This page explains how nearly all United States government activity is illegitimate, what your rights actually are, and how we can negotiate a peaceful revolution.
There are no amount of elections, signed papers, or posted placards that can compensate for the presence of coercion. The United States Government derives its legitimacy from the absence of coercion. The presence of coercive police operating outside of due process in any regard invalidates any United States government actions as fraudulent and not approved by the authority of the people.
Enforcing laws through incentives or consequences (like loss of privileges) is categorically different from forcing compliance through physical or legal coercion. Enforcement still presumes volition; force does not. The Constitution authorizes enforcement, not coercion, punishment, or force.
The United States Government and any states, agencies, laws, policies, and executive orders must all ensure adequate consent at all times, meaning that there are no punitive actions that can be imposed on someone without their consent. The federal government is not authorized to use force on the US people.
Due process means someone understanding in an official capacity what they are being charged with, what the potential outcomes are, and consenting to trial or punitive action. The government has zero authority to punish outside of this.
There obviously needs to be mechanisms for justice when people or police aren't able to deter or stop a crime actively. It's just that it's not allowed to violate our rights. Fortunately, removing any benefits that the government provides that aren't constitutionally guaranteed is valid.
Not only is the coercive compliance strategy unethical and constitutionally illegal, it's also less effective! You end up with a whole bunch of side effects that far outweigh the benefit of appearing to have things under control. You just can't enforce destitution and harm of others.
The government is not allowed to deny our rights under any circumstances, and we have a right to consent to be governed. Every single court proceeding is supposed to be Socratic; voluntary participation with people who understand and consent to the outcome from the start.
Without that consent, the government has no authority.
The government ALWAYS has a duty to protect citizens from violations of rights, both from other individuals and from invalid government activity. It has the OPTION to provide additional services or acquire and maintain privileged property access (not-public) beyond basic protection of rights.
If the government is awaiting someone to comply with due process, they can remove access to these additional benefits while still protecting their rights. This creates a compliance tool that is both effective and constitutionally valid.
The removal of a non-guaranteed benefit is not a punishment against one's rights.
Our rights are defined in various amendments throughout the constitution, with the entire government's authority being founded in the consent of all. This means that if the United States government is sustaining it's validity by coercing the people, then its not valid at all.
The government is not required to provide any services. If it chooses to do so, it must be via truly consenting taxation and provide services that are equally accessible to all. If people become dependent on these services for survival, they cannot be removed for the enforcement of non-constitutional policies.
The government is not prevented from establishing any amount of its own commercial activities, so long as it's not using its legal advantage to dominate markets. There are plenty of avenues for the government to be a natural market regular while generating revenue for benefits for the people. Assuming their true luxuries, they can be removed as enforcement.
On a fundamental level, the US Constiution establishes a voluntary government. Without getting creative with enforcement methods that don't require consent but don't violate an individual's rights, the US Government functions as little more than a notary for its citizens.
It's not capitalism vs communism anymore. Only dumdums think you can't have both at the same time (same with science & religion). The government can operate as a commercial operation competing with private entities, allowing them to naturally regulate the market and create non-coercive revenue.
You can have a government that provides socialist benefits without taxing those who oppose the policies. Nothing in the Constitution says that it cannot generate funds and compete in the free market; it just can't do so in a way that it seeks to establish a monopoly or unfair legal advantages, much like corporations have already done with the bar association.
We've experienced some pretty major constitutional drift; the United States of America was never meant to be a police state, regardless of the justification that any group of elites brainwash into the people. There is simply no legal mechanism for coercing individuals, but that is the entire basis of our society today.
Anyone who swears an oath to the constitution and consequently uses any coercion on an individual, regardless of the circumstance, has violated their oath and relinquished any authority or protections they have on the spot. They are nothing more than assailants against a citizen's rights. That means we don't have any effective governance currently.
The government having no Constitutional authority in its current form is a pretty big deal. Nothing but conditioning and trust in each other is keeping things operating as they are. We have little influence over where and when this bubble pops, so we must use that influence wisely and not panic.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.