We are and We can - the only thing They can do is pay bullies to bully Us. But when enough of Us stand sovereign on Ethical ground, They will have no power.
I absolutely agree - in theory. But in practice, not many of us can fight the IRS when we get penalized for not paying taxes, SS, etc. We all have families we need to provide for - in some capacity- but, I suppose our ancestors said that too.
Our ancestors revolted from a 3-6% tax on commodities. We can do it, but we need good leaders, a good plan and need to understand that the majority want the government to take care of them.
I would approach the IRS not creating controversy, but conditionally accepting Their offer to tax. “I will be happy to pay those taxes if You prove I am in Your jurisdiction.” If You have withdrawn consent from the whole system, there is no proof.
We don't need to declare independence. We simply need justice, which is the common law. The common law resigns everyone to a rule of law. Too many people want to naively form a bubble whilst leaving tyranny in place. Moving consciousness forward involves engaging the true will to teach others about the dynamics that govern freedom and justice.
What if the Amish want to live in an Amish bubble? Can you let them? Yes, adjudicate disputes with them, on the rare occasions when disputes arise, according to some common law/protocols to which you both agree. But otherwise, leave them alone.
Speaking of the government going too far: Things that used to just be dark jokes, now made reality.
I used to minorly vandalize the occasional bathroom stall with stickers, mimicking those found in airline bathrooms. "WARNING: IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO TAMPER WITH OR DISABLE TOILET CAMERAS"
Well, I guess the time has come to stop making dark jokes, because people take them seriously and actually *implement them*. New Zealand. Cameras. Bathrooms in schools.
That was the solution I came to. Well, several decades ago. The longer you look, the clearer the "Long March" strategy looms. '82 - '95 myself, and the indoctrination was bad enough. It's gotten *insanely* worse in the three decades since I graduated. I would no more willingly send a child I cared about to public schools than I would feed them raw plutonium machining swarf.
“No one should be able to impose ANYTHING upon others without their consent”
Well, almost. Should we be able to impose our capitalist property rights on Commies? Actually, nobody disputes the importance of consent, they just disagree on who needs to consent to what. The quote takes some things for granted that I very much would like to take for granted, but that just leaves those assumptions unexamined.
Who needs to consent to what and why do we think so? This is an important question.
It is very important. In the official documents I am working on, I establish this more carefully.
First, I establish the concept of rightful domain. That is your person, property, and liberty. Those are inviolate, and no actions may be taken by another within your rightful domain without your valid consent. (The only exception is if you violate the rightful domain of another; in such a case, you are subject to a proportional defensive response whether you consent or not.)
This, then, is the only rule that we may impose on others—that everyone may impose on everyone else: do not trespass the rightful domain—the person, property, or liberty—of another.
Thus, commies may do what they wish on/with their own property, but they may not rightly impose that upon us. Nor may we impose any rules upon them, save for the one rule that they may not trespass our rightful domains.
I am not really describing anything especially new here. Every creature will defend its rightful domain. The problem is the single-system fallacy—the belief that we must all live under one single system. That is the reason why you are forced to worry about what communists may do to us or what we may do to them—because the inherent presumption is that we can only have one system and it must be imposed upon all of us.
What we need is to switch to a meta-pluralism in which everyone may select their own way of life—choosing from among competing providers of governance or governance services or creating their own. A small set of common protocols can then keep the inter-agency/inter-polity peace. Not a perfect concept (nothing is), but it would keep the peace far more than trying to cram everyone into a single system, the way we do now.
We figured this out with churches; we can figure it out with governance.
How do we solve the dilemma of preventing bad actors from killing, stealing, and otherwise violating others? There are anarchic societies that have gone into either direction - Lord of the Flies or interdependent Edens.
What pushes such a society into the positive direction?
Evolution to the target, not revolutionary overthrow and imposition of a new single system upon everyone (even a panarchic one). The single-system fallacy is part of what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
A population that is culturally peaceful, relatively advanced, tolerant, and yet individualistic (European-Americans are the furthest toward that goal, methinks. The Japanese and Koreans would be closer too, but I think they are still too hive-minded to accept jurisdictional and cultural pluralism.)
Speaking of being jacked up, my internet provider just raised prices another 10%. The gov says inflation is only 3%. Crap, they lied again! I don't have cable TV since its worth is about $1.29 for the $159/month I'd have to pay.
But don't worry...they are going to start using Flock cameras to do colonoscopies so all that juicy intel can go straight to the police and Palantir. So don't get jacked out of shape. May the "force" be with you, Chris.
🎯. If we were free, we’d be free to declare our independence from the government.
Very nicely said.
We are and We can - the only thing They can do is pay bullies to bully Us. But when enough of Us stand sovereign on Ethical ground, They will have no power.
Just Stop Consenting! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/just-stop-consenting
Join Me as a Sovereign Here on Ethical Ground (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/join-me-as-a-sovereign-here-on-ethical
I absolutely agree - in theory. But in practice, not many of us can fight the IRS when we get penalized for not paying taxes, SS, etc. We all have families we need to provide for - in some capacity- but, I suppose our ancestors said that too.
Our ancestors revolted from a 3-6% tax on commodities. We can do it, but we need good leaders, a good plan and need to understand that the majority want the government to take care of them.
I would approach the IRS not creating controversy, but conditionally accepting Their offer to tax. “I will be happy to pay those taxes if You prove I am in Your jurisdiction.” If You have withdrawn consent from the whole system, there is no proof.
Creating Controversy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/creating-controversy
We don't need to declare independence. We simply need justice, which is the common law. The common law resigns everyone to a rule of law. Too many people want to naively form a bubble whilst leaving tyranny in place. Moving consciousness forward involves engaging the true will to teach others about the dynamics that govern freedom and justice.
What if the Amish want to live in an Amish bubble? Can you let them? Yes, adjudicate disputes with them, on the rare occasions when disputes arise, according to some common law/protocols to which you both agree. But otherwise, leave them alone.
Or must you design their society for them?
Speaking of the government going too far: Things that used to just be dark jokes, now made reality.
I used to minorly vandalize the occasional bathroom stall with stickers, mimicking those found in airline bathrooms. "WARNING: IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO TAMPER WITH OR DISABLE TOILET CAMERAS"
Well, I guess the time has come to stop making dark jokes, because people take them seriously and actually *implement them*. New Zealand. Cameras. Bathrooms in schools.
W. T. F.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoC7NR-GGCo
Language warning: 0:04 and onwards.
Omg. And the answer is not to take cameras out of government schools. It is to take children out of government schools. All of them.
That was the solution I came to. Well, several decades ago. The longer you look, the clearer the "Long March" strategy looms. '82 - '95 myself, and the indoctrination was bad enough. It's gotten *insanely* worse in the three decades since I graduated. I would no more willingly send a child I cared about to public schools than I would feed them raw plutonium machining swarf.
I had to look up “swarf” 😄
Yep: +1 for the new vocab.
“No one should be able to impose ANYTHING upon others without their consent”
Well, almost. Should we be able to impose our capitalist property rights on Commies? Actually, nobody disputes the importance of consent, they just disagree on who needs to consent to what. The quote takes some things for granted that I very much would like to take for granted, but that just leaves those assumptions unexamined.
Who needs to consent to what and why do we think so? This is an important question.
It is very important. In the official documents I am working on, I establish this more carefully.
First, I establish the concept of rightful domain. That is your person, property, and liberty. Those are inviolate, and no actions may be taken by another within your rightful domain without your valid consent. (The only exception is if you violate the rightful domain of another; in such a case, you are subject to a proportional defensive response whether you consent or not.)
This, then, is the only rule that we may impose on others—that everyone may impose on everyone else: do not trespass the rightful domain—the person, property, or liberty—of another.
Thus, commies may do what they wish on/with their own property, but they may not rightly impose that upon us. Nor may we impose any rules upon them, save for the one rule that they may not trespass our rightful domains.
I am not really describing anything especially new here. Every creature will defend its rightful domain. The problem is the single-system fallacy—the belief that we must all live under one single system. That is the reason why you are forced to worry about what communists may do to us or what we may do to them—because the inherent presumption is that we can only have one system and it must be imposed upon all of us.
What we need is to switch to a meta-pluralism in which everyone may select their own way of life—choosing from among competing providers of governance or governance services or creating their own. A small set of common protocols can then keep the inter-agency/inter-polity peace. Not a perfect concept (nothing is), but it would keep the peace far more than trying to cram everyone into a single system, the way we do now.
We figured this out with churches; we can figure it out with governance.
“First, I establish the concept of rightful domain. That is your person, property, and liberty.”
Can you provide a cite or link to the argument with that conclusion? That seems like essential context for the statement about consent.
Sorry for my slow response, my internet service was interrupted by hurricane Lala.
Hope you made it through the hurricane undamaged.
Does this give you what you need?
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/consentism-voluntaryism-natural-law-truth
If not, lmk!
How do we solve the dilemma of preventing bad actors from killing, stealing, and otherwise violating others? There are anarchic societies that have gone into either direction - Lord of the Flies or interdependent Edens.
What pushes such a society into the positive direction?
I appreciate your framing of the question: that it can work. That then prompts thoughts about what would make the difference. Off the top of my head…
Robust private providers of governance or governance services.
A simple set of common protocols to keep the peace among people, polities, and agencies; see this series for more on that: (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/building-just-world-part-7
Evolution to the target, not revolutionary overthrow and imposition of a new single system upon everyone (even a panarchic one). The single-system fallacy is part of what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
A population that is culturally peaceful, relatively advanced, tolerant, and yet individualistic (European-Americans are the furthest toward that goal, methinks. The Japanese and Koreans would be closer too, but I think they are still too hive-minded to accept jurisdictional and cultural pluralism.)
Fine creativity in that. Cool 😎 share.
Speaking of being jacked up, my internet provider just raised prices another 10%. The gov says inflation is only 3%. Crap, they lied again! I don't have cable TV since its worth is about $1.29 for the $159/month I'd have to pay.
But don't worry...they are going to start using Flock cameras to do colonoscopies so all that juicy intel can go straight to the police and Palantir. So don't get jacked out of shape. May the "force" be with you, Chris.
I am loving the fact that the “flock” are fighting back against Flock!
Indeed there is no legitimate government that is not over ONLY the Ones who specifically gave consent, fully informed. "Implied consent" is not valid.
Thank You for this. It makes it quite clear We are beset by a system (able to beset Us because They can pay bullies) that is wholly illegitimate.
Giving Authority (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/giving-authority
Implied Consent (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/implied-consent