About ten years ago while I was riding my bicycle around town a thought came to me that put our system of law into stark relief for me. I was riding in a downtown residential area with very narrow streets, cars parked on it with doors prone to swinging open right in front of you by a driver not thinking about cyclists riding by. It was dangerous for a cyclist to ride on street there. Yet the law in the city was cyclists must ride on the street, riding on the sidewalk was subjected to a $40 fine. I reasoned that my life and health was worth at least that much. And willfully chose to ride on the sidewalk. The law allowed for cyclists to ingress/egress from the sidewalk to the street at the end of the block, I always figured I'd just use that excuse if ever caught.
Occasionally I'd encounter the random pedestrian who shouted angrily at me that cyclists had to ride on the street and to get off 'their' sidewalk. I'm a pedestrian, too. And hate encountering the cyclists who pass me dangerously, either riding too fast or too close for my sense of safety. And being a conscientious person, when I made the choice to ride on sidewalks there I was always very courteous. I'd ride very slowly for every pedestrian encounter. I'd use my bell to announce my presence if I was overtaking from behind. Slow. Courteous. Those who shouted angrily didn't care, they just had hatred for all cyclists who used their safe space. Not without good reason, experience with others. I didn't begrudge them or shout back, either apologizing or ignoring if they were hostile.
I questioned the origins of banning cyclists on sidewalks. Which was for that exact reason, to avoid cyclist/pedestrian conflicts. But my life mattered more. My natural law right to live. Overrode positive law prohibitions on using that typically empty space. If natural law was in practice a safe mutual accommodation of the sidewalk would be acceptable. All parties, particularly the one with the higher duty of care, the cyclist, sharing the sidewalk safely wouldn't be a violation. Only by imposition of positive law was that a crime, no matter how safe and courteous a rider was.
The same understanding of law came to me about five years ago. I had lost my ID while traveling, was waiting for several weeks to get replacement birth certificate, new ID. I was meeting several friends out at a bar. My appearance is very obviously over 21, father time shows my five+ decades of life. The bouncer at the bar refused entry to me because I didn't have my ID. Yes, sure, we can all say that's just his job, we're accustomed to presenting ID for bars. But it also defied common sense. I'll ignore the argument about the requirement for 21+ proof for drinking (was 18+ when I was younger), its own natural law v positive law dynamic. But just focusing on the requirement for proof of age made no sense. When a positive law is passed to regulate a behavior that behavior is what is being regulated. I needed to be 21+ to enter a bar under the law.
But the *enforcement* of the law is where my lack of ID came into play. It allowed for no common sense, as in, "of course this person a handful of decades old is obviously old enough to enter a 21+ bar. But the enforcement of the law, passed ostensibly to prevent under 21 from being in bars, was where positive law intruded over common sense, natural law. I failed to meet the "legal proof of age" enforcement criteria. So the law that was passed to require persons be 21+ to enter a bar was actually a law requiring possession of a document attesting to that. Not a law regulating a behavior, it was a law regulating an administrative process.
Which is what happens with all positive law. It's where common sense and natural law becomes divorced from law. Positive laws aren't passed to regulate behaviors so much as they are passed to regulate processes. And process violations are not violations of natural law, only positive law.
Just some anecdotal thoughts I've had along my life journey to understanding the law we live under, and how positive law grows into the monstrosity of administrative power that it is today. Imperfect a device as it may be.
Fantastic real-life illustrations of the point. Well done, and fun to read!
As it happens, I am posting something tomorrow that dovetails nicely. Not about positive vs. natural law, but related: the notion that we never left the state of nature. That bartender chose to imagine that he had no choice, but in reality, he did…
never left the state of nature - never separated.. just heavily veiled / manipulated / hypnotised so we couldnt see the good stuff on the 'other' side and had our addictions go wild at all the grossly over manufactured consumer goods in the current economy..
We do have a choice. There’s always a choice but I do have to say not everyone is equipped with the tools to recognise them and / or make good ones. It’s a skill that comes from experience and learning. Second to that is the ability to step outside of the addictions many use to numb the desperate voice inside themselves of how the hell did I get here and what do I do now.
Choice. Kind of iffy in this circumstance. Of course, all obedience to law is a choice. As was my choice to ride on a sidewalk. Accepting the consequences for making a choice that could come with penalty.
For the bouncer, local liquor enforcement was known for raiding bars, demanding ID of all in the establishment. If anyone was inside without ID the bar would be fined, subject to loss of liquor license depending on history of violations. So the bar instructed employees to demand ID, even for fifty-, seventy-somethings. Actual age of no importance, compliance with the government enforcement of the law on behavior became its own enforcement of process without regard to actual behavior the law was passed to regulate.
As much as I disliked the intransigence of the bouncer over the ID, I understood why he chose to enforce the process as he was instructed to by his employer. Raids happen and it impacted the jobs of all who worked there. The problem is when government regulators are divorced from common sense applications of a law that is passed. The law passed explicitly said must be of a certain age, no mention of acceptable proof of age. How an age is ascertained was left up to those tasked with law enforcement. And for government enforcers they choose to eliminate common sense in ascertaining compliance. Proper papers in order is their criteria, compliance with positive law, natural law be damned. No expectation or allowance for enforcers to think and apply reason.
Positive law is about obedience. Not morals. Not ethics. Not human. Positive law is used to create robotic, obedient automatons. 1's and 0's like computer coding, no gray; gray involves thinking and discernment. Traits that are frowned upon by those who have imposed positive law on us.
Note: Positive law theory became the dominant theory in the US about a century ago. Prior to that it was Natural law. The US Constitution was written to be interpreted and understood under Natural law. Positive law and the case law history that's come down under it in the past century has essentially nullified the Constitution. A feature of Positive law, not a flaw.
German jurisprudence under the Third Reich was similarly Positive Law. And similarly nullified the German constitution existed before it's rise. This Wiki (yuck, I know, I wish there was another easy search for basic info, but it is what it is) page on one of the top German legal minds of the Weimar Republic, Gustav Radbruch, tells us something about the peril inherent in Positive law jurisprudence:
"Many people partially blame the older German legal tradition of legal positivism for the ease with which Hitler obtained power in an outwardly "legal" manner, rather than by means of a coup. Arguably, the shift to a concept of natural law ought to act as a safeguard against dictatorship, an untrammeled State power and the abrogation of civil rights."
Our greatest peril today. Natural law never would've permitted the abuses of the pandemic or any of the infringements of our inalienable rights we are born with. How dictatorship is secured without firing a single bullet. Only constrained by disobedience. A Positive law application of the Constitution isn't there to protect us.
Yeah, I suppose I unfairly assumed when I said that the "bartender chose to imagine that he had no choice." He might have made the calculation that he could choose to ignore the law (and his bosses), but it would be better if he did not.
But chances are, he still saw government and the law as inevitable, like natural forces. I want to get people to see them as a manifestation within the natural world, but not inevitable. (I will try to make this more clear today.)
And yes, positive law is a monstrosity. But the sad reality is that by setting up a legislative system, the Constitution made it inevitable. It empowered a body to pass laws, so the body passed laws.
Well said. We are licensed like a hog in a hog pen. The exact opposite of we who are made in the "image and likeness of God, our Creator." The only and I mean, only, way, to regain our humanity and dignity, is the Natural Law. To have full rights instead of permissions and licensing. Consider that THEY consider "traveling" differently from "driving." Consider that answering, "I understand," means you are actually agreeing to 'stand under' in a "court of "legaleze." Consider that the family Bible was the only lawful record of life, marriage, family, parents and children, and death. Nothing else was needed. We are now owned by the corporate GOVCO.INC and traded as if we are shares of stocks.
Allways worth speaking the truths that need to be heard. This ought to be posted in every legislative office in the nation, and carefully considered before passing any legislation, or hearing any court case. Clear logical and ethical.
I've been noting often, very often lately that I assume anything and everything the government, any government, says is a lie until and unless proven otherwise.
So, tangentially though slightly germane to your essay as your essay noted the "..crazed woke globalist weirdos the left ...", who, as of this instant are still in power telling us we "know" a Chinese ship with a Russian captain cut cables in the Baltic., even noting the ̶s̶m̶o̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶g̶u̶n̶ ̶ missing anchor.
As I can conceive no military or political reason for Putin to approve or do such I do wonder if such could be an act of "..crazed woke globalist weirdos the left ..." that encompasses most if not all of the crimes you note above to delay changing of the guard, no matter the risk, Christopher.
Reading what I just wrote, it's a strain to say it's germane, but since my read of your essay pushed my thoughts that way, I'll post this, though off topic, anyway. Grin.
No I hadn't seen that Jeffrey Sachs video but I've long been quite aware of the points, most of which are in your face provable facts, he covered.
Part of the problem; propaganda works! Tell the lie often enough, loud enough and even folks on the right accept it as truth, the whole and nothing but, such as in this case.
I've been royally flamed by folks whose opinions and arguments I usually respect just for suggesting there might be two sides to the Ukraine story. I'm not complaining about the flaming, in fact I rather enjoyed it, but closed minds are obviously fragile and disagreement must be silenced.
It also is painful for people to accept that we are not the good guys, and haven’t been for a long time (if we ever were, past the 1780s). It is painful to the narrative upon which one grounds much of one’s understanding of things.
I'll be happy if they focus inward. What crimes has government committed? Should those who perpetrated crimes using government power:
1. Lose their job and any retirement owed (minor offenses)
2. Be publicly prosecuted and imprisoned if convicted for using government power to harm private citizens.
3. Execution for treason. Using government power to manipulate elections and instigate crimes. The Gretchen Whitmer "kidnapping" and subsequent prosecution of relatively innocent civilians seem like a good example of the egregious combination of the two. Someone signed off on a plot to find some idiots to engage in a plot to kidnap and possibly kill a governor to make one side look bad in an election. The governor actively participated in a plot to frame the citizens she represents. The majority of the participants in the "plot" were government employees and paid informants. An investigation should be launched to determine how much the FBI was behind this kidnapping, instigating the January 6th riot, BLM violence and Antifa. After seeing evidence that the FBI is substantially responsible for reprehensible activity by those aligned with me politically, I can't help but assume they are engaged in the same behavior with the other side.
The most serious punishments government has should be reserved for misuse of government power.
Punishment 1 should in no way interfere with the termination of employment of every federal employee engaged in work not specifically required to fulfil the constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government. Those folks should keep any retirement they are owed. Elimination of a component of the federal government that engages in some activity does not mean that the activity should not be done. For example, elimination of the Department of Education does not mean an end to education. It simply means the federal government does not have a role here. When there is a problem to be addressed, the first question to answer is whether government should address it. If yes, at what level. State and local governments as well as the private sector are perfectly capable of addressing education.
Agreed on most of that. I guess I would just say that as an ancap, I don't like the concept of "treason." And that executions, while perhaps in some sense deserved, might have a negative effect on the public overall. Life in prison is fine for Whitmer.
So long as government claims the right to execute anyone, government officials using their power to commit crimes against its citizens should be first on the list. One could define treason as government officials using their power to illegally act against citizens. I would take a broader view of what constitutes treason, but an example of what's not treason would be Edward Snowden blowing the whistle on the government violations of its laws. Government action should have the highest level of scrutiny and accountability.
I'm fine with lesser punishments. The greater criminals in the Whitmer case is whoever in the FBI came up with the idea and whoever approved it. For the federal government to have provided explosives to alleged criminals is unacceptable. I mostly want the public trial process. It's an even bet that if trials were public for this and similar matters, our fellow citizens might decide that I'm crazy for wanting to reform the system. They may come away thinking that the risks of government outweigh the risks of eliminating government. If my ideal loses to yours, I'm still happy with the outcome.
Yes it will work. What it won't do is to convince any of those whose life work depends on violating our consent. There are millions who currently work in government and who would lose their incomes and retirement plans if they are not able to coerce their fellow Americans. That will be even more disruptive than the transfer of manufacturing jobs overseas.
I expect chaos for the next few years. Perhaps the greatest benefit will be a few years when cancel culture is cancelled. Imagine open discussions like those happening here without fear of retribution. Keep up with good suggestions. Something will stick and progress our society. When RFK, Jr was announced, several opined "finally the New Age has arrived". May it include a return to limited government and a live and let live philosophy across neighbors.
The corruption in the DC Swamp has been decades in the making and the Trump team will have to dig all the way to China to get to the bottom of it. I doubt much is going to be accomplished as we still have the depopulation agenda alive and well, especially if these government clowns keep poking Putin in the ribs with a hot poker.
The crime list is near perfect. Not even silly A/I could do any better.
—I find myself caught between that sort of pessimistic realism on the one side and a strange hope on the other. Neither will consume me, however. I am just watching and waiting.
"The crime list is near perfect. Not even silly A/I could do any better."
—Thank you.
I wonder if AI could come even close. Does AI truly have a clue about natural law? I doubt it…
I understand. I am not fan of government, period. This is just a pragmatic recognition that if I have to choose, I will never choose the crazy left. The alternative is generally preferable.
Humbly... I give highest probability that We are just being dragged along by the sandy hooks They've cast into Our emotion. The for-profit corporation, USA Inc., is putting on a production, having appointed Their CEO. They appointed the previous one, too, who did as He was told.
One obvious clue is when You look at older pics of Matt Gaetz, it is clearly not the same Person thaling that role now - I wish I could post the images I have showing this fact. Maybe I will do a short article...
Point is, what Trump (and others) is saying He will do and what He actually will do are two different things, as demonstrated by the last time He was appointed CEO. Drain the swamp? No, appointed it. (And some of the appointees now look swampy to Me. They're ALL supporters of Isis Ra El...)
Perhaps once "in office" He will be "assassinated," or WWIII will begin on the stage, or Project Bluebeam, or whatever, but I expect zero of the promises to be kept. Like last time.
About ten years ago while I was riding my bicycle around town a thought came to me that put our system of law into stark relief for me. I was riding in a downtown residential area with very narrow streets, cars parked on it with doors prone to swinging open right in front of you by a driver not thinking about cyclists riding by. It was dangerous for a cyclist to ride on street there. Yet the law in the city was cyclists must ride on the street, riding on the sidewalk was subjected to a $40 fine. I reasoned that my life and health was worth at least that much. And willfully chose to ride on the sidewalk. The law allowed for cyclists to ingress/egress from the sidewalk to the street at the end of the block, I always figured I'd just use that excuse if ever caught.
Occasionally I'd encounter the random pedestrian who shouted angrily at me that cyclists had to ride on the street and to get off 'their' sidewalk. I'm a pedestrian, too. And hate encountering the cyclists who pass me dangerously, either riding too fast or too close for my sense of safety. And being a conscientious person, when I made the choice to ride on sidewalks there I was always very courteous. I'd ride very slowly for every pedestrian encounter. I'd use my bell to announce my presence if I was overtaking from behind. Slow. Courteous. Those who shouted angrily didn't care, they just had hatred for all cyclists who used their safe space. Not without good reason, experience with others. I didn't begrudge them or shout back, either apologizing or ignoring if they were hostile.
I questioned the origins of banning cyclists on sidewalks. Which was for that exact reason, to avoid cyclist/pedestrian conflicts. But my life mattered more. My natural law right to live. Overrode positive law prohibitions on using that typically empty space. If natural law was in practice a safe mutual accommodation of the sidewalk would be acceptable. All parties, particularly the one with the higher duty of care, the cyclist, sharing the sidewalk safely wouldn't be a violation. Only by imposition of positive law was that a crime, no matter how safe and courteous a rider was.
The same understanding of law came to me about five years ago. I had lost my ID while traveling, was waiting for several weeks to get replacement birth certificate, new ID. I was meeting several friends out at a bar. My appearance is very obviously over 21, father time shows my five+ decades of life. The bouncer at the bar refused entry to me because I didn't have my ID. Yes, sure, we can all say that's just his job, we're accustomed to presenting ID for bars. But it also defied common sense. I'll ignore the argument about the requirement for 21+ proof for drinking (was 18+ when I was younger), its own natural law v positive law dynamic. But just focusing on the requirement for proof of age made no sense. When a positive law is passed to regulate a behavior that behavior is what is being regulated. I needed to be 21+ to enter a bar under the law.
But the *enforcement* of the law is where my lack of ID came into play. It allowed for no common sense, as in, "of course this person a handful of decades old is obviously old enough to enter a 21+ bar. But the enforcement of the law, passed ostensibly to prevent under 21 from being in bars, was where positive law intruded over common sense, natural law. I failed to meet the "legal proof of age" enforcement criteria. So the law that was passed to require persons be 21+ to enter a bar was actually a law requiring possession of a document attesting to that. Not a law regulating a behavior, it was a law regulating an administrative process.
Which is what happens with all positive law. It's where common sense and natural law becomes divorced from law. Positive laws aren't passed to regulate behaviors so much as they are passed to regulate processes. And process violations are not violations of natural law, only positive law.
Just some anecdotal thoughts I've had along my life journey to understanding the law we live under, and how positive law grows into the monstrosity of administrative power that it is today. Imperfect a device as it may be.
Fantastic real-life illustrations of the point. Well done, and fun to read!
As it happens, I am posting something tomorrow that dovetails nicely. Not about positive vs. natural law, but related: the notion that we never left the state of nature. That bartender chose to imagine that he had no choice, but in reality, he did…
never left the state of nature - never separated.. just heavily veiled / manipulated / hypnotised so we couldnt see the good stuff on the 'other' side and had our addictions go wild at all the grossly over manufactured consumer goods in the current economy..
Yup. I will say, though, that I am entirely able to not buy excessively, in spite of the consumer economy. We do have a choice.
We do have a choice. There’s always a choice but I do have to say not everyone is equipped with the tools to recognise them and / or make good ones. It’s a skill that comes from experience and learning. Second to that is the ability to step outside of the addictions many use to numb the desperate voice inside themselves of how the hell did I get here and what do I do now.
Yes. It can be hard. And humans are a highly programmable species, which can make it really really hard!
Choice. Kind of iffy in this circumstance. Of course, all obedience to law is a choice. As was my choice to ride on a sidewalk. Accepting the consequences for making a choice that could come with penalty.
For the bouncer, local liquor enforcement was known for raiding bars, demanding ID of all in the establishment. If anyone was inside without ID the bar would be fined, subject to loss of liquor license depending on history of violations. So the bar instructed employees to demand ID, even for fifty-, seventy-somethings. Actual age of no importance, compliance with the government enforcement of the law on behavior became its own enforcement of process without regard to actual behavior the law was passed to regulate.
As much as I disliked the intransigence of the bouncer over the ID, I understood why he chose to enforce the process as he was instructed to by his employer. Raids happen and it impacted the jobs of all who worked there. The problem is when government regulators are divorced from common sense applications of a law that is passed. The law passed explicitly said must be of a certain age, no mention of acceptable proof of age. How an age is ascertained was left up to those tasked with law enforcement. And for government enforcers they choose to eliminate common sense in ascertaining compliance. Proper papers in order is their criteria, compliance with positive law, natural law be damned. No expectation or allowance for enforcers to think and apply reason.
Positive law is about obedience. Not morals. Not ethics. Not human. Positive law is used to create robotic, obedient automatons. 1's and 0's like computer coding, no gray; gray involves thinking and discernment. Traits that are frowned upon by those who have imposed positive law on us.
Note: Positive law theory became the dominant theory in the US about a century ago. Prior to that it was Natural law. The US Constitution was written to be interpreted and understood under Natural law. Positive law and the case law history that's come down under it in the past century has essentially nullified the Constitution. A feature of Positive law, not a flaw.
German jurisprudence under the Third Reich was similarly Positive Law. And similarly nullified the German constitution existed before it's rise. This Wiki (yuck, I know, I wish there was another easy search for basic info, but it is what it is) page on one of the top German legal minds of the Weimar Republic, Gustav Radbruch, tells us something about the peril inherent in Positive law jurisprudence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Radbruch
"Many people partially blame the older German legal tradition of legal positivism for the ease with which Hitler obtained power in an outwardly "legal" manner, rather than by means of a coup. Arguably, the shift to a concept of natural law ought to act as a safeguard against dictatorship, an untrammeled State power and the abrogation of civil rights."
Our greatest peril today. Natural law never would've permitted the abuses of the pandemic or any of the infringements of our inalienable rights we are born with. How dictatorship is secured without firing a single bullet. Only constrained by disobedience. A Positive law application of the Constitution isn't there to protect us.
Yeah, I suppose I unfairly assumed when I said that the "bartender chose to imagine that he had no choice." He might have made the calculation that he could choose to ignore the law (and his bosses), but it would be better if he did not.
But chances are, he still saw government and the law as inevitable, like natural forces. I want to get people to see them as a manifestation within the natural world, but not inevitable. (I will try to make this more clear today.)
And yes, positive law is a monstrosity. But the sad reality is that by setting up a legislative system, the Constitution made it inevitable. It empowered a body to pass laws, so the body passed laws.
Well said. We are licensed like a hog in a hog pen. The exact opposite of we who are made in the "image and likeness of God, our Creator." The only and I mean, only, way, to regain our humanity and dignity, is the Natural Law. To have full rights instead of permissions and licensing. Consider that THEY consider "traveling" differently from "driving." Consider that answering, "I understand," means you are actually agreeing to 'stand under' in a "court of "legaleze." Consider that the family Bible was the only lawful record of life, marriage, family, parents and children, and death. Nothing else was needed. We are now owned by the corporate GOVCO.INC and traded as if we are shares of stocks.
Allways worth speaking the truths that need to be heard. This ought to be posted in every legislative office in the nation, and carefully considered before passing any legislation, or hearing any court case. Clear logical and ethical.
Yes, what Hat Bailey said! Always worth spreading the truth. And repetition is an effective form of emphasis.
Yes. People get fed up with repetition, but it really is essential to learning.
Masterful treatise…my thanks.
JOG!
I am pleased you find it so. Thanks!
They won't tell us shit lol. Just selected bits.
Probably. But we will keep telling the truth nonetheless!
I've been noting often, very often lately that I assume anything and everything the government, any government, says is a lie until and unless proven otherwise.
So, tangentially though slightly germane to your essay as your essay noted the "..crazed woke globalist weirdos the left ...", who, as of this instant are still in power telling us we "know" a Chinese ship with a Russian captain cut cables in the Baltic., even noting the ̶s̶m̶o̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶g̶u̶n̶ ̶ missing anchor.
As I can conceive no military or political reason for Putin to approve or do such I do wonder if such could be an act of "..crazed woke globalist weirdos the left ..." that encompasses most if not all of the crimes you note above to delay changing of the guard, no matter the risk, Christopher.
Reading what I just wrote, it's a strain to say it's germane, but since my read of your essay pushed my thoughts that way, I'll post this, though off topic, anyway. Grin.
It's a perfectly reasonable topic to bring up. They do seem bent on provoking war with Russia. Have you seen this? https://substack.com/@alilybit/note/c-77958418
Also, I share your assumption. I refer to it as my heuristic, and write about it here
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/conspiracy-theory-rabbit-holes-mind-control
and here
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/covington-school-sandmann-what-really-happened
and elsewhere.
No I hadn't seen that Jeffrey Sachs video but I've long been quite aware of the points, most of which are in your face provable facts, he covered.
Part of the problem; propaganda works! Tell the lie often enough, loud enough and even folks on the right accept it as truth, the whole and nothing but, such as in this case.
I've been royally flamed by folks whose opinions and arguments I usually respect just for suggesting there might be two sides to the Ukraine story. I'm not complaining about the flaming, in fact I rather enjoyed it, but closed minds are obviously fragile and disagreement must be silenced.
Yup.
It also is painful for people to accept that we are not the good guys, and haven’t been for a long time (if we ever were, past the 1780s). It is painful to the narrative upon which one grounds much of one’s understanding of things.
No chance of it working, but good to have a goal.
I'll be happy if they focus inward. What crimes has government committed? Should those who perpetrated crimes using government power:
1. Lose their job and any retirement owed (minor offenses)
2. Be publicly prosecuted and imprisoned if convicted for using government power to harm private citizens.
3. Execution for treason. Using government power to manipulate elections and instigate crimes. The Gretchen Whitmer "kidnapping" and subsequent prosecution of relatively innocent civilians seem like a good example of the egregious combination of the two. Someone signed off on a plot to find some idiots to engage in a plot to kidnap and possibly kill a governor to make one side look bad in an election. The governor actively participated in a plot to frame the citizens she represents. The majority of the participants in the "plot" were government employees and paid informants. An investigation should be launched to determine how much the FBI was behind this kidnapping, instigating the January 6th riot, BLM violence and Antifa. After seeing evidence that the FBI is substantially responsible for reprehensible activity by those aligned with me politically, I can't help but assume they are engaged in the same behavior with the other side.
The most serious punishments government has should be reserved for misuse of government power.
Punishment 1 should in no way interfere with the termination of employment of every federal employee engaged in work not specifically required to fulfil the constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government. Those folks should keep any retirement they are owed. Elimination of a component of the federal government that engages in some activity does not mean that the activity should not be done. For example, elimination of the Department of Education does not mean an end to education. It simply means the federal government does not have a role here. When there is a problem to be addressed, the first question to answer is whether government should address it. If yes, at what level. State and local governments as well as the private sector are perfectly capable of addressing education.
Agreed on most of that. I guess I would just say that as an ancap, I don't like the concept of "treason." And that executions, while perhaps in some sense deserved, might have a negative effect on the public overall. Life in prison is fine for Whitmer.
So long as government claims the right to execute anyone, government officials using their power to commit crimes against its citizens should be first on the list. One could define treason as government officials using their power to illegally act against citizens. I would take a broader view of what constitutes treason, but an example of what's not treason would be Edward Snowden blowing the whistle on the government violations of its laws. Government action should have the highest level of scrutiny and accountability.
I'm fine with lesser punishments. The greater criminals in the Whitmer case is whoever in the FBI came up with the idea and whoever approved it. For the federal government to have provided explosives to alleged criminals is unacceptable. I mostly want the public trial process. It's an even bet that if trials were public for this and similar matters, our fellow citizens might decide that I'm crazy for wanting to reform the system. They may come away thinking that the risks of government outweigh the risks of eliminating government. If my ideal loses to yours, I'm still happy with the outcome.
Anything in the right direction is a win!
When we find out the real truth about Sandy Hook hell rise up …….
It all goes back to the FBI, every last school shooting
How will we ever. They are SO invested in that. Look at the judgment against Jones. 2 billion dollars? WTH?
All we need is one little handwritten receipt says money for child
What do you mean?
Yes it will work. What it won't do is to convince any of those whose life work depends on violating our consent. There are millions who currently work in government and who would lose their incomes and retirement plans if they are not able to coerce their fellow Americans. That will be even more disruptive than the transfer of manufacturing jobs overseas.
Baby steps. Little by little, until there is no government left. Maybe it will take 200 more years. All the better to start now.
I expect chaos for the next few years. Perhaps the greatest benefit will be a few years when cancel culture is cancelled. Imagine open discussions like those happening here without fear of retribution. Keep up with good suggestions. Something will stick and progress our society. When RFK, Jr was announced, several opined "finally the New Age has arrived". May it include a return to limited government and a live and let live philosophy across neighbors.
Live and let live. Imagine that!
The corruption in the DC Swamp has been decades in the making and the Trump team will have to dig all the way to China to get to the bottom of it. I doubt much is going to be accomplished as we still have the depopulation agenda alive and well, especially if these government clowns keep poking Putin in the ribs with a hot poker.
The crime list is near perfect. Not even silly A/I could do any better.
"I doubt much is going to be accomplished…"
—I find myself caught between that sort of pessimistic realism on the one side and a strange hope on the other. Neither will consume me, however. I am just watching and waiting.
"The crime list is near perfect. Not even silly A/I could do any better."
—Thank you.
I wonder if AI could come even close. Does AI truly have a clue about natural law? I doubt it…
Christopher I so much appreciate your very thorough and clear breakdowns of the CRIMES!
While I'm no fan of Biden/Harris and the Fake "Woke" BS and I'm also no fan of Trump!
I understand. I am not fan of government, period. This is just a pragmatic recognition that if I have to choose, I will never choose the crazy left. The alternative is generally preferable.
👏👏👏
These are the things that government agents at every level have forgotten to apply before taking any action.
Humbly... I give highest probability that We are just being dragged along by the sandy hooks They've cast into Our emotion. The for-profit corporation, USA Inc., is putting on a production, having appointed Their CEO. They appointed the previous one, too, who did as He was told.
One obvious clue is when You look at older pics of Matt Gaetz, it is clearly not the same Person thaling that role now - I wish I could post the images I have showing this fact. Maybe I will do a short article...
Point is, what Trump (and others) is saying He will do and what He actually will do are two different things, as demonstrated by the last time He was appointed CEO. Drain the swamp? No, appointed it. (And some of the appointees now look swampy to Me. They're ALL supporters of Isis Ra El...)
Perhaps once "in office" He will be "assassinated," or WWIII will begin on the stage, or Project Bluebeam, or whatever, but I expect zero of the promises to be kept. Like last time.
Seriously...
Escape the Cave! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/escape-the-cave