I will never understand why people don't care....people just sit back and do nothing until something affects them enough to get fired up about it (which by then it's usually something tragic). We must learn to operate in the private, out of their jurisdiction, stop consenting to institutions and self-proclaimed authorities that are immoral and thrive on force, manipulation, and theft. It's not ok that you must pay a "ruler" to live on earth. Take all that energy (time, money, thoughts, purchases, knowledge) and put it towards what you do want....as this quote says, "focus on building the new, not tearing down the old" and the old will crumble on its own because it is built on deceit.
A lot of people are emotionally & mentally accustomed to abuse. They probably grew up in an abusive environment (whether overtly or neglectful) and then they look around and think it’s not that bad. They become blind to the abuse because they never knew what it was like to be in a healthy environment.
I was shocked that people didn’t just say, “No,” during 2020 to the lockdowns and mask wearing. But people were acting like fawns (of the fear response fight/flee/fawn/freeze). It was amazing to watch and study.
That is so true Barbara and well said. This reminds me of a friend telling me "it could be worse" or "it's not that bad" to a unhealthy relationshp I walked away from once and it was such a gaslighting response to me in a time I was hurting, but not unlike the responses and behaviors we've witnessed to tyranny as a collective. I was truly shocked during lockdowns, I couldn't believe how strong the fawn response was and on such a large scale, yet it makes sense, when the thing shutting everyone down is perceived as authority. I really appreciate your thoughtful comment.
The 2020 fawn response: right you are, but I sort of get it. There are plenty of people in our Western world in general who felt like they live (and deserve) a charmed life, and they fell for those scaremongering tactics hook, line, and sinker. What I don't get is that now they are still looking for a savior in the same system that screwed them over again and again and again.
Nice quote, similar to Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
> I will never understand why people don't care....people just sit back and do nothing until something
They care. They're just in so desperate a situation that the punishment they'll get for standing up for themselves will cause their family to enter into a dire situation such as homelessness or death from starvation.
Yes, that's one , but most fears never manifest nor are faced, thus remaining as a paralyzing freeze reaction to the authoritatian trauma instead of seeking solutions and acting upon an innate internal knowing.
Utility companies are putting “smart meters” on your home. These are control devices, not “smart meters”. You can “opt out”, but you are penalized with an additional monthly charge that is 10-15% more than your utility usage. This is coercion. There’s no real choice, no way to choose an alternative supplier. The charge is arbitrary and capricious, and will ultimately be raised, as needed, to force compliance.
Over 50% of all homes now have them, and most people have no idea they can shut off, or reduce your usage at any time.
Of course it will be under the auspices of the “greater good”, just like the Covid lie.
They definitely are, utility is government.....I've been trying to opt out of this for 3 years and they won't let me even with a fee, it's infuriating!
This would vary on your municipality. I'm in DuPage County, Illinois, in what I think is still referred to as an affluent city. City, Township and County are on your ass immediately for property type "violations". As a few others mentioned here, I went through the Smart-Meter scam, could not refuse: either "upgrade" or pay the surcharge (which I do even though I doubt the veracity of the "unmonitored" claim).
I think it's going to be like the jabs: if you stand up to them or ignore them they lay off for a while, then take stock and try another approach. But every day you stave it off might be a day that brings their overthrow closer, as history has shown time and time again. No Fate.
So you are basically paying them for not having their junk in your home. That's "protection money." At least gangsters make that clear and don't ask you to love the coercer.
Indeed, aside from the three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do), no One or group of Ones has "authority." We are indeed on the same page.
About the three Laws... We know that are Natural Laws because if You asked every One of Us if it was okay to do the things listed to Them, to a One They ALL would say "No!" (And to say "yes" is giving consent, leaving the question unanswered...)
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
I do, and have for twenty years, but my power needs are fairly modest and I built my system up over time. I have two redundant systems each with a 3000 watt pure sine wave inverter and each with two big 300 amp hour lithium iron phosphate batteries. One powers my woodshop and workshed (charges my fast electric bike) and the other my house with a chest freezer and chest refrigerator and all the usual electronics. Evaporative air conditioner and induction stove top. Either system is wired to back up the other if needed and I have a small generator house that can run either system if needed which is almost never.
We have a friend in South Dakota who built a windmill, has solar and wood burning heat. He built his house partially underground. He has the battery cells in a septic tank underground. He's a dentist and has cows, goats, pigs, chickens, and 17 acres where he grows food for himself and his animals.
Yes, I have a solar heater and a small stainless steel stove. My house is earth bermed on the South facing side. I am in the SW where we get a lot of sun, so I have my batteries in an insulated battery house with a solar powered fan to control temperature so the batteries are not impacted.
I have a reflector on the work shed panels because they are not on gimbels but mounted on the sloping wall of the shed. The gimbel mount is like a dish mount, it allows the panel to be adjusted to face directly at the sun at any time of day or time of year for maximum exposure. I generally change them once in the evening to face the morning sun and at around 2pm to face the afternoon sun. If I am gone for the day I just put them in the middle which is fine since I'm not using much power then.
I started out with two big marine batteries in the back of my small truck that got charged when I drove on my regular trips, and a cord to run to my cabin. I then added a few cheap solar panels and some friends taught me how to make a windturbine from a discarded treadmill DC motor and some PVC pipe. When I got ahead a bit I gradually added bigger and better solar panels, and put them on home made gimbels so I could alter their angle and direction to get the maximum solar exposure. I kept upgrading with bigger and better solar panels, ditched the wind turbine and began upgrading controllers, inverters and batteries. Presently have several thousand watts of solar panels divided between the two systems I run.
No maintenance, (sealed LIPO batts with no corrosion, and no distilled water to add) no noise, no power interruptions, no monthly bills, I can run even my big heavy duty thickness planer, shop vac, table saws, tool battery chargers, etc. with no problems.
There was a maintenance issue and some noise. We get some high winds here occasionally and the blades would get damaged or the turbine would hop off the end of the tower. Other than an occasional wipe down the panels are maintenance free and silent.
I have a solar system at my cabin, off grid for all but 2 months of winter. There’s no payback, I consider it insurance. If you have to collect, then it’s worth every penny.
Way back in 1776, people accepted a new type of government (maybe not all of them did) and at that point, just as throughout history, those in power (government and beyond) blindly assumed that everyone had made a contract with them as our accepted rulers. This is the only way a government can exist...the use of tacit contracts.
They only way to exclude yourself is to somehow live apart from government with the understanding that they will not like it one bit and may come after you with a murderous intent or something similar. I do not see any "normal" way to avoid tacit consent as long as government exists. If they do something you do not like, you have the option to fight them or oppose them however you cannot take the government to court and that is where they get their power.
Other remedies must be used by entering into a contract with them whereby they must prove that things like smart meters, vaccinations, chemtrails and 5G towers are not harmful to us. They can never prove any of these things are not harmful and you can charge them a daily fee if they want you to accept their tacit contracts using an NOL or Notice of Liability.
Undoubtedly they will hassle and attempt to drain you or make you wish you hadn't which is more than most people are willing to take on as long as they can be relatively comfortable. It seems that it always has to become totally unbearable for most before people will rise up in enough numbers to make change possible.
Perhaps large numbers of people focused on a similar kind of opting out can pick up some momentum that might be harder to achieve for individuals working separately.
Yes, doesn't require a majority. Even a relatively small peaceful group like the Amish have been able resist a lot of the oppressive impositions that the majority of people today still support, or at least do not effectively resist. However the downside as I see it is that it has to become very bad and quite painful before enough will be thrown out of their comfort zone and motivated to do something. Frog in slowly heated water analogy, however at a certain point it's just too late and the frog does get boiled.
Consent is indeed a core concept -- Let's recall that at the top of the Declaration of Independence we have this text:
"... That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED ... " [all caps added]
As a Freedom Scale "minarchist" I call on our state legislatures to begin issuing Declarations of Dissent whenever Big Govt in DC violates the consent of the governed.
For example, when Congress passes a multi-thousand-page, multi-Trillion-dollar spending bill at the 11th hour with no debate or discussion, they richly deserve such a declaration and shaming, from any and every state where our elected reps have the minimal testosterone needed to issue it.
Initially toothless, those state declarations would be a major step toward a constitutional amendment to give a 3/5 majority of state legislatures the power to reduce any line item in any federal spending bill. Article V empowers the states to propose and ratify such an amendment without the permission or approval of Congress, POTUS, or SCOTUS.
Thereafter, when the DC machine threatens a "shutdown" and a DC politician says "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it", the states can reply "Okay, you bastards, go ahead and pass it. Then we'll go through it line-by-line, cutting out every damned piece of pork and waste that We the People choose to cut!"
The states would only have to do that a few times, and the DC swamp might start to show some self-restraint and respect for those precious words at the start of the Declaration of Independence!
That's why all government funding should be completely voluntary. Anything less is oppression and potential total tyranny. People will pay for things they really think they want or if they think they are necessary. Rational and moral people will voluntarily pay for those things they want or need either gladly or reluctantly, but it will be their choice if they can afford them. In an immoral society there are always those who want someone else to pay their way, which is why they are so quick to try and make someone else take responsibility for their needs and wants. In President Bukele's new Bitcoin City there will be no income tax, no municipal tax, no capital gains tax, no inflation tax (BTC legal tender) no inheritance or death tax, no business tax except a modest value added tax to run a small limited government. I wouldn't mind a modest va tax for actual moral management of a real justice system, economic freedom, and good foreign relations. Although I would love to see it made voluntary, since the present regime could be again corrupted in the future, and these sort of things tend over time to be abused unless there is at least some vigilance on the part of the people.
By the way although there is a modest municipal tax in some Salvadoran cities there is no property tax, you can literally own your home, no death taxes, very modest corporate taxes and no tax on foreign earned income, no capital gains tax on bitcoin. The new Bitcoin city will be even better and powered on clean geothermal.
I think that consent is easily understood by anyone with basic common sense. The problem with government is that once any human person is given power over another common sense and consent are forgotten and then it cascades and perpetuates moral decay. The original intention of serving citizens gets obscured by greed alone that comes with any degree of power. Government needs to be managed in a decentralized mode of efficiency. We just need the willpower to do so in which I think people are lacking.
Sound, logical argument. Why can't 'they' agree to such truth?
Because they're unable to. There's a veil over their eyes, the Bible is clear about why this happens.
And I feel for you on the image, I've noticed how it seemingly always want to put inter-racial people together, in any context. And while that happens, all the time even, IRL, so does non-interracial, yet AI can't seem to figure that out.
For image creating I’m currently using the only one I have access to and that one is on gab. I sort of gave up with it though, it’s limited to 10/day and I’ll fail 10 times in a row just trying to get a group of white people in a image. LOL
I haven’t tried substack image creator yet, but I hear it’s not much better soo…
Generalizing here, and throughout - others would be able to state this stuff factually and lawfully - not me.
Presumably, you mean in writing. Doesn't one of the long and tired routes originate in our parents (here in the U.S.) signing their children over via the SSA/SSN? And everything thereafter carries that consent. To me, as an adult, it seems tacitly acquired, to Them, true or not, they don't give a shit.
What you really want is a cancellation, rescinding all attachments. Perhaps a hybrid: a line item contract. Or, of course, opt out altogether.
You cannot use their shit and ignore their rules - no matter how obscene and hidden. Every time you use their shit, you are re-confirming consent; is this not true? What is their shit? Start with that ever-present "money", and every bank that accepts it... all those plastic cards. I consent, I consent, I consent... most ARE in writing.
I suppose we might have to specify "informed" consent. If accepting the SSN was some sort of a trick to get us to agree to something more than we realized, then that isn't really consent, right?
Yes. Again, the legal people can step in here but in general, the corrupt system firstly and simply ignores your claims. You must lawfully rescind that consent and those adhesions, however they were acquired, then never, NEVER, enter their world. It is quite difficult.
Of course they would not tell you how (or why it occurred in the first place). I am betting, that even here on SS, if someone were to post their success story - it would be censored. As far as I know, it can be done. Back in the day, I pursued this goal... but gave up as I accepted employment and all its usual attachments.
Before your new Utopia, while still living in this mess, why don't you ask your thousands of readers how to opt out? Perhaps they will contact you "privately".
Part of my issue is this: I do not believe there is an actual way. I don't believe there is any loophole or pathway where the government then says, "Oh, okay, you are no longer under our jurisdiction." I think people who get away with it are merely falling through the cracks or the roving Eye of Sauron just hasn't fixed its eye upon them yet. I do not believe that there is a piece of paper your can wave in front of the cops or the ATF or the IRS and say, "You shall not pass." I believe they will just shoot you or haul you off to jail. I have never found the idea of a real loophole plausible.
(I know you can opt out of a lot, but that is not the same thing as no longer being under their jurisdiction.)
It might slow them down, that's really the only thing. Sometimes just saying no is sufficiently startling to the aggressor, and it might buy some time.
Sauron is a menace, but it's the multiplicity of Sarumans that is giving us even more trouble.
you said it. Bitcoin has made a big difference in my life and I am seriously considering making the move there at some point. I consider him a miracle. If you have not heard Tucker Carlson's interview with him you should take a listen, it blew my socks off. I have never in all my 80 years ever seen the real thing, a moral, brilliant, ethical and even spiritual political leader. It's almost an oxymoron. What he has done in El Salvador is absolutely amazing. He is like Trump without all the suspicious connections and character flaws and with genuine courage and true leadership qualities.
Well that is the consideration for me too. At 80 it is a little late in life for me to leave all that I have built here and start all over again in another land, and my Spanish is lamentably poor, although there is a growing American and Canadian expat community there which is very supportive and my health is pretty good, and I think with good clean organic food which is readily available there I could be even healthier.
Yeah, I guess it's not entirely about age. I have connections here now that I did not have when I was younger. I think it is the connections more than the age.
I agree, it have gotten a lot of respect and support from and connection with the community here and some friends would be hard to leave. I don't think it is ever too late to go after what is meaningful to you to make your life more complete. I will be giving it a lot of thought and research.
Throughout history, a major conflict has always existed between two classes of people due to self-interest. As Alexander Hamilton put it during the Constitutional Convention, "all communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people." He also said, "The masses are asses."
To those in the elite class, being one of the very few super wealthy with great power is the natural order. They feel entitled to control everyone else around them to protect what they have and to gain even more. Such control often extends to governments, national economic policy, and business monopolies for their own personal gain.
Due to self-interest, people tend to associate with others at their same social and class level. Accordingly, those of the ultra-wealthy elite class associate with other elites rather than with commoners like us. They often form exclusionary clubs and cabals. Such associations provide them with influence and with exclusive investment opportunities at lower risk.
Everything you describe seems perfectly "right" if you are on their side of the fence.
Well, you last sentence strikes me a somewhat odd, given that the principles I am outlining express the very reasons the Hamiltonian approach is a violation. And given that you know that I am advocating for an approach that would eliminate some of the power vectors that the elites use to oppose and control the rest of us.
But let us set that aside. Based on what you (accurately) describe of our situation, it seems like the solution is to have some sort of countervailing power for the non-elites, no?
Good point. I think that was the idea of a people's militia, who were to be armed with the best weapons, equivalent to what armed forces of the Fed and State had to the best of what they could afford. Something like an organized volunteer force present even down to the county or even township level.
The Federalists, Hamilton and those wanting a strong federal government got what they wanted. As a result, the Constitution gave the President of the United States more power than the king of Great Britain had at the time. The result was an 'Aristo-Democratical Monarchy', as suggested by John Adams in a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1790, three years after the Constitution was written.
In a new look at the founding of America, Eric Nelson writes that the Constitution did not create a radical new form of democracy. Instead, it created a "very traditional mixed monarchy."
Exactly! And please forgive my obtuse sarcasm in that last sentence. I see how it could easily be misinterpreted. It wasn't a comment about what you said. I was just pointing out that the elite who are in control feel justified and right. Just like they always have. We are still the ignorant masses and they are still entitled to all the money and the control in their minds. I'm glad you didn't take offense. Sorry!
I won't say I am 100% impervious to offense, but one does have to be fairly thick-skinned to field comments from scores or hundreds of people every week 🤣
So nope, no offense taken. But I did misunderstand your meaning. I thought you were saying that the elite class justifies their predations using natural law principles.
In answer to your last question: you know who does not need to be asked for consent? The Creator, the Purveyor of all there is, of life itself, the omnipotent Being that is behind everything. And that's how people treat governments today, on everything from natural disasters to daily actions. Who has the right to take away your cordless drill without warning, to cut off your hair without your leave, and to forbid you to kiss* your wife? Yep, you got it.
This is really sterling work. Some things are too complex to comment on piecemeal, I will be going over the points about liberalism again, at the very least.
*"ChatGPT refused to produce an image showing a gentle kiss on the head because of “content policy restrictions.”"
Hum. So if someone, friend of stranger, is about to step into the street in front of an onrushing auto, if you forcefully pull him/her back, saving their life is there such a thing as after the fact consent? If there is such an the person does not approve of you saving their life are you at fault?
Say a person collapses, heart attack, can you apply CPR w/o consent? If they are conscious much you ask for and receive receive consent before starting? If you do and perhaps save their life are you libel for broken ribs due to the force you applied?
Suicide , stop them or not?
I suspect such has come up in discussions concerning anarcho-capitalism and perhaps you know what's, or if there is, a consensus.
There are plenty of difficult questions and edge cases. Natural Law + Common Law = The Solution.
Natural law gives you the core principles. Then you use a common law process (court cases, common sense, the accumulation of human wisdom, etc.) to accomplish two things:
To adjudicate the specific case at hand. (Did the person giving CPR do something negligent, for example? Is the person whose life he saved just looking for a payday?)
To try to use accumulated human wisdom to develop guidance for how to handle those those edge cases in a way that best comports with natural law.
Any attempt to use positive law will fail. Because positive law is just garbage made up by a tiny number of flawed individuals. It cannot compare with the crowdsourcing effect of decades and centuries of common law.
The other matter here is that we never let edge cases invalidate the core principle. Just because we can come up with hypotheticals that challenge our notion of consent does not mean that consent ceases to exist, or it suddenly become okay to rob or rape (or tax).
The Principles of Natural Law are identical to The Principles of Reasoning and these principles are "entropy minimax" as described by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Arlie Christensen in the seven volume treatise on this topic that is titled the "Entropy Minimax Sourcebook. These Principles reduce to Aristotle's three Laws of Thought in the limit as the missing information in the inferences made by a model of a "complex" physical system for a deductive conclusion to be reached by these inferences reduces to nil. In the statistical research that he conducted, the statistician and clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet discovered that for a large group of the citizens of a given country to mistak a "complex" physical system for a "non-complex" physical system is a precursor to totalitarian rule over the citizens of this country. See Desmets book entitled "The Psychology of Totalitarianism ror details on this phenomeneon
'Consent' is not the universal solvent thesis approach makes it appear. All 'consent' ultimately rests on unchosen (and even unchooseable) conditions. The schizophrenic Left is trying to create a universe without 'unchoseness' too. I don't know why we need another movement trying to arrive at the same destination.
I will never understand why people don't care....people just sit back and do nothing until something affects them enough to get fired up about it (which by then it's usually something tragic). We must learn to operate in the private, out of their jurisdiction, stop consenting to institutions and self-proclaimed authorities that are immoral and thrive on force, manipulation, and theft. It's not ok that you must pay a "ruler" to live on earth. Take all that energy (time, money, thoughts, purchases, knowledge) and put it towards what you do want....as this quote says, "focus on building the new, not tearing down the old" and the old will crumble on its own because it is built on deceit.
A lot of people are emotionally & mentally accustomed to abuse. They probably grew up in an abusive environment (whether overtly or neglectful) and then they look around and think it’s not that bad. They become blind to the abuse because they never knew what it was like to be in a healthy environment.
I was shocked that people didn’t just say, “No,” during 2020 to the lockdowns and mask wearing. But people were acting like fawns (of the fear response fight/flee/fawn/freeze). It was amazing to watch and study.
That is so true Barbara and well said. This reminds me of a friend telling me "it could be worse" or "it's not that bad" to a unhealthy relationshp I walked away from once and it was such a gaslighting response to me in a time I was hurting, but not unlike the responses and behaviors we've witnessed to tyranny as a collective. I was truly shocked during lockdowns, I couldn't believe how strong the fawn response was and on such a large scale, yet it makes sense, when the thing shutting everyone down is perceived as authority. I really appreciate your thoughtful comment.
The 2020 fawn response: right you are, but I sort of get it. There are plenty of people in our Western world in general who felt like they live (and deserve) a charmed life, and they fell for those scaremongering tactics hook, line, and sinker. What I don't get is that now they are still looking for a savior in the same system that screwed them over again and again and again.
Nice quote, similar to Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
🔥
> I will never understand why people don't care....people just sit back and do nothing until something
They care. They're just in so desperate a situation that the punishment they'll get for standing up for themselves will cause their family to enter into a dire situation such as homelessness or death from starvation.
Well, at least that's what I experienced.
That's the fear engrained in people by the system for sure, punishment by "authority"
I feel the fear of death by starvation is more prominent.
Yes, that's one , but most fears never manifest nor are faced, thus remaining as a paralyzing freeze reaction to the authoritatian trauma instead of seeking solutions and acting upon an innate internal knowing.
Ok, next time I’m threatened to get fired, I’ll call you up for job leads so my sick wife doesn’t die of hunger.
You make a good case. Not everyone can work their way out of the box, as it were, and escape the system altogether while putting bread on the table.
Best wishes to you and your family.
Oh dear—I am sorry to hear that!
It’s not just the government.
Utility companies are putting “smart meters” on your home. These are control devices, not “smart meters”. You can “opt out”, but you are penalized with an additional monthly charge that is 10-15% more than your utility usage. This is coercion. There’s no real choice, no way to choose an alternative supplier. The charge is arbitrary and capricious, and will ultimately be raised, as needed, to force compliance.
Over 50% of all homes now have them, and most people have no idea they can shut off, or reduce your usage at any time.
Of course it will be under the auspices of the “greater good”, just like the Covid lie.
Do you think they are getting marching orders on this?
They definitely are, utility is government.....I've been trying to opt out of this for 3 years and they won't let me even with a fee, it's infuriating!
I got a letter re: the water meter and I just ignored it.
My prediction (I know you're just dying for it): 1) Warning; 2) Final warning; 3) Fine; 4) Water off.
It's been quite a while with nothing…
This would vary on your municipality. I'm in DuPage County, Illinois, in what I think is still referred to as an affluent city. City, Township and County are on your ass immediately for property type "violations". As a few others mentioned here, I went through the Smart-Meter scam, could not refuse: either "upgrade" or pay the surcharge (which I do even though I doubt the veracity of the "unmonitored" claim).
I think it's going to be like the jabs: if you stand up to them or ignore them they lay off for a while, then take stock and try another approach. But every day you stave it off might be a day that brings their overthrow closer, as history has shown time and time again. No Fate.
If you have a digital meter, it’s “SMART” Self monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology. It’s a monitoring and control device.
I hate it so much.
That's why I won't agree to using "green energy." "They" can turn off your service anytime "they" feel there is too much usage. No thank you.
💯
That must be one of the reasons for the war on wood stoves and the like. Too much autonomy, serf.
I have noticed this and would like to put an old-fashioned thermostat in my home. Does anyone know where to get something like that?
Would the utility company let you?—I think that is the first question.
I think so? I'll have to find out.
I would be curious to learn what they say…
They said go right ahead, but I do live in the south.
Ebay or sth like that?
So you are basically paying them for not having their junk in your home. That's "protection money." At least gangsters make that clear and don't ask you to love the coercer.
Indeed, aside from the three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do), no One or group of Ones has "authority." We are indeed on the same page.
About the three Laws... We know that are Natural Laws because if You asked every One of Us if it was okay to do the things listed to Them, to a One They ALL would say "No!" (And to say "yes" is giving consent, leaving the question unanswered...)
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
"We know that are Natural Laws because if You asked every One of Us if it was okay to do the things listed to Them, to a One They ALL would say "No!""
—🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎🤎
I have no idea, just stating the fact of what is happening. I opted out, but I can afford to.
I would like to generate my own power!
I do, and have for twenty years, but my power needs are fairly modest and I built my system up over time. I have two redundant systems each with a 3000 watt pure sine wave inverter and each with two big 300 amp hour lithium iron phosphate batteries. One powers my woodshop and workshed (charges my fast electric bike) and the other my house with a chest freezer and chest refrigerator and all the usual electronics. Evaporative air conditioner and induction stove top. Either system is wired to back up the other if needed and I have a small generator house that can run either system if needed which is almost never.
We have a friend in South Dakota who built a windmill, has solar and wood burning heat. He built his house partially underground. He has the battery cells in a septic tank underground. He's a dentist and has cows, goats, pigs, chickens, and 17 acres where he grows food for himself and his animals.
Yes, I have a solar heater and a small stainless steel stove. My house is earth bermed on the South facing side. I am in the SW where we get a lot of sun, so I have my batteries in an insulated battery house with a solar powered fan to control temperature so the batteries are not impacted.
Like a solar furnace—the dish with all the mirrors?
I have a reflector on the work shed panels because they are not on gimbels but mounted on the sloping wall of the shed. The gimbel mount is like a dish mount, it allows the panel to be adjusted to face directly at the sun at any time of day or time of year for maximum exposure. I generally change them once in the evening to face the morning sun and at around 2pm to face the afternoon sun. If I am gone for the day I just put them in the middle which is fine since I'm not using much power then.
Your friend is an icon.
🤍🤎🤍🤎🤍
This is so cool.
Very cool. What is the source of the power?
I started out with two big marine batteries in the back of my small truck that got charged when I drove on my regular trips, and a cord to run to my cabin. I then added a few cheap solar panels and some friends taught me how to make a windturbine from a discarded treadmill DC motor and some PVC pipe. When I got ahead a bit I gradually added bigger and better solar panels, and put them on home made gimbels so I could alter their angle and direction to get the maximum solar exposure. I kept upgrading with bigger and better solar panels, ditched the wind turbine and began upgrading controllers, inverters and batteries. Presently have several thousand watts of solar panels divided between the two systems I run.
No maintenance, (sealed LIPO batts with no corrosion, and no distilled water to add) no noise, no power interruptions, no monthly bills, I can run even my big heavy duty thickness planer, shop vac, table saws, tool battery chargers, etc. with no problems.
Wow!
Nice! Why did you ditch the wind?
There was a maintenance issue and some noise. We get some high winds here occasionally and the blades would get damaged or the turbine would hop off the end of the tower. Other than an occasional wipe down the panels are maintenance free and silent.
I have a solar system at my cabin, off grid for all but 2 months of winter. There’s no payback, I consider it insurance. If you have to collect, then it’s worth every penny.
Oh yeah, I would spend whatever, just to be energy independent. It's about survival to me, not the money.
I am glad you have that. Are you in a sunny part of the country?
Way back in 1776, people accepted a new type of government (maybe not all of them did) and at that point, just as throughout history, those in power (government and beyond) blindly assumed that everyone had made a contract with them as our accepted rulers. This is the only way a government can exist...the use of tacit contracts.
They only way to exclude yourself is to somehow live apart from government with the understanding that they will not like it one bit and may come after you with a murderous intent or something similar. I do not see any "normal" way to avoid tacit consent as long as government exists. If they do something you do not like, you have the option to fight them or oppose them however you cannot take the government to court and that is where they get their power.
Other remedies must be used by entering into a contract with them whereby they must prove that things like smart meters, vaccinations, chemtrails and 5G towers are not harmful to us. They can never prove any of these things are not harmful and you can charge them a daily fee if they want you to accept their tacit contracts using an NOL or Notice of Liability.
Won't they just come kill you eventually too if you hit them with a NOL or Notice of Liability? It's not like they consider those legally binding…
Undoubtedly they will hassle and attempt to drain you or make you wish you hadn't which is more than most people are willing to take on as long as they can be relatively comfortable. It seems that it always has to become totally unbearable for most before people will rise up in enough numbers to make change possible.
Perhaps large numbers of people focused on a similar kind of opting out can pick up some momentum that might be harder to achieve for individuals working separately.
Yes, doesn't require a majority. Even a relatively small peaceful group like the Amish have been able resist a lot of the oppressive impositions that the majority of people today still support, or at least do not effectively resist. However the downside as I see it is that it has to become very bad and quite painful before enough will be thrown out of their comfort zone and motivated to do something. Frog in slowly heated water analogy, however at a certain point it's just too late and the frog does get boiled.
Then we'll have to build some numbers, won't we!
Consent is indeed a core concept -- Let's recall that at the top of the Declaration of Independence we have this text:
"... That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED ... " [all caps added]
As a Freedom Scale "minarchist" I call on our state legislatures to begin issuing Declarations of Dissent whenever Big Govt in DC violates the consent of the governed.
For example, when Congress passes a multi-thousand-page, multi-Trillion-dollar spending bill at the 11th hour with no debate or discussion, they richly deserve such a declaration and shaming, from any and every state where our elected reps have the minimal testosterone needed to issue it.
Initially toothless, those state declarations would be a major step toward a constitutional amendment to give a 3/5 majority of state legislatures the power to reduce any line item in any federal spending bill. Article V empowers the states to propose and ratify such an amendment without the permission or approval of Congress, POTUS, or SCOTUS.
Thereafter, when the DC machine threatens a "shutdown" and a DC politician says "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it", the states can reply "Okay, you bastards, go ahead and pass it. Then we'll go through it line-by-line, cutting out every damned piece of pork and waste that We the People choose to cut!"
The states would only have to do that a few times, and the DC swamp might start to show some self-restraint and respect for those precious words at the start of the Declaration of Independence!
But I/we also did not consent to a $1 spending bill. When it comes to consent, what is the difference?
That's why all government funding should be completely voluntary. Anything less is oppression and potential total tyranny. People will pay for things they really think they want or if they think they are necessary. Rational and moral people will voluntarily pay for those things they want or need either gladly or reluctantly, but it will be their choice if they can afford them. In an immoral society there are always those who want someone else to pay their way, which is why they are so quick to try and make someone else take responsibility for their needs and wants. In President Bukele's new Bitcoin City there will be no income tax, no municipal tax, no capital gains tax, no inflation tax (BTC legal tender) no inheritance or death tax, no business tax except a modest value added tax to run a small limited government. I wouldn't mind a modest va tax for actual moral management of a real justice system, economic freedom, and good foreign relations. Although I would love to see it made voluntary, since the present regime could be again corrupted in the future, and these sort of things tend over time to be abused unless there is at least some vigilance on the part of the people.
Bukele has been an amazing surprise!!
By the way although there is a modest municipal tax in some Salvadoran cities there is no property tax, you can literally own your home, no death taxes, very modest corporate taxes and no tax on foreign earned income, no capital gains tax on bitcoin. The new Bitcoin city will be even better and powered on clean geothermal.
Magic!
Yes it is.
I think that consent is easily understood by anyone with basic common sense. The problem with government is that once any human person is given power over another common sense and consent are forgotten and then it cascades and perpetuates moral decay. The original intention of serving citizens gets obscured by greed alone that comes with any degree of power. Government needs to be managed in a decentralized mode of efficiency. We just need the willpower to do so in which I think people are lacking.
I think automatic power over others is a beast whose appetites can never be limited. I believe it has to be a customer-related relationship.
Sound, logical argument. Why can't 'they' agree to such truth?
Because they're unable to. There's a veil over their eyes, the Bible is clear about why this happens.
And I feel for you on the image, I've noticed how it seemingly always want to put inter-racial people together, in any context. And while that happens, all the time even, IRL, so does non-interracial, yet AI can't seem to figure that out.
Re: the veil… I don’t even want to try to lift it. I just want to be away from them.
Re: AI…which one do you use?
For image creating I’m currently using the only one I have access to and that one is on gab. I sort of gave up with it though, it’s limited to 10/day and I’ll fail 10 times in a row just trying to get a group of white people in a image. LOL
I haven’t tried substack image creator yet, but I hear it’s not much better soo…
You would think AI on Gab wouldn’t have that issue 🤣
Substack’s is okay sometimes. ChatGPT is much better in terms of quality, but a total PITA in other ways.
"Explicit consent".
Generalizing here, and throughout - others would be able to state this stuff factually and lawfully - not me.
Presumably, you mean in writing. Doesn't one of the long and tired routes originate in our parents (here in the U.S.) signing their children over via the SSA/SSN? And everything thereafter carries that consent. To me, as an adult, it seems tacitly acquired, to Them, true or not, they don't give a shit.
What you really want is a cancellation, rescinding all attachments. Perhaps a hybrid: a line item contract. Or, of course, opt out altogether.
You cannot use their shit and ignore their rules - no matter how obscene and hidden. Every time you use their shit, you are re-confirming consent; is this not true? What is their shit? Start with that ever-present "money", and every bank that accepts it... all those plastic cards. I consent, I consent, I consent... most ARE in writing.
The attachments are endless.
I suppose we might have to specify "informed" consent. If accepting the SSN was some sort of a trick to get us to agree to something more than we realized, then that isn't really consent, right?
Yes. Again, the legal people can step in here but in general, the corrupt system firstly and simply ignores your claims. You must lawfully rescind that consent and those adhesions, however they were acquired, then never, NEVER, enter their world. It is quite difficult.
But they don't actually give us a pathway to "lawfully rescind" anything, do they? That has always seemed like wishful thinking to me…
Of course they would not tell you how (or why it occurred in the first place). I am betting, that even here on SS, if someone were to post their success story - it would be censored. As far as I know, it can be done. Back in the day, I pursued this goal... but gave up as I accepted employment and all its usual attachments.
Before your new Utopia, while still living in this mess, why don't you ask your thousands of readers how to opt out? Perhaps they will contact you "privately".
Part of my issue is this: I do not believe there is an actual way. I don't believe there is any loophole or pathway where the government then says, "Oh, okay, you are no longer under our jurisdiction." I think people who get away with it are merely falling through the cracks or the roving Eye of Sauron just hasn't fixed its eye upon them yet. I do not believe that there is a piece of paper your can wave in front of the cops or the ATF or the IRS and say, "You shall not pass." I believe they will just shoot you or haul you off to jail. I have never found the idea of a real loophole plausible.
(I know you can opt out of a lot, but that is not the same thing as no longer being under their jurisdiction.)
I believe both: you can opt out entirely (but there will be no such document), AND you will be shot on a whim whether or not you have any such proof.
It might slow them down, that's really the only thing. Sometimes just saying no is sufficiently startling to the aggressor, and it might buy some time.
Sauron is a menace, but it's the multiplicity of Sarumans that is giving us even more trouble.
you said it. Bitcoin has made a big difference in my life and I am seriously considering making the move there at some point. I consider him a miracle. If you have not heard Tucker Carlson's interview with him you should take a listen, it blew my socks off. I have never in all my 80 years ever seen the real thing, a moral, brilliant, ethical and even spiritual political leader. It's almost an oxymoron. What he has done in El Salvador is absolutely amazing. He is like Trump without all the suspicious connections and character flaws and with genuine courage and true leadership qualities.
If I were a young man, I would already have moved there.
Well that is the consideration for me too. At 80 it is a little late in life for me to leave all that I have built here and start all over again in another land, and my Spanish is lamentably poor, although there is a growing American and Canadian expat community there which is very supportive and my health is pretty good, and I think with good clean organic food which is readily available there I could be even healthier.
Yeah, I guess it's not entirely about age. I have connections here now that I did not have when I was younger. I think it is the connections more than the age.
I agree, it have gotten a lot of respect and support from and connection with the community here and some friends would be hard to leave. I don't think it is ever too late to go after what is meaningful to you to make your life more complete. I will be giving it a lot of thought and research.
I wish you well no matter what you choose!
Thank you.
Throughout history, a major conflict has always existed between two classes of people due to self-interest. As Alexander Hamilton put it during the Constitutional Convention, "all communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people." He also said, "The masses are asses."
To those in the elite class, being one of the very few super wealthy with great power is the natural order. They feel entitled to control everyone else around them to protect what they have and to gain even more. Such control often extends to governments, national economic policy, and business monopolies for their own personal gain.
Due to self-interest, people tend to associate with others at their same social and class level. Accordingly, those of the ultra-wealthy elite class associate with other elites rather than with commoners like us. They often form exclusionary clubs and cabals. Such associations provide them with influence and with exclusive investment opportunities at lower risk.
Everything you describe seems perfectly "right" if you are on their side of the fence.
Well, you last sentence strikes me a somewhat odd, given that the principles I am outlining express the very reasons the Hamiltonian approach is a violation. And given that you know that I am advocating for an approach that would eliminate some of the power vectors that the elites use to oppose and control the rest of us.
But let us set that aside. Based on what you (accurately) describe of our situation, it seems like the solution is to have some sort of countervailing power for the non-elites, no?
Good point. I think that was the idea of a people's militia, who were to be armed with the best weapons, equivalent to what armed forces of the Fed and State had to the best of what they could afford. Something like an organized volunteer force present even down to the county or even township level.
The Founders, I think, wanted that. Maybe not Hamilton so much, but the others…
The Federalists, Hamilton and those wanting a strong federal government got what they wanted. As a result, the Constitution gave the President of the United States more power than the king of Great Britain had at the time. The result was an 'Aristo-Democratical Monarchy', as suggested by John Adams in a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1790, three years after the Constitution was written.
In a new look at the founding of America, Eric Nelson writes that the Constitution did not create a radical new form of democracy. Instead, it created a "very traditional mixed monarchy."
These are really good points; thank you!
Exactly! And please forgive my obtuse sarcasm in that last sentence. I see how it could easily be misinterpreted. It wasn't a comment about what you said. I was just pointing out that the elite who are in control feel justified and right. Just like they always have. We are still the ignorant masses and they are still entitled to all the money and the control in their minds. I'm glad you didn't take offense. Sorry!
I won't say I am 100% impervious to offense, but one does have to be fairly thick-skinned to field comments from scores or hundreds of people every week 🤣
So nope, no offense taken. But I did misunderstand your meaning. I thought you were saying that the elite class justifies their predations using natural law principles.
Thank you for clarifying!
In answer to your last question: you know who does not need to be asked for consent? The Creator, the Purveyor of all there is, of life itself, the omnipotent Being that is behind everything. And that's how people treat governments today, on everything from natural disasters to daily actions. Who has the right to take away your cordless drill without warning, to cut off your hair without your leave, and to forbid you to kiss* your wife? Yep, you got it.
This is really sterling work. Some things are too complex to comment on piecemeal, I will be going over the points about liberalism again, at the very least.
*"ChatGPT refused to produce an image showing a gentle kiss on the head because of “content policy restrictions.”"
Hoo boy.
Well and rightly said, Iris.
Hum. So if someone, friend of stranger, is about to step into the street in front of an onrushing auto, if you forcefully pull him/her back, saving their life is there such a thing as after the fact consent? If there is such an the person does not approve of you saving their life are you at fault?
Say a person collapses, heart attack, can you apply CPR w/o consent? If they are conscious much you ask for and receive receive consent before starting? If you do and perhaps save their life are you libel for broken ribs due to the force you applied?
Suicide , stop them or not?
I suspect such has come up in discussions concerning anarcho-capitalism and perhaps you know what's, or if there is, a consensus.
There are plenty of difficult questions and edge cases. Natural Law + Common Law = The Solution.
Natural law gives you the core principles. Then you use a common law process (court cases, common sense, the accumulation of human wisdom, etc.) to accomplish two things:
To adjudicate the specific case at hand. (Did the person giving CPR do something negligent, for example? Is the person whose life he saved just looking for a payday?)
To try to use accumulated human wisdom to develop guidance for how to handle those those edge cases in a way that best comports with natural law.
Any attempt to use positive law will fail. Because positive law is just garbage made up by a tiny number of flawed individuals. It cannot compare with the crowdsourcing effect of decades and centuries of common law.
The other matter here is that we never let edge cases invalidate the core principle. Just because we can come up with hypotheticals that challenge our notion of consent does not mean that consent ceases to exist, or it suddenly become okay to rob or rape (or tax).
Very well said!
Absolutely! Perfect Christopher!
The Principles of Natural Law are identical to The Principles of Reasoning and these principles are "entropy minimax" as described by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Arlie Christensen in the seven volume treatise on this topic that is titled the "Entropy Minimax Sourcebook. These Principles reduce to Aristotle's three Laws of Thought in the limit as the missing information in the inferences made by a model of a "complex" physical system for a deductive conclusion to be reached by these inferences reduces to nil. In the statistical research that he conducted, the statistician and clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet discovered that for a large group of the citizens of a given country to mistak a "complex" physical system for a "non-complex" physical system is a precursor to totalitarian rule over the citizens of this country. See Desmets book entitled "The Psychology of Totalitarianism ror details on this phenomeneon
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Publi Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, California
1-650-618-6636 (mobile)
terry_oldberg$yahoo.com (email)
'Consent' is not the universal solvent thesis approach makes it appear. All 'consent' ultimately rests on unchosen (and even unchooseable) conditions. The schizophrenic Left is trying to create a universe without 'unchoseness' too. I don't know why we need another movement trying to arrive at the same destination.