 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
John,
The contradictions within all this Jurist Orientation information is piling very high at this point.
Individualism was a historical wave or meme of a concept that became synonymous with anarchism.
This wave began officially with a book concerning experiments done by Josiah Warren where the book title was Equitable Commerce. Josiah Warren is now said to be the first American Anarchist. He was among the group of Individual Anarchists (so called) including Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and then such notable historical figures as Benjamin Tucker who published a periodical titled Liberty in the late 1800s.
If you have not read the work of Lysander Spooner in his work Trial by Jury, then you are missing a lot of very important information.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
On one hand, during this Jurist Orientation, anarchism is being demonized and then, on the other hand, individualism is being credited. It is much simpler to see both anarchism and individualism as proponents of voluntary associations.
How do people defend against being victims and becoming criminals themselves?
That is the required information if Liberty is going to be defended by innocent people who are innocent of being the people (criminals) who are causing the injury.
So the Collectivist Versus Individualist Dogma is a demonstration of the wrongs that are claimed to be wrongs why the same people claiming to offer the right terminology.
If the problem is crime, then it does not make sense to call criminals by any other name than criminals. If the problem is criminal acts done as a result of people failing to realize that they are perpetrating crimes, they are still criminals, but their crimes are no longer measurable as willful, or premeditated, crimes. So called "collectivists," if they are not willfully intending to injure innocent people for fun and profit, if in stead so called "collectivists" are injuring the innocent people they injure as a misguided attempt to offer help to the innocent people being injured, the level of criminal behavior, going from willful injury upon innocent people to some lesser level of criminal behavior, crime by error, whatever you want to call it, still results in injury to the innocent victims by the criminals.
So why can't it be easy to know the true nature of the struggle for Liberty as being defenders of Liberty versus criminals who perpetrate crimes upon innocent people?
If by use of the word collectivist the intended user of the word is endeavoring to point out that these so called "collectivists" are injuring innocent people, then the English word for that is criminal, not collectivist.
I Pastor at a Church can pass the collection plate and then said Pastor becomes a collectivist by that action. I that a criminal act?
False labels are used by criminals so as to hide their crimes, to somehow justify those crimes, so fellow criminals, and victims, who collectively agree to use those false labels are aiding and abetting those criminals by that willful act.
Meanwhile, in the Jury Orientation process, collectivism is being defined by the opponents of collectivism as if a Priest in a church passing the collection plate is thereby punished collectively by the dictators dictating this ONE MONOPOLY definition of one word collectivism.
What do you call that? When the victims and the fellow criminals agree to use the words that the criminals use to hide the inculpatory evidence that the criminals are willfully (or mistakenly) injuring innocent people then how do you, if that is what you choose to do, justify such a measure of aid afforded to the criminals at the expense of the victims? You help hide their crimes, and you do so willfully or as a function of you, yourself, being misled by those false labels?
Voluntary taxes are possible, proven under specific conditions not limited to the example provided by the time period between 1776 and 1788 within those constitutionally limited Republics joined together voluntarily into a Confederation or Federation of individual Sovereign States.
Defensive power used voluntarily in defense of Liberty, it is not a difficult concept to understand.
Involuntary taxes, on the other hand, are merely covers covering up the fact that the criminals take over and the criminals are running the former government which is no longer worthy of the word government.
I am losing confidence in this effort to return defensive power, and sanity, back into our collection of collected people who are voluntarily collecting themselves on the own volition into this collection of Sovereign States where sovereign individuals find their domiciles.
There is no way that free people can win the war defined as "who can confuse the most people the soonest" since that is willful deception. so why do it?
Why add to the deception whenever someone willfully agrees to label a criminal anything other than a criminal?
I suffered through the video previous to this so called "collectivist versus individualist" battle, and there was no mention in that previous video of it being the work of the John Birch Society.
The voice sounded like John McManus. I may be mistaken.
I will try to suffer through this collectivism versus individualism dogma. This really burns my butt. "The true debate of our time" my ass.
Anyone who claims the right to enforce economic power transferred from those who produce it to those who get it are by that act created a crime.
You, or anyone, can call it TAX. You, or anyone, are merely criminals as the crime being perpetrated upon the innocent person who created something worth stealing is targeted by you, and when that enforced transfer of that economic power is complete the act is known as theft.
How many labels are needed to justify theft?
There is no end to the number of labels because the first on is a lie, and there will never be an end to the number of lies required to falsely justify the first lie.
If this group of supposed Jurists is founding their, your, justifications on this involuntary tax (theft) lie, then I cannot be a part of it because there is no honor among thieves. It is a crime to steal from innocent people. There can be no justification for stealing from innocent people.
Voluntary collections of economic power freely transferred from the volunteers to a central collection, or FUND, is exemplified in the concept of insurance, so where does the justification for involuntary transfers of economic power from the many to the one FUND originate, and perpetuate?
Not me.
More false words flow as I suffer through this Collectivist versus Individualist DOGMA as now am being told that rights are abstract and undefinable COLLECTIVE consciousness?
Are they willfully distorting the measurable facts or are they misled into exemplifying that which they claim, by their own words, to be worthy of discredit?
Collectivism is bad, according to this "information" and then the same people claim that rights are defined by the collective power of human perception? Rights disappear, are no longer in existence, if everyone fails to acknowledge the existence of rights?
That is wrong, and it is demonstrably wrong, so why claim that it is right?
Rights can easily be demonstrated as fact, measured precisely as fact, as a negative and a positive. Each criminal act acted out by a criminal upon an innocent victim is proof of the absence of rights, as the criminal destroys rights in time and place, as a measurable fact, as the victim targeted by the criminal suffers injury caused by the criminal.
Rights can be accurately measured positively as each human being exercises the right to defend against a criminal intending to steal from the targeted victim that is targeted by the criminal. If the intended victim says no thanks, and if the intended victim can afford an effective determining deterrent to the criminals aggressive aggression, not only communicating disagreement, but effectively nullifying the aggression, which can be merely deterrence, the the positive, accurate, measure of rights are those items that would have been stolen if the defender did not defend against the crime intended to be perpetrated by the criminal.
It can be understood that the expense of defending against crime is an investment in the form of insurance, because criminals will perpetrate crimes if good men (and women) do nothing to deter crime; to make crime an unfordable act for criminals.
The expense of defending against crime, in that light, is as reasonable as defense against attack by wild animal, or defense against attack by communicable disease, or defense against any natural disaster, or defense against accident.
Defense is not automatically (prejudged) as a cost, or loss, taken by a criminal that does yet attempt to perpetrate a crime. Locking the door, building a fence, learning how to employ weapons, gaining defensive weapons, are all forms of insurance against many possible injuries including the possible injuries perpetrated by human beings who decide to injure innocent people for fun and profit.
Make crime pay less, and there will be less high paid criminals.
Make it a "Law" that criminals have to be paid as much as the criminals demand and you define the meaning of the term CRIME, not STATE, not Collectivist Collections of Collectivism, you define, by those involuntary transfers of POWER (economic power) the fact that a crime is being perpetrated by criminals upon targeted, innocent, victims, as soon as any victim disagrees with the transfer being transferred, and the victim prefers to use what power the victim has in defense against such crimes perpetrated by such criminals no matter what FALSE label is used to cover up those obvious, measurable, crimes by that, or those, criminals.
A badge, or license, or Edict, or Dictate, claiming a RIGHT to steal is no right, it is crime, so why call it anything but a crime?
"Rights are born on the battlefield"
That is supposed to be an offer for agreement as to the true definition, the true origin, and the true nature of rights, so as to have a working definition of rights?
I not only smell a rat here I can clearly measure that rat smell. Justification for "rights" here is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, and that is the essence of the criminal lie.
Did that speaker in this video quote MAO?
Really?
Now I am being told that people win wars? No one wins wars. Wars are the ultimate crimes and failure to avoid wars are failures paid for by defenders as well as aggressors. This "information" is clearly, demonstrably, false.
Now I am being "informed" about how much better the Bill of Rights is compared to the United Nations claims of rights to be given or taken away?
The Constitution claims that the so called "Federal" government (clearly, demonstrably, not Federal) can TAX (as in demand payments without question) the targeted victims that are not spelled out as target victims, for such language would be too accurate, such language would be true, in fact, so such accurate, factual, true language has to be covered up with false words such as United States Citizens or who knows how many more lies are "offered" by such crafty criminals?
This was all clearly stated by the opponents of that Constitution FRAUD.
Example:
"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 controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly 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 harrassed? 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." George Mason July 4th 1788
NOW the video reports another example of the Might makes Right dogma with an illustration of nebulous construction concerning 3 (and then 2) people fighting over the last bit of sustainable economic power. That is willfully deceptive.
There is a very good example of what human beings do under extreme economic hardship, and the lessons to be learned can be explained in great detail, having to do with the true power of authority, or leadership, as a competitive market of ideas. The one who has the best solution (not kill or be killed as the "final solution") wins the market of ideas, and that proves to be true authority in any case.
Look here:
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-Sea-A-Novel/dp/0316738883
Someone other than a true leader, in times of economic extreme hardship, might come up with the idea of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, which taken to the logical conclusion is CANNIBALISM.
So this video, as far as I can tell at this point, is a thinly disguised justification for CANNIBALISM, or, Might makes Right, or Do unto others before they can do unto you, or whatever FALSE label is used to cover up the fact that the idea is the same criminal idea used by every single criminal who ever disgraced, or discredited, the human gene pool.
This is very difficult for me to suffer through, and I am only 1/3 of the way into this "information" that is part of Jurist Orientation?
Now I am being informed that rights do not come from the power of numbers as if I must be incapable of remembering the earlier statement that rights a won by the greater power in war.
Is there no limit to how much contradiction a person can willfully offer, as if a target of such offers of contradiction is incapable of accurate measures of said contradiction?
What lie, in other words, is too outrageous to be believed by the intended victims?
How about the lie told by Hamilton so as to convince the targeted victims that their productive power can be the source of CREDIT (Good Faith and Credit of the American People) while at the same time that power is National Debt?
In other words the actual people who produce anything worth stealing is stolen by those Central Banker Frauds, and then that stolen power is loaned out, at interest, back to the people who were robbed in the first place, and then the thieves then claim that the victims own that National Debt, as the criminals spend the actual economic power in the futile effort to produce the never ending stream of lies required to cover up the crime in progress?
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
From:
Reclaiming Revolution
In other words: If people are stupid enough to believe that lie, then people are stupid enough to believe that Might makes Right is true while at the same time Might does not make Right?
This:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Thomas Paine 1776
That becomes this:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
No longer this:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
Opposites can be believed at once? Bad is Good and Good is Bad all at the same time?
I think the term is Nihilism or even the condition known as necrophilia.
Now I am being told lessons on the meanings of words such as Democracy?
This is the old Mob Rule dogma, which is a measurable form of deception.
Here is are sources and quotes as to the use of the word democracy used positively, not negatively:
Rights of Man
"It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy." Thomas Paine
Rat-ification of The Constitution
"Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I was possessed with talents, or possessed of any thing that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like Englanda compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Hollandan association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."
Patrick Henry June 5th 1788
I can explain in detail what I think is part of the origins of this lie that intends to discredit the concept of democracy from it's original meaning to the current falsified or counterfeited meaning, but who would listen?
I finally managed to get through the Collectivist versus Individualist false propaganda, which including some reasonable information along with the obvious contradictions.
Now I am having trouble with the Virtue video in Jurist Orientation.
I do not have trouble with the words quoted, so far, so much as the obvious problem of the words being offered by people who say one thing and then they do the opposite.
George Washington practically ruined the Volunteer Military of The Revolution, and that is well documented and reported by Murray Rothbard in the following work:
Generalissimo Washington
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces.
Here in Washington's own words (or he may have hired someone to write these words):
Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
Hamilton, Washington, and John Adams were all false Federalists.
Washington under the obvious direction of Hamilton assembled a conscripted (slavery) Army of National Troops (as large as the Army Washington commanded during the Revolution) to crush the revolution that was happening all along the American Frontier, and Washington invaded the former Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republic of Pennsylvania as a show of Aggressive War for Profit that the Federalists (so called) now commanded. They crushed a money competitor.
Further into Jury Orientation there are quotes from John Adams. Who do you think was behind The Alien and Sedition Acts as the Federalists who favored English (the supposed bad guys that had invaded America during The Revolution) and those same Federalists, such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams, made it a law to punish anyone saying anything in favor of France (The French actually helped The Rebels Defeat the English in The Revolutionary War) with those Alien and Sedition Acts.
Thrown in, so far, with the quotes by the criminal Washington, and the criminal John Adams, are the words of Jefferson, who was no where to be found during the Secret Proceedings that hatched the Usurpation, the Fraud, that was later to become known as The Constitutional Convention, and Jefferson was also absent, as far as I know, during the Ratification Process whereby the Federalists ran their campaign to sway Public Opinion with false promises of Federation; which was not Federation as was clearly reported by those who wanted Confederation, or true Federation, those people like George Mason and Patrick Henry, who were somehow, as if by magic spell, where called Anti-Federalists.
Explanations offered here:
Reading list
In particular this:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
Quote:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "n countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
The Federalists (Central Bankers and probably in league with The Bank of England) could not allow MONEY COMPETITION, not World Wide, and certainly not in America, because America working as a Federation is designed to work, would quickly become much too powerful to be ever again subjected to a World Wide Banking Fraud.
So the Central Bankers had to kill off that Spirit of Liberty before it was allowed to grow too powerful.
From the same source of Hamilton's deeds quoted above is the following explanation of how Free Market Government, or a Democratic Federated Republic, such as the one under The Articles of Confederation, work as designed:
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
Now I can return to Jurist Orientation, and I am not finding trouble in Law of the Land.
How about an original version of common law and then a possible counterfeit version or common law:
Original:
Trial by Jury Lysander Spooner
_____________________________________
And other authorities abundantly corroborate this assertion.[8] The king was, therefore, constitutionally the government; and the only legal limitation upon his power seems to have been simply the Common Law, usually called "the law of the land," which he was bound by oath to maintain; (which oath had about the same practical value as similar oaths have always had.)
_____________________________________
And
______________________________________
"The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae,as in the statute of Magna Carta,chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae;as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III., chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae,as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, "Nolurnus leqes Angliae mutari,"&c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni(the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. -, and de quo warranto,and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas,cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes." - 1 Hale's History of the Common Law, 128.
Counterfeited version:
http://one-heaven.org/canons/positive_law/article/259.html
_______________________________________________
The word “common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”.
________________________________________________
Those criminals running the Foreign (and repugnant) Private Corporation Bar Association (Union of "Law" Professionals) use the counterfeit version of Common Law, and thereby there is much in the way of potential confusion when someone acting in defense of Liberty thinks that they are referring to the genuine concept of Rule of Law, Law of the Land, or common law, or Common Law, based upon Natural Law, or God's Law, or The Golden Rule, or no one being above the law, people being subject to Natural Law, and then people being above insurance investments or so called "governments" that are either voluntary or they are criminal.