There are so many things wrong with a system where a special group is allowed to steal from everyone else & tell everyone what to do, but then we are supposed to somehow hold them accountable at the same time... with votes every 4 years 🙄

The very idea that they only have powers we delegate to them, but then they can steal from all of us (when we don't have that power to delegate) kinda demonstrates the whole thing was a fraud to begin with.

The goal of the American experiment was a good one, create the smallest govt ever in order to allow markets to thrive. But it was a total failure. We have the largest & most powerful govt ever, run by insane pedophiles, who have no problem risking the destruction of the entire world.

The problem is that the primary way to hold any organization accountable is via withdrawal of financial support. The power to steal or tax destroys that means of imposing accountablity. It's so destructive that it creates an inverted morality where people do better the more they steal & control & destroy.

A constitution can't fix legitimized theft or the inverted morality it creates. We have to remove the power to tax & make all economic transactions voluntary. Thankfully Bitcoin helps with that. But we've got a long way to go before people let go of their religious belief in govt.

The only thing that really distinguishes govt from a business or charity is the power to tax. If funding is voluntary then a "govt" has to compete for financial support & can go out of business like any other organization. If the only transactions we consider legitimate are voluntary ones, then we have achieved an anarcho-capitalist society.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

If you feel so strongly about your financial freedom (which you should), it would behoove you to study constitutional law, common law, contract law. What you call the State is actually a corporation masquerading as such under color of law. We as divine earthly men are under god's law first and foremost, with inalienable rights to liberty and property. All rights waived to the State are by contract only. The corporate government has no jurisdiction over you as a flesh and blood man, and it is up to you to challenge their jurisdiction, and retain and uphold your rights, through knowledge of the true Law. Then freedom shall be yours. Freedom to travel, freedom from income tax, from taxation on your property... All these enslavements are perpetuated under fraudulent contract and color of law, which we the people allow by ignorance and fear.

Dude, there are no magic words that will make them not go after you if they decide to. Ask Irwin Schiff. Or Karl Hess or Larken Rose. They are a criminal gang built on a religion that says you owe them. No member of govt believes the govt is a corporation that doesn't have any jurisdiction over you.

I'm just not paying them. I don't need any special words to justify it. They are a criminal gang & they are destroying everything, & I refuse to contribute to that. I have set my life up in such a way that I don't make a lot or own a lot, so at the moment it doesn't really matter. And when I need to own more I will probably do it through a corporation & trust.

You ancaps have a very strange idea of what is voluntary

A bunch of ancaps came to our island home in Madeira recently

Called themselves "governors"

Deny the reality and existence of our society and democracy

Impose "intentional" communities on our already 6 century old emergent society.

Planning to build a militaristic "fortress Citadel" only for bitcoiners (apartheid for the native Madeirans)

No attempt to seek validation from the Will of The People

Blocked anyone on social media who dared to question your cult's intention

If you want to build a perfect society there's heaps of land in the Sahara Desert. You can turn sea water to clean, sunshine into bitcoins. Why do you have to colonize and invade people who ring no harm to you?

And the biggest insanity is how your Austrian/libertarian/ancap economics has been destroyed by bitcoin's zero entropy features and has no application whatsoever with bitcoin.

Here's the proof

Sure there may not literally be "magic words", but quite close enough to "magic" are the words: "Do I have a contract with you? If so, produce the contract."

You may think that "no member of govt believes the govt is a corporation that doesn't have any jurisdiction" over me. But I tell you the judges know very well and this is one of the basic, fundamental issues that cannot be usurped by judges, as proven in supreme case law - jurisdiction must be proven when challenged, and the onus is on the court/judge to prove jurisdiction, which they have none without a contract, because corporations operate on contract law ONLY unless there is an actual injured party (which there isn't, in the case of 95% of code and statute violations.)

What you think is your government is in FACT a corporation, a defacto government only, masquerading as lawful government. Think I'm kidding? You can look up their DUNS number online. Google for DUNS and search the system for your county/state/country. I guarantee you'll find the corporation of it.

In common law, as I understand it, you are not a criminal without there being an injured party. All codes/statutes/ordinances are NOT law, and we are under the Supreme Law of our Creator only, as secured by our Constitution, which delineates these limitations on government. Check out Article 6 Section 1 Clause 2.

So if I am charged with something (failure to pay a tax or a fine or violation of some nonsesnse ordinance) and there is no injured party, you believe that if I request that they proove their jurisdiction over me & I make it clear that I do not believe in their authority to charge me with anything, that this will keep them from pursuing me further?

re: judges have to prove jurisdiction - and if they refuse to do so? Who is going to compel them? Isn't it much easier for them to say "law says so, shut up"?

Can you cite one case where judge said "oh, you are right, no contract, no jurisdiction"? Because I've seen the opposite: rulings which ridicule those theories.

Basically, you are saying there is a big hole in the system. Why would they allow it? It would be such a precedent that the whole system would come down, and this consequence is obvious, so no judge is going to do it even if it was right thing to do.

Now, you may be absolutely right from moral point of view. But pragmatic POV says no way.