Originally
posted from 08-01-02 to 08-29-02
Minarchy:
A Functionalist Argument for Limited Government
by Kent
B. Van Cleave
An online debate
among participants in the University of Arizona Libertarians discussion
group prompted this attempt to develop and express my understanding
of minarchy, the notion of minimal government: what justifies it, whether
it's more than just a pipe dream, and how it differs from anarchy, the
absence of government. This version differs slightly from the article
as originally published on my Evolution
and Philosophy website and elsewhere.
Though the ideas
might best benefit from being presented in an academic style, this was
written informally for a mixed audience of philosophers and laymen.
I have changed the original only to make it a bit more accessible to
a wider readership. Perhaps, if it provokes sufficient response, I will
rework it to be more suitable for an academic journal.
THE
FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
I'm a functionalist
-- in a broader sense than the variety discussed in philosophy of mind.
I think that even matters of ontology (the taxonomy of what exists)
are best explained in functional terms. An object, for example, is best
understood in terms of how it interacts, as a unit (as opposed to a
collection of independently functioning parts), with its environment
-- perhaps best exemplefied by the fact that human beings are psychologically
disposed (for evolutionary and developmental reasons) to regard it as
an object.
Now (if I haven't
lost you already with such a controversial abstraction), how do I apply
functionalism to the concept of government? The concept of rights? Basically,
the idea is that something is identified (and is best defined) by what
it DOES.
WHAT
ARE RIGHTS?
This question is
too large to address here in detail. For our purposes, I need to distinguish
between moral rights and legal rights. As important background, I'll
tell you that I also distinguish between natural rights and civil rights:
Natural rights I take to be general kinds of opportunity -- first, those
that one would have in the complete absence of other people. When nobody
else is around, you have complete freedom to live your life as you see
fit, within the bounds of physical possibility. You enjoy life, freedom
of movement, property (unlimited use of the things within your control),
etc. Extend this concept to include peaceful, voluntary interaction
with other people (according them the same rights you would claim for
yourself) without the interference of any other external control (e.g.,
government), and you have freedom of association, contract, and the
like. I know this differs from the standard Aristotelian view, but I've
decided not to be shy about advancing functional definitions to replace
traditional ones (as you'll continue to see). Civil rights are the general
kinds of things one reasonably and justifiably expects from a government
to which one has consented. For illustration, the most important of
these is equal treatment under the law.
Back to the essential
distinction for this argument, though. Moral rights are those general
kinds of opportunity one has to defend one's natural rights against
violation by others. One has the right to retaliate personally when
one's natural rights are violated, or to contract with an agent to do
so indirectly. Legal rights are those general kinds of opportunity one
has to defend one's civil rights. When one has contracted with a government,
one can defend either directly or through an agent any violation by
the government of that contract.
WHAT
IS GOVERNMENT?
I think there's
a tendency among anarchists to define government as an illegitimate
institution that controls people without their consent -- and extorts
money from them in order to do so. This conveniently defines out of
existence the sort of government mentioned by Jefferson in the Declaration:
one whose legitimacy derives from the fact that the governed HAVE consented
to it (and, I would add, contribute to it voluntarily -- something the
Founders probably didn't think possible). I want to put aside any traditional
presuppositions about the nature of government and look at what essential
functional attributes it has. What does government DO that, if removed,
would eliminate its status as government?
'Government', then,
as a general term, will be defined by the functional attributes of entities
that are included by it. Governments are not individual people (even
monarchies have lesser officials to carry out the monarch's wishes);
they are institutions.
Not all institutions
are governments. Families, churches, schools, businesses, professional
associations, etc. -- all are institutions, but are not governments
because they lack an essential property that distinguishes governments
from other institutions of society: they do not require the use of force
or the threat of force to accomplish their essential functions.
Governments are
institutions that DO require force or the threat of force to accomplish
their essential functions.
Note that the goals
of specific governments are irrelevant at this point. Governments might
exist to maintain the power of a line of kings, or to empower the proletariat,
or to secure individual liberties -- whatever. They might fit the anarchist's
conception of the inherently oppressive institution, or they might genuinely
serve just to protect individual rights, as the Founders intimated.
One more essential
property applies to governments: a claim to legitimacy in the exercise
of their power. Without this, gangs of highwaymen (relying as they do
on force, yet knowing full well they have no right to what they take)
would be governments. The claim to legitimacy might rest on divine right,
on popular acclaim, on universal consent, or on voices in some dictator's
head -- but no government acknowledges that it has NO legitimacy.
Because my intended
audience is familiar with libertarian philosophy, I won't offer much
detail for the next several foundational points for my views here.
First, the claim
to legitimacy of government must also rest on its use of force being
limited to responding to violations of individual rights (abiding by
the libertarian prohibition against the initiation of force -- the defining
principle of libertarianism).
Next, I'll assert
without argument that protecting individual rights is the proper role/goal
of government (if it has any at all), and that consent of the governed
can confer legitimacy on it. There's general agreement among libertarians
about this (and even among many anarchists) -- the question being whether
minarchy, so construed, can actually fulfill that role without simultaneously
violating it, and whether consent of the governed can be achieved or
maintained, and if there's any principled way to handle exceptions --
people who don't consent, yet appear to be governed nonetheless.
To answer this
question, I first want to reject what I think is an arbitrarily narrow
definition of the "ultraminimal state" by Robert Nozick, which was cited
in the precipitating discussion:
An ultraminimal
state maintains a monopoly over all use of force except that necessary
in immediate self-defense, and so excludes private (or agency) retaliation
for wrong and exaction of compensation; but it provides protection and
enforcement services only to those who purchase its protection and enforcement
policies. People who don't buy a protection contract with the monopoly
don't get protected.
The element of
consent here is handled well, but it's not necessary for the state to
have a monopoly on force. I see no reason that several governments couldn't
exist within the same "market" -- perhaps even with some people subscribing
to more than one of them. I think governments will naturally tend to
seek monopoly status, but we needn't acquiesce to that tendency. More
interestingly, though, a de facto government monopoly may turn out to
be the most beneficial arrangement to be had.
WHAT'S
ANARCHY?
This should be
short, if not sweet. Anarchy is the absence of government. Period. Nobody
in charge, no established conventions one can't break with impunity,
no restraints on behavior beyond the worry of how someone might retaliate.
Anarchy requires no presuppositions about widespread moral conventions
in society, agreements about right or wrong, concern for liberty, justice,
etc. It most definitely includes no presuppositions about the uniform
rationality of mankind, or any other such pathway to reaching a just,
stable, peaceful modus vivendi through the action of market forces.
Humans might not
be savants, but at least they're generally clever -- maybe even rational
-- about dealing with economic concerns. Unfortunately, when it comes
to politics, the vast majority of us are merely hair-deficient chimpanzees
-- seeking out our optimum status in a tribal hierarchy, constantly
jockeying for position, and ever willing to sacrifice principle (if
we can even identify one) for narrow personal gain. The claim, rather
widespread among anarchists (it seems to me), that people without government
will quickly hash out a highly effective and efficient set of conventions
for peaceable co-existence (one that does NOT constitute government)
strikes me as little more than anthropocentric wishful thinking.
DELEGATED
POWERS
Anarchists hold
that the individual has the right to retaliate against force initiated
against him. Typically, they accept that the individual can contract
with some independent agency to retaliate on his behalf. The presumption
is that no right of the aggressor is violated when retaliation takes
place: retaliation never requires the consent of the aggressor to be
legitimate.
This brings up
another point about the nature of government. People might think that
a defining characteristic of government is that one can't escape its
authority (at least as far as the government is concerned). Maybe so,
but I think the real reason for this is that one can't, morally, escape
the authority of a victim (or his agent) to retaliate. Therefore, this
inescapable authority is really not an attribute of government (as the
retaliatory agent of its citizen-clients), but of the individual rights
that create, empower, and justify government.
While an individual
has the right to retaliate against aggression, and the aggressor has
no right to avoid a just response to his aggression, we have a problem
of determining what constitutes a just response. Not only that, but
we also have the problem of verifying that aggression has acutally been
committed in the first place, since that's not always clear. Under anarchy,
the ultimate judge in both cases is the individual who perceives a violation
of his rights. This judgment might be contracted out to a third party
-- at the risk of reaching a judgment with which that individual disagrees.
If we believe that a complainant is the best judge of facts concerning
whether a violation of rights has taken place, and who committed it,
then anarchy is eminently reasonable. If we think that the passions
of a complainant are likely to result in retaliation against innocent
persons, or in disproportionately severe retaliation against guilty
persons (violating their rights), then we might want to consider alternatives.
I know I do.
I have already
mentioned that my view of minarchy requires that individuals agree to
be represented by the state when they believe their rights have been
violated by others (excepting, of course, acts of self-defense and situations
where the state has not performed its duty). I have also mentioned,
both in earlier posts and here, that no aggressor can claim a right
to consent to retaliation against his aggression. What I haven't mentioned
yet is that those who subscribe to the protection of the state also
must agree to be governed by the state (that is, accept its judgments
against them). Naturally, we will carefully pick our state -- or states
(remember, no monopoly required) -- according to whether we think its/their
judgments concerning us will be fair and just.
But this is a significant
departure from the anarchist positon, for the anarchist's concern need
not extend beyond protecting his own interests. Even if anarchists express
a broader concern for everyone's rights, the only mechanism they can
offer is that individuals arrange for the defense of their own rights.
What makes this
view different? The minarchist voluntarily subjects himself to judgments
against him by the state to which he subscribes. This comes from a willingness
to protect the rights of others, even if you turn out to be the violator
of those rights.
Wait! One might
argue that anarchists will do the same, by voluntarily accepting the
authority of private security agencies to which they subscribe. But
such such security agencies are institutions requiring force or the
threat of it to accomplish their essential functions. They are, by my
definition, governments! To dispute this, then, one needs to explain
why my functionalist definition should be abandoned.
Now, simple functional
definitions such as mine often come at a cost; in this case, the cost
is accepting that private security agents are governments even though
that doesn't fit well with the popular preconception of government.
Still, I think that cost is minimal. Private security agencies are similar
in their relation to their clients to feudal lords (whose rule one would
typically call 'governing'); both provide protection from aggressors
at a price, and citizens need have no voice in the operation of their
government (save voting with their feet). Furthermore, I think that
cost is offset by the benefit of having our term 'government' apply
to a useful concept (with real explanatory power) rather than to an
outdated, mistaken one.
One answer, then,
to the question of how minarchy is different from anarchy, is that it
isn't -- much: anarchy depending on institutions (rather than strictly
individual action) for the defense of individual rights is actually
minarchy -- a strange breed with lots of "agency-states" wielding force
in retaliation against people, with the consent of the complainant,
but not necessarily with the consent of the accused.
Who is governed
by such a state? If we take the normal meaning, where governing involves
imposing control, it's not the subscriber who is governed (at least,
not in the role of subscriber), but the accused, whether or not he subscribes.
A better variety of minarchy would include the consent of the governed
as well -- and I think my version does this.
Now, even private
security agencies that don't get their clients' agreement to be bound
by their judgments (and this is the model I hear anarchists promote)
would still rely on force, and therefore be governments. But the client
is at some remove from that government, and can't really be said to
belong to that state; he has merely contracted with it for services,
and has no obligation to it other than to pay for services rendered.
Perhaps even more problematic is the fact that such agencies don't necessarily
have the consent of anyone against whom they act in protection of clients'
rights. In cases where no error has been made, and the person retaliated
against was actually guilty of a rights violation, this might offer
few problems; retaliation is morally justified, and it has been authorized
by the individual who has the right to retaliate.
Even when a client
makes no specific agreement to be subject to a contracting agency's
enforcements of other clients' rights, there is a sense in which he
is logically bound nonetheless. If (1) he expects his agency to render
justice when he has been wronged, and (2) he acknowledges that his agreement
with the agency differs in no significant way with similar agreements
other clients have with the agency, then he accepts, by implication,
being bound to judgments by that agency against him, on behalf of other
clients. He consents, in other words, not only to being protected by
the agency, but to being subject to retaliation by it on behalf of its
other clients.
In fact, so long
as one acknowledges the justice of retaliation against aggression, one
accepts by implication the authority of individuals (and, by extension,
their agents, whether styled as private agencies or as governments in
the traditional sense) to claim that justice when their rights have
been violated. One must then accept the legitimacy of retaliatory actions
by the individuals (or their agents, including security/government agencies
to which one doesn't personally subscribe) against whom one has trespassed.
Maybe this is the common anarchist model. If so, it presumes that individuals
do accept the principle of justice, and are willing to abide by it --
an assumption that non-anarchists aren't willing to make. I'd rather
not call this view 'anarchism', since I think the term implies an unpredictable
variety of attitudes concerning how interpersonal actions should be
constrained.
At any rate, where
there is agreement on the principle of justice, this arrangement is
designed both to protect the client against trespasses by others, and
to ensure fair treatment when the client is accused by another client
of the same, or any other provider -- all while maintaining both a strictly
retaliatory role for government and the consent of the governed. That's
the essence of the minarchy I support; I'll get to some nuances in a
moment. Before proceeding further, I should note that this really amounts
to a social contract -- one differing importantly from Hobbesian or
Rousseauian versions by obtaining the real (not imaginary or presumed)
contractual agreement of citizens.
What, though, of
individuals who deny the justice of retaliation, or claim personal exemptions,
etc.? Justice against them must be prosecuted without their consent,
and any government doing so operates without the "legal" sanction of
the "consent of the governed," and only with the moral sanction of the
principle of justice.
These individuals
will be what the term "outlaw" originally meant: people who live outside
the law -- without the protection of government. Having refused the
most basic tenet of civilization -- justice -- they are not owed its
benefits, any more than are non-human animals, pirates on the high seas,
or attacking foreign soldiers. They can be treated as varmints, terrorists,
or warriors when they violate the rights of others. But they will be
held accountable for wrongs they commit against anyone who is prepared
to defend his rights, directly or with representation. Governments representing
their victims do not require, either legally or morally, their consent
for retaliation.
That's my basic
position. Now let me try to make my vision of how a minarchy could develop
more vivid -- and, I hope, plausible in the "real world" sense that
a skeptical anarchist might demand.
INTERMINARCHIC
RECIPROCITY
Without undertaking
an exhaustive examination of the options, let me just tell you what
sort of arrangement I think will work best -- one that might emerge
from competition in a free market, but that could also be implemented
by design when founding a minarchist state. It will require no special
new attributes for people; ordinary psychological dispositions will
do the job.
Let's imagine that
we begin with lots of private security agencies, but that they will
develop among themselves an agreement of reciprocity. When a client
of one agency has a beef with the client of another agency, both of
those agencies defer judgment and disposition of the case to a third,
uninterested agency (randomly selected or agreed on by both parties);
both clients agree, as part of their contracts with their own agencies,
to pay the third agency its customary fee. Disputes between a client
and his own agency will also be settled by an uninterested agency, and
the client and his agency will have agreed in advance that the ordinary
costs of the case will be paid according to the instructions of the
arbitrating agency.
The interagency
agreement of reciprocity will be a streamlined set of rules promoting
the just and inexpensive resolution of disputes, for it will be entered
by entities who, like the participants in John Rawls' "Original Position",
have no knowledge of how their particular narrow interests might be
better served by a strategy other than one of equality, efficiency,
economy, and justice. It will also be effectively an umbrella government,
under which the individual agencies act as arms. And, assuming everyone
chooses to be represented by a security agency rather than handle the
responsibility himself, then everyone will have consented to be governed
according to the terms of a contract.
Will such interminarchic
reciprocity emerge? Frankly, I think it need only be offered for its
benefits to be recognized and come to dominate in a free market. Game-theoretically,
I think it will turn out to be what is called an 'evolutionarily stable
strategy'.
What of exceptions
-- people who take the do-it-yourself approach to protecting their rights
and resolving disputes, or agencies that opt out of the reciprocal agreement?
In the former case, I think even individuals who are ideally qualified
to defend their own rights would still be motivated to subscribe to
interminarchic reciprocity because of its stabilizing benefits. And,
for those who aren't fully capable of self-defense, yet decline participation
in an interminarchic system, I can only imagine that these would be
people who can't afford the services of a government. (If anyone has
an argument that individuals who can affort such representation [with
all the safeguards to rights I've described above] would reject it,
I'd love to hear it.) For the indigent, I believe the ordinary charitable
dispositions of people would provide for representation. So, basically,
I think this worry would be eliminated by the free market and human
generosity.
In the latter case,
I believe that non-reciprocating agencies would be quickly eliminated
from the market for lack of business. The benefits of reciprocation
are so strong that I don't think they can be rejected without disastrous
economic consequences.
There you have
it: my defense of minarchy in preference to anarchy. It may seem to
rely on a distinction without a difference, given that I'm really talking
about private protection agencies as governments. But anarchy need not
be so rationally ordered, and might not include PPA's at all. We may
have confidence that market forces and human nature will cause PPA's
to arise -- but then we will have, by my functionalist definition, governments.
The market refinements I anticipate, leading to interminarchic reciprocity,
represent (I think) the closest humanly possible approach to the ideal
of "consent of the governed."
Please feel free
to comment, object, and dispute as you see fit. I'm especially interested
in feedback on my scheme of interminarchic reciprocity.
Originally
posted from 06-26-02 to 07-11-02
FreedomFest
by Kathryn Graham
As most of you already
know, I am planning to speak on behalf of Armed Females of America at
FreedomFest, a five-day fourth of July festival in Dry Fork, Arkansas,
being presented by Wayne Hicks of Fourth Branch (We, The People). For
those of you who do not know about this event, and would like to know,
please visit Fourth Branch's Freedom
Fest Page.
The Anti Defamation
League, always extremely liberal, has labeled this an "extremist,"
"bigoted" and "anti-Semitic" event.
Let’s take
these items one at a time. "Extremist" I wear with pride.
I am an extremist patriot, and an extremist champion of the Bill of
Rights. I am an extremist with regard to every single one of my rights,
and particularly so concerning the right to keep and bear arms, as the
right to keep and bear arms lets me enforce all of the other rights.
I am extremist and thoroughly obnoxious about it all, so I am absolutely
delighted to admit that label is justified.
"Bigoted"
is downright amusing. These laddies haven’t done their homework.
Please note that another featured speaker at this event will be J. J.
Johnson, the celebrated and admired – and very black – "Mr.
Ranch Owner," the owner and publisher of the popular newspaper,
Sierra Times. I’m sure he’s laughing as hard as I am.
Sorry, boys. Can’t take this one seriously at all.
But "anti-Semitic"
hurts. It is pure slander, and I am very tempted to sue the living pants
off of every one of those ADL toadies who support these allegations.
My beloved stepfather,
whom I adore past all reason, is an Austrian Jew and a Holocaust survivor.
I may not be Jewish myself, being Scottish by ancestry and Pagan by
religion, but the fastest way I can think of for a perfect stranger
to encounter the rough side of my tongue is to make an anti-Semitic
remark in my presence. Most anti-Semitism in this country stems from
the most pathetic sort of envy. Many Jews in this country are very good
at business, and exceptionally good at hanging onto money they have
earned – with special emphasis on the word "earned."
This is because, for most of the last thousand years or so, European
law forbade them to own real estate of any kind. Accumulating money
was the only safety in a dangerous world for them, so they became very
good at it, and they taught their children well. How many of us teach
our children so carefully?
Anti-Semitism is
a lot like hating your neighbor for having a bigger television. The
comparison is especially apt if that neighbor with the big screen TV
grew up in an Amish community and had the tar whipped out of him for
even looking at a television as a kid. Such an attitude toward our fellow
man is worthy of nothing but my disgust and contempt.
The Jewish people
I have known have been some of the warmest and most loving, family-oriented
people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. A man who will cheerfully
cut your throat in a business deal will nevertheless open his home and
his heart to you in the same breath, and no one leaves his table hungry.
Ever.
I am only an adopted
Texan. I was born on Manhattan Island. For a number of years, my family
was the only Gentile family in an apartment house containing 100 families.
Every single year, there was a Christmas tree in the lobby, just for
us. How in the name of anything holy can anyone hate these people?
Due to a weird twist
of psychology and Fate, however, I do often find myself at political
odds with the liberal majority of Jews in the United States, and ADL
chooses to label this as "anti-Semitic." How utterly and tragically
pitiful. I disagree with their political views, therefore I must be
the slimiest sort of racist.
I can’t for
the life of me figure out why I find myself at odds with most of the
Jews here. Time after time after time over the course of the last century,
gun control has been followed by dictatorship, mass murder, and genocide.
As the victims themselves of one of those genocides, following on the
heels the Nazi Gun Control Act of 1938 which left them defenseless,
would somebody please explain to me how any Jew anywhere could ever
support any form of gun control?
They’ve already
tried it their way! In Germany, the vast majority of the Jews tried
desperately to be invisible. They tried to cooperate cheerfully with
every indignity, fearing that the situation would only get worse. They
gave up their guns. They submitted willingly to every form of humiliation
those sick sadists in Himmler’s SS could devise. They cooperated
and cooperated right into concentration camps and finally into the gas
chambers!
Explain it to me,
please, how any Jew anywhere can feel that stripping the individual
of the right and means for self defense can ever be a good thing? I
honestly don’t understand!
I don’t think
their Israeli brothers would understand them at all. And, thankfully,
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership doesn’t understand
them either. Aaron Zelman and his organization are the most no-compromise
pro-Second Amendment group out there besides Armed Females of America.
And they aren’t the least bit racist themselves. They cheerfully
welcome Gentiles, because in addition to my position as Texas Director
for Armed Females of America, I am proud to be a dues-paying member.
Me? Anti-Semitic?
Never in a million years!
Gun control is the
ultimate in anti-Semitism.
At a tiny 5'1",
Kathryn A. Graham is a licensed private investigator, pilot, aircraft
mechanic and handgun instructor in Texas. Also a prolific author, she
has written numerous articles, short stories and a science fiction novel
entitled "Flight From Eden". Ms. Graham is the Texas Director
for Armed Females of America.
Originally
posted from 03-28-02 to 04-09-02
CHOICES (What’s in a word?)
by Ron Johnson
Amazingly, after two and a quarter centuries, where so much has gone
by and so much as been sacrificed, by so many, and still, we don’t
get it.
I suppose
it is because there is some unspoken idiom within us, which demands
that there must be someone else or something else at fault for everything
that happens to us or is wrong with the world. From this vantage point
then, we quite successfully manage to escape the dreaded duty of being
responsible for our own actions. And while it may be that ignorance
is sometimes blissful, so too is ignorance no excuse. For if you don’t
know your rights, then you surely don’t have any.
As
we complain and agonize over each successive new law passed, convinced
that we have a government run amuck by greed ridden and power hungry
thugs. Of course we never seem to recognize that these same thugs come
from amongst ourselves. Instead, we think they are somehow separate
from us, as though they were sent here from Mars or some other exotic
place in the cosmos. While it may be difficult for some to imagine,
we don’t all think alike, recalling that about forty percent of
the people, back in the days of the American Revolution, actually wanted
to stay with the King.
We
all keep talking about our rights, we all talk about how the government,
at all levels, seemingly ignore these rights. A great many of us have
actually come to accept that our rights are not unalienable (can be
taken away) as espoused within the Declaration of Independence and further
promulgated within the Articles of Confederation and actually guaranteed
within the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
For
most of us, we think these documents are mere relics of some great and
noble concept of freedom and liberty, life and property, etc. We just
don’t get it when we see or hear about some poor schmuck who ends
up in jail, with his property seized and half his family killed. All
for a few bucks worth of taxes or because he dared to own one too many
guns or, God forbid, he lived as though he alone was responsible for
his own life and well-being, failing to conform to socially acceptable
behavior.
If
you are one of those who are desperately trying to make sense of all
of this then I have great news for you. There is an answer. One, which
literally answers all questions relating to these unsettling events
and more. Are you ready? It all starts with the basics of where our
laws come from. Mostly they come from past laws from other nations.
Laws which we incorporated into our own system, as we created our new
nation, again, mostly from the British. In fact the Constitution itself
guarantees the people the right to a jury of their peers and to the
Common Law, which in itself goes as far back as the Magna Carta. It
is also clear that the state and the people were guaranteed the right
to a republican form of government (not a democracy). So how did we
get to where we are today? The laws we have today came from the philosophical
concepts of mostly academics and those thought to be the great lawyers
of their day. Here is what they have conceived, on which we have based
our laws:
The
following was taken from Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE
AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law
School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University.
64. The legal
conception of leading words. Inasmuch as the word person, man,
thing, property, rights, wrongs and actions are leading terms constituting
the designation of departments of the corpus juris, it will be impossible
to obtain clear conceptions of subjects connected with these words
until an understanding is agreed upon as to the sense in which these
terms are used. If we arrive at the meaning of these words intended
by Blackstone and make the same clear, we will have a better idea
of his method and perhaps a better opinion of it, and at the same
time will be able to show the distinction between the same words in
the Roman, the English and in American law.
Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous
with the English word "person," and the latter word interchangeably
with "individual" and "man," whereas he might
have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he
professed to follow.
65. The word "person" defined. Gaius says "De
Juris divisione" [the divisions of the law] immediately preceding
his division of the law; then follows, "De conditione hominm"
[meaning the condition or status of men]. In the Institutes "De
jura personarum" precedes the expression "all our law
relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions, [individual]...
The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman
which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English;
it had peculiar reference to artificial beings and the condition or
status of individuals.
It
is true, that literally every statute and code written today, uses these
two terms (interchangeably) and have the exact meaning shown above.
That is, a “person” or an “individual” in law, is
a “thing” and “artificial” entity. A corporation,
which is a non-living entity (thing). Here is an example of how the
term is used within today’s statutes and codes:
BATF
Title 27 Part 178 - Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition
Subpart D - Licenses
§178.41 - General.
(a) “Each
person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer
of firearms or ammunition, or a dealer in firearms shall, before the
commencing such business, obtain the license required by this
subpart for the business to be operated...” [emphasis added]
You
see, we, as natural persons, endowed with certain unalienable rights
(life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.) by our Creator
are absolute rights and therefore cannot be taxed or licensed
or regulated. If they could then they wouldn’t be rights, would
they? No. They would be but mere “privileges.” Now the question
is, then how do they pass these laws, seemingly unconstitutional, and
get away with it in the courtrooms?
First,
make no mistake about it. It doesn’t matter what anyone says. Not
what Dan Rather says, not what Rush Limbaugh says, not even what you
congressmen says. The only thing that matters is what the law itself
says and then what the judges say it means. So, it is only in the courtroom
any of this stuff comes to mean anything and it is only the judge and
the jury who can fine you and/or throw you in jail. And if you don’t
know the law and if you don’t know your Rights, then you simply
lose the argument by default.
Here
is the straw that broke the camels back and where the term “person”
is applied (offered) and you accept it, as a matter of free and voluntary
choice and as a political choice at that, which the courts have no authority
to rule over, and why you come under the jurisdiction of these statutes
and codes at the expense of your natural rights.
Amendment
14 (Ratified July 9, 1868)
Section 1. All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
You
see, until just after the Civil War, there had never been a status of
citizenship of the Untied States. Only State and local (city) citizenship.
Now notice that nowhere within the 14th Amendment does it say anything
about this new class of citizenship replacing any other status of citizenship.
Notice too, that it doesn’t even say anyone is required to accept
it. It only says, if you where born or naturalized within the United
States. The question now is, “What is the United States?”
You will be surprised to know that the term “United States”
is in fact the proper name and title of Congress. And the term “United
States of America,” is the proper name and title of the Union of
the several states. Both were created and defined in the first two articles
of the Articles of Confederation and reiterated within the Preamble
to the Constitution of the United States. Remember, it was Congress
who called the Constitutional Convention and it is Congress who is now
presenting it to the States for ratification.
Preamble
We the People
of the United States [in Congress assembled], in Order to form
a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
[the Union of the several States].
The
legal fact of all of this is, there are two separate and distinct entities
here with two separate and distinct jurisdictions over two separate
and distinct citizenships to go along with each of these entities. If
you don’t know these facts and you don’t act accordingly,
then simply you will fall prey to their system. And in their system,
their citizens only have “immunities and privileges”
not Constitutionally guaranteed natural rights.
Now
for the final blow read section five of the 14th Amendment:
Section 5. The
Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provision of this article.
Yep.
That’s right only Congress has the power to regulate “persons.”
Not the states, not the people, not even the Creator. Just Congress.
And how is it that Congress gets away with all of this? Because, the
United States is in itself a free and separate and sovereign nation.
Separate from the Union of the several States. That is why it isn’t
a state. Think about that for a minute. This by the way was the real
reason behind the need for a Constitution, which only goes to form a
government, not a nation. (see Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition)
Article
I, Section 8, Clause 17:
To exercise
exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government
of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which
the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And [better known
as “possessions and territories”]
When
Congress created the 14th Amendment and thus created a “citizenship
of itself” it created a “possession” of the United States.
Why? Because, only the Creator can create nature and we are creatures
of nature (living beings). Man can only create “artificial”
“things.”
Get it now? What man creates, man can regulate.
They aren’t regulating the Second Amendment, nor are they regulating
any other natural right. They are simply regulating that which they
created and you accepted, because you are free to enter into any agreement
you wish (free-enterprise) and you do so with your ultimate expression
of freedom in this country. You sign the contract (i.e. Social Security,
BATF 4473, voter registration, marriage license, etc.). No one
can force you to sign anything, if they do it is coercion and that is
illegal, even within their statutes. To be asked to sign anything must
therefore mean it is 100% voluntary. But once you do, you are now Constitutionally
obligated to that contract (Art I,10,1). And since you didn’t
include your rights within the contract (as part of the terms and conditions),
guess what? You can’t argue them in their courtrooms. Whoops.
Want the rest of
this incredible story? Read "The
Silent Revolution: Connecting the Dots and Cracking the Code"
(complete text is online).