Some viewers of my video brought up the US Constitution. They either encouraged me to work for its restoration or claimed it to be a contractual authority preventing my secession.
I highly recommend everyone read the works of Lysander Spooner and his critique of the US Constitution. Not only does he prove such claims as spurious but he essentially destroys this document’s legitimacy in two sentences:
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
And he wrote this in 1867! Seeing what has happened in the years since, the above statement seems to be even more relevant today.
The US Constitution was written by a group of self-appointed elites in 1787. Among other illicit powers, it claimed that the US Government had the power to rob individuals. And not just individuals then alive and residing within the geographical boundaries “ruled” by the government, but any future, unborn individuals finding themselves living within those same arbitrary boundaries. In essence, the authors made the audacious proclamation that those not yet born are to be ruled by this new government and are bound by its constitution.
What gives the Founders (intelligent, educated individuals they may be) the gall, the temerity, the arrogance to rule me from the grave?
Please remember, that a constitution is not a contract. A constitution merely charges an institution with the power and responsibility to regulate itself- which any honest constitutionalist will have to admit requires a healthy dose of faith in the moral rectitude of his rulers. However, a contract is an agreement among two or more consenting parties who agree that definite consequences will be suffered by any party that violates this contract. All parties are aware of this responsibility and agree to be held accountable. If a dispute arises, a pre-determined, agreed to, third party decides the outcome of any disagreement- not a court operated by one of the parties involved in the dispute.
The fact that an institution is so feared by its creators that a regulating document is required indicates the admitted creation of a master/slave relationship. The expectation is that the master will be refrained from abusing its monopoly of power by obeying this regulating document. The hope is the master will regulate himself and hold himself accountable. In other words, the Constitution is written by my master to regulate my master, is interpreted by my master, and enforced by my master. In more cases than not, it is ignored by my master.
But if this particular master/slave relationship is so feared, why voluntarily get into such a relationship in the first place? This curious action seems eerily similar to a woman, on the eve of consenting to a relationship with a man, obtaining a restraining order as future protection. Are you sure, madam, this is a guy you want to spend time with?
It can be concluded then that a relationship with a state institution, no matter its regulating structure or guiding ideology, is not conducive to protecting an individual’s cherished, inalienable liberties. And it can also be reasoned that any such relationship with this institution cannot be considered valid without the explicit, non-coerced, contractual consent of the individual.
Related Posts:
‘Secede” - A Declaration is Only the First Step
‘Secede’ - Submission is Not Consent
‘Secede’ - Jumping Through Hoops
Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers
No masters
NO CONSENT
No comments:
Post a Comment