 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
That leads to 2 conclusions. 1. Innocent people do not need government. 2. Criminals need government.
If people are going to do what they do naturally, which is live and let live, and do so without government, then people need to teach criminals that crime does not pay: innocent people need to teach the criminals that their criminal choices will not result in any benefit realized by the criminal: at all.
When government was called Legem Terrae, before Magna Carta, in England, the routine was for judgment to be determined by the whole country, unanimously, through their juries. Judgment was typically limited to a fine offered to a convicted criminal; an amount of cost to the criminal that constituted a redemption offered to the criminal, to allow the criminal to return from outside the law - a voluntary choice was made by the criminal to step outside the law - and a judgment was offered by the whole country, through the jury, to afford the criminal a choice to return back inside the protection of the law.
Law was (still is) to offer those who choose to step outside the law a choice of redemption; which is also considerable as a choice to restore the injured, innocent, victim in any case.
Criminals refusing to pay the fine, which was a fine that did not cripple, destroy, or ruin the offender's capacity to live free in liberty, would be a choice made by the criminal to thereby volunteer to remain outside the law.
Someone outside the law, voluntarily, is someone who refuses to pay the judgment, and that is someone who is taught to know that if the outlaw is found dead by the obvious hand of another man, that killing of that outlaw is not considerable as a crime: no more than finding a dead Mad Dog would be considerable as a crime if the Mad Dog was found shot to death today; perhaps in the school playground, perhaps shot by a parent maintaining the right to be armed.
Someone refusing to pay the judgment, or refusing to accept a trial by the country, would then be someone unprotected, and likely threatened, if not killed, and thereby inspired to make a better choice, such as attend his trial, and such as pay the fine to restore the victim, or pay the fine to redeem himself; all of which is done voluntarily.
In that context offered in those words above, which are merely my own words, not the words of George Mason, or Thomas Jefferson, or Lysander Spooner, just my own words, but the message is similar, if not exactly the same, based upon a simple, voluntary, principle - with that in mind - what place does the following belong?
"The most obvious hurdle is what protections, duties, and obligations are to be attributed to the dissenters (Those who won’t sign/contract) who reside within the jurisdiction/borders?"
Do you mean to ask something else? For example: do you mean to ask moral, honest, innocent, non-criminals, if something ought to be done with criminals who, with malice aforethought, perpetrate crimes upon innocent people?
Which contract does someone have to sign? Is there a contract that says "I will not be a criminal."?
Criminals will sign that contract; it is a perfect cover: fingers crossed.
"But a “Term of Allegiance” does not solve the first hurdle…what obligations can, without being offensive, be attributed to the dissenters (Those who would not sign)?"
In England, during the common law period, as described in the Essay on The Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner, the tax demanded by the people as a whole was for people to volunteer for jury duty, and for people to volunteer for military service (any service, in any way possible, by each volunteer, at a minimum, the service of refusing to aid and abet the enemy) during aggressive war for profit (rape, pillage, pogrom, "colonization," "empire building," whatnot), while the enemy is past the gate, in the playground, and doing what criminals always do so well: horrify, terrify, torture, enslave, extort, deceive, mass murder, and demand oaths of fealty to the new boss; same as the old boss.
Those dissenting (not going to jury duty, and not in some way defending against invasion during invasion), if caught, would be subject to their trial, and if found guilty, would they pay a fine?
If the jury, in that "traitor" case was not representative of the whole MORAL people, then said jury catching a jury dodger, or traitor, might decree something worse than a fine. People are not perfect, therefore voluntary government will not be perfect either. Involuntary government, on the other hand, is merely crime with a fake name.
Why is it a given that the wheel must be invented anew? A wheel is always round. Voluntary association, or law, is always what it is, not the opposite of what it is: not square.