 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
That, once again, is fiction. Following is a very well written explanation of voluntary association for mutual defense.
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury
In the First Congress of the Federated (confederation) of Independent States is the following:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Someone writing fiction today may assume the opposite of voluntary association to be the definition of the power of law. Rather than a voluntary association for mutual anything, other than mutual destruction of innocent people for profit, the power of law is turned up-side-down and claimed, falsely, to be involuntary servitude whereby the subjects of the false flag, false front, false law, are consumed in the process of extracting everything worth stealing from them, in due time.
Example:
"That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation."
So...the example set by Generalissimo Washington, after the criminals took over, is to enforce extortion payments by conscripting (enslaving) a National Army to invade the formerly independent State so as to collect the National Debt payments from those who dare to refuse to pay it. No investigation by Grand Jury in the county where the alleged "tax evader" is busy producing anything worth stealing. No presentment presented to the one individual who is presumed to be innocent of any crime. No offer of remedy offered to the accused after an investigation by Grand Jury in that county. No trial by the country to determine, in that county, if that alleged "tax evader" is guilty of anything at all. The dictator enslaves a massive army of aggression for profit, taking whoever can be hijacked from every formerly independent state, and the dictator does what dictators always will do when assuming absolute power.
"Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands."
Philadelphiensis IX
February 06, 1788
"As far as the States being innocently minding their own business that is not a historical fact."
Fiction writer on this web page.
The fiction writer now creates a fictional character that has made an easily disputed claim, but where is this fictional character? The character making that dubious claim is not me. For one thing, no State can be innocent or guilty, since individuals are responsible, and accountable, for what individuals do, and the collectivist mindset of dubious origin is exemplified in this type of fiction. For another thing, some States were handily taken-over by criminal elements that include those criminals in Massachusetts running their central banking debt scam, shown in the events that later became known as Shays's Rebellion. And there were those States taken-over by the Slave "Owners", including the carriers, or Slave Merchants, and Slave Traders.
Then Mr. Fiction writer turns to the Money Monopoly Scam idea. To help refute that idea that there has to be one money, one purse, one "official" money lender, the following help may be welcome to those who want help.
"In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/gary-north/fools-gold-2/
Or from less recent history:
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.
Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)
Back to the storytelling:
"And another example to refute that ALL Americans were just wanting to left peacefully alone in the Counties and States in that era:"
Who made-up such an outrageous story? The answer is clearly that the fiction writer alone is accountable for such an outrageous story.
More from His-story:
"As John Adams wrote of the ensuing hysteria in the streets of the capital city of Philadelphia, “ten thousand people….day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government.”
Washington (warmonger), John Adams (British Loyalist), and Alexander Hamilton were members of the so-called (falsely called) Federalist Party. Those people made a deal with the Slave Traders in the south, to subsidize the African Slave Trade for as long as they could, and in return, the Warmongering, Aristocratic, Central Banking Fraud Criminals created a National Government, but they had to do so by devious means: perpetrating fraud. Fraud at that level is treason.
Each individual is responsible, perhaps not accountable, to their own willful, or accidental, actions. If someone starts claiming that the State did it, and they do not mean to account for each individual doing whatever they did in time and place, then someone starts down that stupid, and servile, collectivist story telling.
_____________________________________________
3 Attempts to publish the above at Redoubt News. I sent a message through Contact. I asked if there is a way to fix this problem when comments fail to post.