming in they will simply turn into roaming barbarians who openly rape and pillage as they do now only they will have some other scam they claim instead of it being that they are the "government". The answer to this is already in history in the application of common law in the wild west. Common law appearance in court was totally voluntarily even for defendants in criminal cases accused of crimes. When someone did not voluntarily appear before a jury to argue the facts of the case the only presumption was that the accused had voluntarily chosen to give up the protections of law; they had voluntarily become an outlaw. There were varying degrees of outlaws from minor non-violent thieves to murderers and everything in between. Typically, once the jury ruled the man/woman an outlaw there information was posted and published in order to demonstrate to the rest of the community that they had a bad reputation and could not be trusted to operate in a lawful manner. In some cases the outlaw would be told to leave and don't come back but for really violent criminals a community would form a posse and grown ass men who would go hunt down and kill the outlaw and would typically offer one last chance for being brought to a jury for trial. Another way criminal outlaws were dealt with would be for another grown ass man to offer a verbal contract, with witnesses, to a duel to death. Once a man had voluntarily given up the protections of law it was of no issue to law or the jury to kill an outlaw because the outlaw was the one who voluntarily gave up protections of law. The wild west faced gangs of natives, roaming bandits, traveling snake oil salesmen committing fraud and gangs of corporate mercenaries who sought to control a whole region. Force was dealt with force. Strong honest men became paid defense forces and would deputize other competent men when needed because the peace and success of the community depended on having a strong defense. Honest people worked together and were willing to kill any outlaw criminal who would not live within law and threaten the peace of a community. If you compare this to what we have now, we have gang of violent criminals calling themselves "law enforcement" who no-one will stand up to and are protected by vast military might so that they may commit their criminal injury upon people with impunity. Which is more threatening, a rogue gang of criminals or an entire vast military force ready to kill anyone and everyone at a moments notice who challenge the criminals claiming to be law enforcement?

3. Of course you will have the helpless slaves who demand slavery be there at the first wiff of some extreme shit go down. Just as we have those who demand slavery now and the friggin ninnies out there who need a "law" for everything they don't like to be bothered with.

All of this is why knowing and understanding real law is key to the success of any free people whether with or without a government. If people don't understand what real law actually is then they are doomed to lose all freedom no matter what they do. The only way to have peace is to understand what real law actually is.

What is real law? No law can violate any other law. Just like scientific law legal law is discovered not written. All law is an application of logic that starts with one law:
Do no harm (also constructed as 'do not trespass another')
This breaks down into 2 categories of breaches:
Breach of Peace
Breach of Duty

Breach of Peace - breaks out into all non-conflicting strict constructions of types of breach of peace: theft, assault, trespassing property, extortion, fraud, murder, etc.

Breach of Duty - is violations of contractual obligations one voluntarily bound themselves to. Do what you say you say you are going to do.

All forums for remedy and fundamental non-conflicting truths are laid out as maxims of law as to find what is the fundamental non-conflicting nature of the application of law.

The key to success of any free people is knowing and upholding the protections of law and to never allow someone to claim that a violation of law is lawful. Legal law just like scientific law can never be conflicting in its application or scope. What is the point of calling something "law" if it is filled with conflicts? That doesn't make any sense and is exactly why we are having this discussion. If the people now claiming to be "government" were not complete criminal scumbags and total brain dead idiots who can't think for themselves then they would only be seeking to maintain consistent (never conflicting) equal application of APPLICABLE law. What is applicable law? Duty is an example. The Constitution has no application to the People because it was never the people who took an oath to abide by that contract. The contract is applicable to those contracted for the application of that law which is those who work for government under that oath. Voluntary contracting of law is where law begins to get detailed in who and how it is applicable to whom. Do no harm is natural common law applicable all the time because it is the whole point we ever sought the concept of justice in the first place.

So there is my 2 cents.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...