Government gives rights?

Ah but if there is no government, who is going to take my life? Rights only exist if they are enforced.

I would say that anyone can take your life at that point, presumably on the person you murdered's behalf. Your heirs would not be able to seek restitution from free market common law courts. Thats how it worked in Somalia (their version of common law is the Xeer), when they had no government (and probably still now, seeing as the government is weak and no one pays attention to it), thats how it worked for a few hundred years in Iceland when they had no government, and thats how it worked in medievel Ireland when they had no government (until being conquered by the British scumbags).
 
Mises has it in pdf format.

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

The part you're looking for starts at ch.2. If you're really want to get to the point skip to page 28.

Again, Rothbard is just repeating the same idealistic theory which is disproved time and time again in the real world.

No person/thing is able to truly guarantee anything we've claimed we are entitled to in either anarchy or governance, thus they do not exist. Only with outside force can we secure (to a point where a society is "civilized") privileges.


You (almost?) always sacrifice liberty for security. ANY form of government is a compromise of liberty.


We can't say we are entitled to life, or else we must concede that we must live for each other and provide for each other to secure the "right" to life. If you believe in rights, Communism (or socialism, at least) must be the Utopia.
 
Last edited:
We can't say we are entitled to life, or else we must concede that we must live for each other and provide for each other to secure the "right" to life. If you believe in rights, Communism (or socialism, at least) must be the Utopia.

When and how did life become an entitlement? Life is individual, personal, private property, and its individual private owner has the right to defend him or herself in an effort to retain ownership. The government either aids that endeavor, or it hinders it.
 
I have been of the belief that rights are god (your creator) given or nature given.

And the Constitution secures these rights, not gives us these rights.

But I remember someone recently said in a convincingly way that they are given by government. Anyone have a link to that thread or any such articles?

All modern law is commercial, based on UK Admiralty and Maritime salvage

This is the law of the SEA rather than Common Law, which is the law of the LAND
Common Law is your God given rights of liberty, freedom and all that good stuff. Admiralty Law is the law of commerce and contract. In the UK, laws created by the Government are called STATUTES or ACTS. The Patriot Act is a STATUTE. It is NOT a law.

Strange how this came about huh!???

America is still a Crown dependency you see. The Declaration of Independence was signed by attorneys who represented the British Accredited Registry or Temple Bar. Because contracts need to be bilateral to be legally enforceable, the Declaration of Independence was always null and void because the signees were both in the employ of the same corporation. It took until 1913 for the European Bankers to sneak the Federal Reserve Act through Congress and take control of all commerce in America.

All modern law is contract law. When you are issued a birth certificate, a private corporation is created in your name and a contract or bond is created between YOU and the STATE. This bond is invested and when you reach employable age, the bond matures, a Social Security Number is created in your name. This serves as the basis for your contract (citizenship) with the state/government and your liability for taxation and any felonies or misdemeanours you commit.

Thus, when you are summoned to appear before a court, it is because you are alleged to have broken contract (You have broken a STATUTE).

If you look at any documentation you receive in correspondence with the US government, (or the British Government), including letters from the IRS, driving permits, gun licensing documents, property taxes or court summons, your name will ALWAYS be spelled IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

This is because, in contract law, capital letters are always used for the parties involved.

Now!

This is where things get very interesting!

Contracts require CONSENT from both parties to be legally enforceable BUT the contract or bond that exists between you and the state was created when you were just a few weeks old.........and thus there was no consent. All you were thinking about was sucking mummy's nipples right????

So there is a big debate going on in the Freeman movement as to whether any Statutes we are forced to live under are enforcable because you never gave consent for the State/government to engage you in contract. It was all done without your knowledge or consent.

So we have been tricked into contract with our respective governments without our knowledge.

This is a very important concept to understand.

If you are called John Smith, there exists a corporate fiction called JOHN SMITH, spelled in capital letters. This corporate identity is a STRAWMAN. It isn't you John Smith, a living human being created by God, it is JOHN SMITH, a private corporation.

The relationship between you and the state is between this corporate identity, not the living human being.

Thus, all interactions with government are commercial and corporate

This is an excerpt from Mary Elizabeth Croft's excellent book which is available free on the internet at:

http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/mary_croft.pdf

Registration vs. Recording
“Registration” comes from Latin “rex, regis” etc. meaning regal. So think about what occurs to whatever you ‘register’ – you hand legal title over to the Crown. When you register anything with the public, it releases legal title to the government corporation and leaves you with only equitable title – the right to use,
not own, and for that use you will pay a ‘use’ tax which is every tax, be it income, sin, sales, property, etc. as opposed to lawful taxes – excise and impost. So that it doesn’t appear that the government now owns the property which you have registered they put it in a name which so much resembles your own that you won’t suspect it, however, the NAME is owned by the government. If you choose rather to record your legal title to your property with the public, you maintain your status as Title Owner. This is one of the most important things you can ever learn for the sake of your commercial affairs.

The best example of the effects of registration is the birth certificate. A bankrupt entity – city, state/ province, country – cannot operate in commerce. So how do they manage? Since USA/CA have been bankrupt for decades, having no substance such as gold and silver to back it, the only asset it has are men and
women and our labour. We are the collateral for the interest on the loan of the World Bank. Each of us is registered, via the application for a birth certificate. The Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate and thebond is sold at a securities exchange and bought by the FRB/BoC, which then uses it as collateral to issue
bank notes. The bond is held in trust for the Feds at the Depository Trust Corporation. We are the surety on said bonds. Our labour/energy is then payable at some future date. Hence we become the ‘transmitting utility’ for the transmission of energy. The USG/CAG, in order to provide necessary goods and services, created a commercial bond (promissory note), by pledging the property, labour, life and body of its citizens, as payment for the debt (bankruptcy). This commercial bond made chattel (property) out of us all. We became nothing more than ‘human resources’ and collateral for the debt. This was without our knowledge and/or our consent, via the filing (registration) of our birth certificates. When mums apply for a birth certificate, the application is registered. The legal title of her baby is then transferred from mum to the State. Mum is left with equitable title of her baby whom she can use for a fee – a ‘use tax’ – and since the property does not belong to her, she has to treat it in the manner which the owner wants.
Colonel Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people. He stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President 1913 – 1921),

Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering
the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America. – Colonel Edward Mandell House

So you see, things are very different from what you have been led to believe.

By entering into contract with the government, you become THEIR property.

You think you are free, but in reality we are all bonded slaves and chattel of the Government.

Scary stuff!!!

For information on how to live under Common Law and FREEDOM, visit:

www.thinkfree.ca
 
When and how did life become an entitlement? Life is individual, personal, private property, and its individual private owner has the right to defend him or herself in an effort to retain ownership. The government either aids that endeavor, or it hinders it.

Government cannot "aid" in protecting life unless it is something guaranteed as a "right" by society.
 
Again, Rothbard is just repeating the same idealistic theory which is disproved time and time again in the real world.

No person/thing is able to truly guarantee anything we've claimed we are entitled to in either anarchy or governance, thus they do not exist. Only with outside force can we secure (to a point where a society is "civilized") privileges.


You (almost?) always sacrifice liberty for security. ANY form of government is a compromise of liberty.


We can't say we are entitled to life, or else we must concede that we must live for each other and provide for each other to secure the "right" to life. If you believe in rights, Communism (or socialism, at least) must be the Utopia.

Sounds like we have a fundamental disagreement.
 
I would say that anyone can take your life at that point, presumably on the person you murdered's behalf.

But there's no guarantee that someone will do that. What if nobody gives a shit about the person I killed? The only reason we care when someone is murdered is because we agree that murder is bad. We agree that humans have a right to life because it reduces conflict and helps maintain an orderly society.
 
But there's no guarantee that someone will do that. What if nobody gives a shit about the person I killed? The only reason we care when someone is murdered is because we agree that murder is bad. We agree that humans have a right to life because it reduces conflict and helps maintain an orderly society.

Well, if no one cares about you I guess thats pretty sad. You've hit upon the loophole. If no one cares the murdered person enough to carry out retribution (with the power of law behind them) then the crime may go unpunished. That doesn't make it right. I don't claim to be promoting a utopia where nothing can go wrong. So I guess don't be a hermit? :p

When you ignore the law, you lose your protection under the law. I can't imagine you'd do too well after that.
 
Well, if no one cares about you I guess thats pretty sad. You've hit upon the loophole. If no one cares the murdered person enough to carry out retribution (with the power of law behind them) then the crime may go unpunished. That doesn't make it right. I don't claim to be promoting a utopia where nothing can go wrong. So I guess don't be a hermit? :p

When you ignore the law, you lose your protection under the law. I can't imagine you'd do too well after that.

What law? We're talking about the idea of rights existing on their own without government. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming there is no law and no agreed upon set of ethics.

The only pre-existing natural laws are biology and physics. Last time I checked the laws of biology and physics do not prevent anyone from stealing or killing. Nor to they punish anyone for committing those acts.

The only thing that prevents or punishes those acts is an agreed upon set of rights or ethics and a system to punish transgressions. None of which exist without human thought and action.
 
I have been of the belief that rights are god (your creator) given or nature given.

And the Constitution secures these rights, not gives us these rights.

But I remember someone recently said in a convincingly way that they are given by government. Anyone have a link to that thread or any such articles?


It doesn't matter. If God gives you the "right" to something, it's irrelevant if you don't have the liberty to exercise that "right." So in the end, all that matters is that you secure from freedom for yourself, whether you have a "right" to it or not. I don't have to justify to myself my desire to be free on a "right" to be free. Whether I have a "right" to freedom or not, I want it and will pursue it just because I like it.
 
A right isn't an entitlement? the government doesn't secure life?


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right[2]

2.a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

and the next phrase is <voting rights>. Okay, the government can authorize an election. But the government is as dependent upon life for its survival as is the individual. Without life, there is no government.

Modern thinking is backwards. A 'right' to vote may well be considered an entitlement granted by government. Life is not.
 
Perhaps.

If government is an extrapolation of "the people" / individuals, as human beings of course existed before government, then that means governments can only sanction rights when the people view them as legitimate.
 
Perhaps.

If government is an extrapolation of "the people" / individuals, as human beings of course existed before government, then that means governments can only sanction rights when the people view them as legitimate.

You guys just don't get it do you.

You don't have any rights. You are under contract to the state.

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms

BUT

If for example you wish to own a gun, you have to register the firearm. This is a statute and you have to obey to certain conditions or you are in breach of contract.

If you wish to drive a vehicle or register a vehicle, you have to apply for a license and register the vehicle. You have to obey certain conditions or you are in breach of contract. If you drive too fast, they issue a ticket because you have breached contract.

You are chattel of the government. You are their property. They ascribe you your rights to certain things but they are always conditional.

This is commerce or contract law by statute. It is not God's law or Common Law

It's as simple as that.
 
What law? We're talking about the idea of rights existing on their own without government. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming there is no law and no agreed upon set of ethics.

The only pre-existing natural laws are biology and physics. Last time I checked the laws of biology and physics do not prevent anyone from stealing or killing. Nor to they punish anyone for committing those acts.

The only thing that prevents or punishes those acts is an agreed upon set of rights or ethics and a system to punish transgressions. None of which exist without human thought and action.

Government is not a prerequisite for law. History proves this.
 
Back
Top