How the Lack of Consent has Made Us All Victims
By Joe Jarvis - January 02, 2018

Nothing should happen to your body without your consent.

Seems pretty straightforward. Yet our society is predicated on ignoring consent.

Recently we have heard all about famous and powerful people ignoring consent when it comes to sexual advances.

But consent is just as important when it comes to labor, for instance. Completely forced labor is slavery.

Taxes also amount to a less intense form of forced labor. Taxes forcibly take part of your money, earned through labor. Just because you get something in return doesn’t make it consensual. And if the government benefits were worth the price, why would they need to force us to pay, instead of simply offering us a product?

You also should not be forced to stop doing anything that does not harm someone else. If you have the consent of everyone affected by your actions, it is wrong for someone to stop you. That includes punishment for victimless crimes; everything from drug possession to building on your property without a permit.

Yet the media can’t seem to figure out what is making all these powerful and famous people act out sexually without consent. In 2017, a lot of terrible people were exposed for their disregard for consent when it came to sexual advances.

But what was the long-term solution? Giving victims a voice, and scaring powerful people into behaving properly is a good start. But it doesn’t address the power imbalance that allows for non-consensual interactions.

Why not make 2018 the year that we get to the root of the problem?

The very fabric of our society is nonconsensual. The way the government operates violates consent at all turns.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can live in an organized, peaceful, and prosperous society where people are not systematically violated.

Secession is Just Another Way of Saying, “I Do Not Consent.”

Secession is a way to say “No” to an unwanted advance. No thank you, I do not want your services, your products, or your laws.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow any rules. Once you break the law of consent, you will be confronted with a suit. That is how common law works. First, a problem must occur. Somone must allege than another person has harmed them (or someone for whom they are advocating).

Common law is a system based on resolving problems, settling disputes, and avoiding violence. The remedy is decided based on the circumstances.

Yet the way man laws works right now, it creates conflicts, rather than solves them. Regulations and victimless crimes ignore consent and force victims to act in a particular way, even when they have harmed no one. This creates conflicts–raids, arrests, confiscations, fines–despite the alleged purpose of such statutes being to avoid conflicts.

And it all comes back to the lack of respect for consent.

If we don’t get along with someone, or a bunch of someones who make up a government, we should be free to go our separate ways.

For instance, if I own a piece of private property, why can’t I just retreat to it and do as I wish? Keep in mind, if any actions I take while on my private property affect others without their consent, I can still be brought to justice. I can’t dump raw sewage in a river or let the smoke from burning trash waft into my neighbor’s yard.

But why shouldn’t I be able to, say, grow weed, build a house without a permit, or run a business?

If I step back onto public land or others’ private property, I must then follow the rules of the government or the other property owner.

Doesn’t this sound like a better basis for law than arbitrary government edicts that do not need the consent of the governed to be enforced?

Why don’t we all just stop associating if we don’t get along?

Do you spend your time campaigning against a restaurant that gave you bad service, or do you just stop going there, and warn others with a review? You don’t need to ban the restaurant to get back at them. They cannot take your money if you don’t voluntarily go there.

If the wants and needs of your state do not match the federal government’s, why shouldn’t the state simply go its separate way peacefully, without being dragged violently back into the fold?

The state of Texas could simply become its own country if it thinks it has a strong enough military to stand alone or form voluntary alliances with other states. The state of California could become its own country if it thinks raising taxes to 90% will benefit its economy. Texas can ban immigration if it wishes, and California can ban guns. And that way you don’t have Californians forcing their way of life on Texans, and Texans forcing their way of life on Californians.

Things are more peaceful. Fewer conflicts happen.

But currently, federal laws generally trump state laws. Wouldn’t everything just be easier if we let each state do what it wants?

With 50 nation-states Americans could shop around for the best fit. But with an overbearing federal government, we get the worst of both worlds.

No matter where we go, we still have to pay for the largest military on earth. Yet we still need to know each state’s laws, lest we wind up in prison for a decade because we brought legal pot from Colorado over the state line.

A legal marijuana business in Washington state cannot safely put its money in the bank, because of federal laws regulating drug sale revenue. And New York City residents have to pay to secure Arizona’s border with Mexico.

States could be as secure or as lax in their borders as they want. They could be as cooperative or isolated with other states as they see fit. The best tax policies for the economy would quickly show what type of government people want: even now people are fleeing California over their high tax rates.

Progressive states won’t be limited by Bible-belt voters or burdened by military expenditures. Conservative states wouldn’t have to pay for liberal welfare programs or have their gun rights threatened.

If governments are controlled by the people and empowered by the people, doesn’t it make sense for those people to voluntarily start their own, smaller state that is a better match?

And if a state is free to secede and disassociate with the old government, why not a town? Those people should also get to give or withhold their consent for state and federal policies.

And if a town makes a decision that some residents don’t agree with, why can’t a neighborhood also secede?

Then why not a single household?

Why not an individual?

Each secession is a declaration that they do not consent. Ignoring this declaration is assault. If we allow consent to be ignored at all, what philosophical ground do we stand on to truly solve problems like sexual assault?

We must be consistent, or we arbitrarily choose when we can violate an individual’s consent.

And can we really get to the bottom of the root cause of sexual assault when we pick and choose when consent gets to be ignored?

Which people–when, where, and why–have no right to say, “No! Stop. Get off me.”?

If any of the people inhabiting these places step back into “your” society on “your government’s” land, they will again be subject to that government’s laws, same as it is now. So why not let them disassociate and stay away if they choose? Why not let people do whatever they want on their own land, and take issue only if their actions start to negatively affect others?

The true nature of government.

They need you, they need us, because we fund them, and we contribute to their control and power. We are not free to disassociate, we cannot just walk away and say no thanks, we cannot take our business elsewhere.

We are held hostage, with a percentage of our time spent in forced labor for our masters. This sounds an awful lot like slavery.

So if consent is required for all human interaction, the following holds true:

  • Any state is free to secede from a larger government.
  • Any size state can be formed and fracture from a larger government.
  • An individual can secede from any and all states, and become sovereign.

(Because of advances in technology, individuals organizing themselves into a new government need not occupy the same or adjacent lands.)

On the other hand, if consent is not required for all interactions, the following can be true:

  • Might makes right. Whoever has the most guns/ biggest military governs.
  • Slavery is okay under certain circumstances.
  • People can be forced to associate with others against their will.
  • Sometimes it is okay to force yourself on people.

Of course, this all would suggest there is no inherent right to say “No.” As such, consent is required only under certain arbitrary circumstances.

What do you think, could 2018 be the year that consent is required for all human interaction?

Or will we keep addressing symptoms–like sexual assault–while ignoring the underlying problem?

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with: , , , ,
  • NobodysaysBOO

    Pirate ship democrazy, needs PIRATES, but pirates are largely unruly and not easy to govern.
    when the pirate captain takes the treasure the pirates KILL HIM.
    JFK was a pirate or a patriot either way he is GONE!
    the pirates are still waiting for a share of the treasure as the nation drowns in aliens.
    a reset is far overdue, it happens when faster than the speed of light the idea spreads and nobody does anything the gov wants or demands EVER AGAIN.

    • WA1

      JFK threatened to take away the Corporate Banker/M.I.C. punchbowl… And even made moves in that direction by telling Marilyn Monroe about the alien encounters and with his executive order – 11110… That forced Banks to back the Treasury Certificates with silver, which limited their power to lend to those deserving causes in Big Oil, High Tech and the Corporate Banking System, so he had to go… The fact that his decisions benefitted the many didn’t cut any ice… He (and Bobby) had to go.

      • Lewie Paine

        Kennedy wasn’t anti-Fed. That’s a myth.

    • Ephraiyim

      Yep…right there with you.

  • Nobody

    “If I step back onto public land or others’ private property, I must then follow the rules of the government or the other property owner.”

    Wrong! “Public” land is actually the commons, “public” is a legalese creation of the bar intentionally to convert the commons, everyone’s land/no one’s land into land owned by the state. The commons is exactly where common law has it’s most applicable effect. If you are on your own property the common law still applies, unless you are an outlaw, but most actions would derive from being in the commons. Government laws are exactly that, laws for Government. This fact is derived from common law and can be easily seen when viewed properly;
    If you don’t work for Walmart does Walmart’s board have any power to make laws applicable to you? Obviously no!
    If you don’t work for CVS does CVS’ board have any power to make laws applicable to you? Obviously no! If you don’t work for Pizza Hut does Pizza Hut’s board have any power to make laws applicable to you? Obviously no! If you don’t work the Government does the Government’s board have any power to make laws applicable to you? Obviously no!

    It is cognitive dissonance and a destruction of the equal application of law to make one entity different from all the others. The reason we can boycott a company and shut them down is because those companies generally operate within the law- they won’t force anyone to shop there which is true lawful consent or not. The ‘Government’ is the only entity that doesn’t operate that way even though their first law says it’s their law. The ‘Government’ entity doesn’t operate equally as all other entities (and fails to ascent to their first law) which means they are not the Government they are a lawless criminal racket. The Government’s only job is to secure rights aka uphold the law and the way they are suppose to do that is for their board (legislature) to make rules for its workers to do that without ever violating any law just as Walmart’s board makes rules for its workers to carry out their mission without ever violating the law. All entities are equal under the law and they are all suppose to operate in the same manner which means if you don’t work there and have never contracted with them then their rules have no application to you. The criminal’s falsely claiming to be ‘Government’ know this which is why they seek to get you into contracts at every turn so that they can apply their rules to you claiming you consented because you voluntarily entered into the contract e.g. driver’s license. The problem is when you awake from their fraud and do not enter into their contracts they will commit felony injuries after felony injuries against you and when you try to bring the individual perpetrators to justice for their criminal acts they obstrucr justice thereby proving they are criminal outlaws which is the furthest possibly from Government. Government employees breaking the law is by definition a tyrant, when the entire ‘Government’ has institutionalized crime as operating procedures it is tyranny and there no longer is a Government. This is all derived from common law most specifically the maxim “Contract makes the law”. Corporations are for the most part still abiding by the common law the only the tyrany claiming to be ‘Government’ and its contractors are violating the whole of the law- Common law, Organic Law, Constitutional law, Statutory Law.

    If you don’t believe me and you still believe that there is authority, then your mind has been infected with authoritarianism, you have fallen into cognitive dissonance and you are ignorant of law. The facts are all around you just look around and especially look into history. Law was something rooted in precedence to be unchanging, if you believe that statutes apply to you and the fact that ignorance of the law is not a defense than you have taken a pisition that means you are required to read more than 50,000 pages of law every year just to know what you can or can’t do now, how is that unchanging precedence? How can that even be accepted as sane? How can that be anything other than cognitive dissonance, insanity, or lawless?

    The author should know what they are talking about before publishing such cognitive dissonance, maybe if the author spent the time inputting instead of outputting then the error and flaw would have been caught.

    • Keeper

  • MyronGoodrum

    Here’s an easy 2 step way to regain your dignity.

    1. Boycott everything you don’t like…and I mean everything you don’t like or agree with! Stop giving your energies over to destructive and life draining elements.

    2. Do not consent! Withdraw your consent from everything you don’t like or agree with, and mean it. Create yourself a letter, entitle it “I DO NOT CONSENT”, and list the things you do not agree with. If presented with a situation you do not wish to participate in, produce your I DO NOT CONSENT letter and assert your natural human rights.

    Here is how my I DO NOT CONSENT letter reads:

    “I do Affirm as Follows:


    ‐ I have not agreed to, nor have I signed, a “consent to jurisdiction”
    ‐ I do not consent to contracting with you now
    ‐ I claim common law jurisdiction
    ‐ I do not consent to your jurisdictional claims against me
    ‐ I do not consent to you making any legal determinations against me
    ‐ I do not consent and I waive the benefit/privilege
    ‐ I am quite final on that

    I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent to your jurisdictional claims against me, and I do not consent to contracting with you now. I do not consent!

    Searches, Inspections or Being Detained:
    I do not consent to searches, inspections or being detained. Furthermore, I claim my fee schedule for any transgressions by officers, government principals, employees or agents or justice system participants of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) per hour, billed in 15 minute (quarter hour increments) if I am being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated, and one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per hour, billed in 15 minute (quarter
    hour increments) if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarized consent and without a warrant describing specifically what you are looking for, signed and notarized by a court judge or a warrant for arrest describing / designating the crime.

    You are hereby notified accordingly.”

    You should sign it at the end. You can also take it one step further and register your I DO NOT CONSENT letter with your town, city or state county court or record office adding legal notification and legal precedence. You may also want to find yourself a good kick-ass attorney…that way, if your natural right is still being violated in any way after presentment of your I DO NOT CONSENT letter, your attorney can sue for your fee schedule.

    I hope this helps you in asserting your right to NOT be forced into non-consensual agreements.

    Your in Freedom & Liberty

  • Mark

    “Taxes also amount to a less intense form of forced labor.”

    are a part of the social contract we have with each other. In fact,
    government itself is the physical implementation of the social contract
    we have with each other. International relations are the social
    contracts that governments have with each other. If you wish to break
    the social contract we have with each other, then you need to move out
    of the physical boundaries of the countries you disagree with.
    Unfortunately, this leaves very few places for you to live.


    the wants and needs of your state do not match the federal
    government’s, why shouldn’t the state simply go its separate way
    peacefully, without being dragged violently back into the fold?”

    We had a nice little war to resolve this issue, and y’all lost.


    “An individual can secede from any and all states, and become sovereign.”

    nice theory . So, you are an individual declared
    sovereign from all governments. Where do you live? That land you
    supposedly own is still part of the country you rejected, and those
    deeds are still documents that only exist because of the social
    contract. Since you declared independence, the country would naturally
    come in and seize your property as being abandoned and still part of the
    country, as you have abandoned your right. Oh, you wish to fight the
    seizure in court? Well, since you declared yourself sovereign, you don’t
    have a court to go to. And, how are you going to travel? Since you’ve
    declared yourself sovereign, the country you are in has every right to
    kick you out of the physical country you reside in. So, you are a
    sovereign individual with no place to call home. My advice, go colonize
    the moon (Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

    • Ed
    • MountainMan

      All taxation is theft.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      “Taxes are a part of the social contract we have with each other.”

      The concept “social contract” is an invalid concept, for it has no basis in fact. It is an abstraction uttered by statists/collectivists in an attempt to “justify” their invalid claims upon other people’s lives, labor, and property.

      Please proffer a copy of this “social contract” that you signed with me and all other inhabitants in the US (I presume that you are in the US). You have no such contract because it has never actually existed. It is statist propaganda, nothing more.

      “If you wish to break the social contract we have with each other, then you need to move out of the physical boundaries of the countries you disagree with. Unfortunately, this leaves very few places for you to live.”

      Since there is no such thing as a “social contract”, since it is a fictive construct, there is no agreement pertaining to it for one to break; therefore, I am not obliged to leave.

      You and your fellow statists ought to leave, for it is you and your pernicious, enslaving political philosophy that attacks legitimate individual rights and thus undermines free and peaceful and civilized living in any place where you practice it.

      Your screed against personal sovereignty demonstrates either that you have failed to grasp the concept, or you understand it, but reject it, because it is incompatible with your sociopathic desire for tyranny and to be among the tyrants in the world who strive to create and rule over inescapable nation-prisons everywhere on earth, thus making personal sovereignty an impossibility.

      It is easy to make tyrants fall like a house of cards. All one has to do is withdraw one’s consent to obey them.

      For elaboration, read “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Etienne de la Boetie.

  • LawrenceNeal

    “Yet the way man laws works right now” I can’t quite grasp this phrase. Man laws works? The way laws work right now?

  • DonRL

    Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s – Jesus.
    There is a legitimate tax. It is to pay for what we have agreed that the government provide to us.
    We do not have a Federal government. We have a national government. A federal government is a federation an amalgamation of smaller government, states, that make up the federal government. Originally the federal government could not levy taxes directly they had to get the money from the states and Senators were representatives of State governments and appointed by the state governments. Since the income tax amendment taxes can be levied by the federal government and the Senators are now elected by the people.
    So now there is not a federal government which has to get their financing from the states and is partially governed by representatives from the state governments.
    We have a national government which is an entity in and of itself not governed by the states or getting funding from the states.
    The national government now taxes citizens directly, having their own source of revenue independent of the states. There is no representation of the states in the national government; therefore, it is an independent entity not the federal government.
    The national government now collects the lions share of revenues and doles them out to the states if the states comply with their dictates.
    The flow of government has changed from people, to state to the federation and not goes from the people directly to the nationsl government and then back to the states.
    This is the source of the swamp. The major “job” of the national government representatives and senators is to haggle over who gets their share of the money.
    As a senator (swamp dweller Steny Hoyer (sp?)) recently said,”Our job is to divide up the money. Shame on you if you do not get your share”.
    The also have left off true legislation and have become watchdogs of the latest administration.

    • Franz Meier

      You are correct with your statement that we do no longer have a Federal government, but a National government. It had become so in 1913, when Congress passed the 16th amendment that revived the income tax, which was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court. That same year, the 17th amendment was passed, by which the Senators of each State became National Representatives elected by the people. and no longer selected by the State legislators. It emasculated the States, because until then, the States had control over the cost of the Federal Government. That same year, as you are surely aware of, the Federal Reserve was established, which completed the tragedy. None of these events were the choice of the people. This scheme was sold to Congress by the global money elite, because they knew that achieving their goal of total control of the money system was too difficult, if they had to deal with the States individually.
      The results are obvious. Now, Washington receives the majority of the tax revenues, the Senators now put the interest of the National Government and their own, ahead of the interests of their own State. They got away with it by promising that they would make sure that their State received a fair amount of the bounty collected, and the scam continued with the Federal Reserve.
      This is the cause that put the people of the U.S. in todays debt pickle! There is only one way to correct this and it is by returning the power to the States and adhering to the original intent of our Constitution again. If we don’t, we (I mean the working middle class and their offspring) will have to suffer through the consequences of the collapse of the System. It will not be pretty!

    • Nobody

      In the US the people are Caesar. Tired of everyone failing to comprehend this fact. We are Caesar and our servants are to render unto us what is ours.

      • DonRL

        I am replying to Nobody??
        If we are the Caesar then when we complain about the government are we complaining about ourselves??
        True our government is supposed to be “of the people” but it is not so now. It has been taken over by those who have no interest in “we the people” but only in themselves their power and their pocketbook.
        It Is true that the government should served but best interest of the people but is that so in our current government??
        If we Caesar what is to be rendered to us? Are we to be paid for some service to our selves? What does nobody propose that be rendered to us? What is ours?
        The context of Jesus statement is that the people served by the government should reasonable pay for those services.
        Should we pay ourselves? Who will that money come from?
        Are you saying that those who are under the government are servants of the government. If we are Caesars then we are the rulers and who are our servants? Under this scenario you are saying that we are the Caesars and they should render to us. You are then advocating taxation. You deny the due to those to whom it is justly due and want it all for yourself. You should be a government official.

        • Nobody

          “The context of Jesus’ statement is that the people served by the government should reasonable pay for those services. ”

          That was not the context of Jesus. The context was that they were using a coin with Caesar’s face on it which implied it is Caesar’s coin. The real message was don’t enslave yourself to someone else’s claim.

          We should pay for services we use but making us pay psychopaths to violate our rights is an abomination. Violation of rights is a crime which means what you refer to as ‘government’ is actually a criminal organization fraudulently posing as government. The whole point of the divine law here is that those criminals who overthrew the government and enslaved us will lose if we simply uphold the law. Even the criminals know this fact which is why they use fraud to get ‘consent’. If we realize the fraud and rightfully reclaim divine providence we WILL win and the criminals will lose, it’s guaranteed by God. Believe me the criminals at the highest levels are fully aware of this fact which is why they do everything they can to induce confusion and fear because the second we realize our rightful claim to divine providence is fully backed by God the criminals are DONE. It is even known exactly the point at which one has awoken, the awoken go to the Grand Jury to get indictments. If you haven’t collected the evidence, built case on the perpetrators who injured you and taken the case file to seek grand jury indictments then you haven’t awoken and you have rejected God. It’s really that simple.

        • Nobody

          To answer your questions in detail in addition to previous response below.

          “If we Caesar what is to be rendered to us?”
          Securing our unalienated rights.

          “Are we to be paid for some service to our selves? What does nobody propose that be rendered to us?”

          Service is done by servants we are masters, those under capacity of Constititional oath are servants who are to render securing our rights to us.

          “What is ours?” Our unalienatable rights and the Constitutional entity- we are the owners, the shareholders of the republic.

          “Should we pay ourselves? Who will that money come from?”
          We should pay our servants for lawful services rendered to each of us-lawful services of that capacity is securing each of our rights upon request. If no one requests their services then they do NOTHING because their time on the clock (their “personhood”) belongs to us not them. If they are doing anything not requested by someone in securing the requester’s rights then they are breaching their duty thus violating the law they obliged themselves to. They cannot make duty upon us only we can make duty upon them and upon ourselves.

          “Are you saying that those who are under the government are servants of the government.”

          Those in the government capacity are in service (the servants) to the owners of that capacity (each of us -the people). Do the employees of Disney make law for the shareholder’s of Disney? No! The employees of Disney are servants of the shareholder’s of Disney while they are on the clock(in personhood).

          “You are then advocating taxation. ” I am saying pay your bill for the services you request and use. If they do anything you didn’t request then you should bring them to justice for fraud. If they deprive you of your rights then you should bring them to just for deprivation of rights, if they conspire to enslave and violently attack you then you should bring them tojustice for treason. If you can’t bring them to justice then you should abolish the entity because it does not carry out its defined duties. If you ab9lish the entity and they still attack you then you should kill them if necessary.

          “You deny the due to those to whom it is justly due and want it all for yourself.” This statement is a non-sequitur and has no place in reality.

    • MountainMan

      Wrong! It is to pay for what we have agreed that the SERVICE PROVIDER gives us.

      You make “government” sound as if it were some sacred cow. There is nothing that “government” does which cannot be done cheaper, faster, and far better by PRIVATE GOVERNMENT, i.e., anarcho-capitalism.

      There ARE NO taxes with a private government, there are only MARKETS and market players who voluntarily buy and sell. MARKETS are the REAL government and all government is public opinion.

      • DonRL

        You are wrong if you think Jesus is wrong.
        He is the Son of God, creator, with all authority in heaven and earth.
        I will go with what He said.
        It should be clear that He know better than you or me,
        Some think they know better than God and have a superior morality.
        The fact that they think this is proof that they don’t. Such thinking is not based on fact but on pride, arrogance and lust (I want what i want and i want no one to tell me any different nor to tell me that i cannot have it.) This attitude certainly does not support an attitude of superiority, greatness or morality.
        He is the only one who can do what He wants to do and all He does is just and right. All things were created by Him and for Him and He administers all in love for the good of those who He has created. God makes the rules not you and me. He is the Law.
        God established the principle of government in Genesis 9.
        Government has the authority to provide for a seat of justice, police powers and to pay for these services taxation.
        Governments are run by people who are not perfect and some have selfish or ulterior motives, so government is not perfect.
        See also Romans 13.
        It is some times good that those who rule do so by the consent of those are ruled. If the ruled only want to give consent to those to let them do what they want then the administering of that government be based on selfishness and lust. Lustful and selfish behavior is destructive to all so such a government will be destructive.
        A people who want to good of all, in a Godly moral sense then love, care, selflessness and giving to the needs of others will characterize the government and all of society. Only a good people will consent to a good government. Evil people will only consent to an evil government.
        The only person who can properly govern is Jesus Christ and He will one day do so. He is totally good and will rule in goodness, justice and righteousness.
        Evil people will despise His rule because they will not be able to fulfill their selfish desires and lust.
        So which are you: One who trusts in Jesus Christ and follows Him in a good and righteous way of living or one who does not trust in Jesus Christ, but trusts only in himself, and lives in a selfishness, lustful manner?

        • MountainMan

          Thank you for making my point. Consider what you have written:

          “There is a legitimate tax. It is to pay for what we have agreed that the government provide to us.”

          Emphasis on the word “agreed.” What one “agrees” to is a VOLUNTARY act.

          Taxation automatically involves COERCION. If you AGREE to pay for some some good or service, you are not being coerced, and, therefore, there IS NO “tax” involved.

          Conclusion, in a “free society,” There ARE NO “taxes.”

          • DonRL

            I have not made your point
            We have agreed to let our legislators make laws and we have ratified them. So we have agreed and that agreement was voluntary but also based on false information.
            We all agree to pay the taxes we are told we owe and so we pay.
            There is no such thing as a “free society” as you define it.

          • MountainMan

            I have NOT agreed to “let legislators” do ANYTHING.

            I have not signed a contract with any of them to do ANYTHING. Until there is a SIGNED CONTRACT, there IS NO “agreement.”

            Have YOU signed a contract with your city to provide you with services? NO! Then they have no power over you, however much they insist that this power is “implied” in their city charter.

            THAT IS TYRANNY!

          • DonRL

            If you live here in the US by that fact you have agreed to be under the authority of the government.
            Try ignoring the Law and then claim they have no authority over you. They do. That is a fact. That is not tyranny.
            What you propose is anarchy.
            What will you do if you need the assistance of the government law enforcement or firemen? Will you reject their assistance? What if you house is burning down will you call the fire department or just let it burn?
            If you are attacked by some lawless person like yourself who is going to kill you and you don’t have the resources to stop them, will you call for the help of the police?
            Society, country government, etc. is about helping one another. Do you have signed contracts with your neighbors for help when you need it. What if they do not help? Who will you appeal to?
            What if you get sick and need to be transported to a hospital? Will you call an ambulance? What if you are hurt and cannot get to a hospital on your own? Will you call for help? Help from who the county hospital?
            I could go on but I hope you get the point. If you go it totally alone you will fail.
            In the US the Government provides for a seat of justice and help services that we pay for. Living in the US implies that you have accepted responsibility for helping to pay for the services that are available to you. If you do not then you should not seek help from any of the services the government makes available and that the rest of us pay for.

          • MountainMan

            That is all IMMATERIAL. What I have written, I have written.

          • DonRL

            So you are the ultimate authority and what you say is absolute truth??!!
            Not so!!
            Just saying it does not make it so or denying does not void anything.
            What about what Jesus said?? Will you put yourself above Him??

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “What about what Jesus said?? Will you put yourself above Him??”

            The Fallacy of Argument from Authority is strong in you.

            What a weak mind you have, a mind that you willfully made weak by accepting indoctrination and the claim by your indoctrinators that they are “educating” you.

            No wonder you mindlessly defend government and its operators and regard them as your masters, your “authority”, and yourself as their subject-slave.

          • DonRL

            The fallacy is that you think what God has said is foolishness. God being the absolute, ultimate and final authority is not a fallacy and to reason and argue from His perspective is the strongest position anyone could take.
            It is weak minded to reject God and foolishly try to replace Him and His truth with your imaginations. Your are arguing from you own authority which is the ultimate foolishness.
            No one has indoctrinated me, I have studied you all that I know and believe. No one has spoon fed me. I know because I have read and studied my self to verify and know for myself.
            I have a sure basis for what I know and believe about God.
            What basis do you have? Your own thoughts and imagination. You imagination is no better than anyone elses. All imaginations and reasonings are equal. God says such imaginations are empty and useless.
            Do you think you know better than God? You assume to know but are driven by your own desires and empty thoughts one contrived to support your ego.
            A man such as yourself, wrapped up in yourself, makes truly a small man.
            The world by its own wisdom does not find out God. If you seek Him He will be found by you. If you seek Him with all your heart.

          • Nobody

            You clearly have not sought God. God gave us laws of nature that leave us free, criminal men gave us slavery through statutes unlawfully applied to us via coercion and criminal injury. If you think criminal men enslaving, extorting, stealing from, defrauding, kidnapping and killing their neighbors are Godly then you have totally lost your mind. You are clearly totally infected with authoritarianism to the point that you are a danger to everyone.

            God enables the good to see through the lies via divine inspiration. The golden rule is clearly not practiced by the criminals falsely claiming to be ‘government’. Try asking a cop for his id the next time he asks for yours and see if will do unto others as he would have others do unto him.

            You are totally lost, not even close to understanding God and have proven here that you are dangerous.

          • DonRL

            Clearly you did not read or understand what I wrote.
            How could you possible have written what you did after reading what I wrote???
            God not only gave us laws of nature but His Ten Commandments and His many other Laws.
            Where did I say that i think criminals are Godly???
            How am i infected by authoritarianism? God did establish government and puts those in power who He desires. That does not mean those are Godly or doing what God wants them to do.
            You have judged me as being totally lost. I am not lose but have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I have eternal life, am forgiven, redeemed, set free, made a son of God and will soon be glorified.
            In what way do you think I am dangerous? because i tell the truth? because perhaps I do not agree with you?
            You have written in a slanderous and condemning manner saying things that you cannot possible know. You cannot look into my heart and know whether I am saved or not.
            I is clear that you have lost your mind. You are given to wild speculation not based on facts but only your desire to slander and defame others.

          • Nobody

            Divine inspiration is God speaking through me as God’s instrument. Divine inspiration is not born of study but leads to study. You have clearly mistaken imagination for divine inspiration. God is the only authority and no man is authority over other men. Only foolish men make other men an authority over themselves and then falsely claim that authority other men over them came from God. To give other men authority over you is to deny God’s authority over you. I do not make such mistakes. God leads me to truth through divine inspiration with no man intervening between me and God.

          • DonRL

            i agree that God is the total and final authority. I have not mistaken imagination for divine inspiration. Read Rom 1:18-23
            Those who did not glorify God as God became vain in their imagination. They replaced God’s revelation with their own imagination.
            Why don’t you state clearly how I have mistaken imagination for divine inspiration.
            Divine inspiration is not God speaking through you. Do you think that when you think that you are speaking with divine inspiration. Are you saying that I should take what you say above the Bible? If so you are mistaken.
            God inspired His word the Bible. It is complete and all revelation comes through His word. If you think that you are divine inspiration you and what you say are mistaken.
            God has revealed Himself through His word the Bible. The Bible tells us that we are to “Study” His word so the we can learn and know what He has revealed with the help of the Holy Spirit.
            If you think you are receiving revelations outside the Bible, independently and privately you are mistaken.
            The Pharisees erred because they did not know the scriptures. Jesus quoted to them the scripture that they should have known.
            Do you think your are receiving divine inspiration or revelations from God directly without the Bible? If so you are the one who has mistaken imagination for divine inspiration. It appears that you are accusing me of what you are doing.

          • Nobody

            You are the one misapplying the quote about render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s to the US. Caesar is dead. Caesar has no interpretation in the us. The closest thing we have here is We the People – each man and woman here who accept the bounded capacity ordained by the document and all subsequent oaths. You want to reinterpret God’s word. If divine providence was rendered unto the people by God’s divine hand then we are the authority here not government. We owe government nothing, we are the sole authority over government and their action withour our instruction is lawless, an abomination and deserving of the wrath upon the law violators. Given that God established us the authority and gave us dominion over the earth it is our job to bring justice to the psychos who evince a design to reduce us to absolute despotism. If we don’t bring justice then we have rejected God’s will. Also if you think that God doesn’t issue divine inspiration upon those who become God’s instrument then you are ignoring the many examples of this happening all throughout the Bible. Do you think God only spoke to them only never to speak to another?

          • DonRL

            You are so far from reality it is impossible to converse with you on a rational or scriptural basis.

          • Nobody

            ^^^infected with authoritarianism ^^^

            You don’t comprehend equality and self-governance nor duty and servitude. How can a servant be an authority?

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “If you live here in the US by that fact you have agreed to be under the authority of the government.”

            No human being or their institutions, including government, has any legitimate authority over anyone, for no person is their slave.
            “Try ignoring the Law and then claim they have no authority over you. They do. That is a fact. That is not tyranny.”

            Just laws uphold and defend legitimate individual rights, to wit: self-ownership; personal liberty; absolute control, thus ownership over ALL of one’s peacefully acquired private property regardless of the type and quantity; privacy; self-defense; the keeping and bearing of any type and quantity of arms; freedom of speech and conscience; freedom of association, non-association and contract.

            Unjust laws violate those rights. Those who enact and attempt to enforce such laws create and promote tyranny. There is no legitimate moral obligation to comply with unjust laws.

            “What you propose is anarchy.”

            I do, sir.

            Anarchy, rightly understood means “without a ruler”; it does NOT mean “without rules”. It means a societal arrangement wherein people live as the sovereign individuals that they have a right to be, interact freely and voluntarily, and abide by rules that defend their legitimate individual rights.

            All of the services that you mention that you have been brainwashed into believing that government MUST provide, or that government CAN provide them better than private sector businesses can, are, in fact, produced with better quality, and provided more quickly, more efficiently and cost-effectively than government ever can provide them–and all at the user’s voluntary expense.

            In a free market, one does not produce all of the goods and services one wants on one’s own. The division of labor within that market results in the production of a myriad of goods and services available to everyone via freedom of trade, of value (money) for value (goods) in a peaceful manner.

            The failures are the looters, the agressors within government–sociopths and psychopaths all–and within civilian society, and peaceful, civilized people can neutralize them by the force of their own arms, which they have a right to keep and bear in the first place.

            “In the US the Government provides for a seat of justice and help services that we pay for”

            Correction: FORCED via coercive taxation to pay for. Government provides NO “services” that it does not first FORCE people to pay for. Without that theft of their monetary private property, people would have more of their own financial means by which to pay for the services that they individually value–not government’s “services” that they neither want nor need (licenses of every type, bureaucracies, the US Postal Service, etc.).

            “Living in the US implies that you have accepted responsibility for helping to pay for the services that are available to you.”

            There is no implicit “social contract”, or any contract with government’s operators into which one entered upon being born in a country, or by continuing to reside in same.” No one is government property, i.e. its slave; no one has signed an agreement of any kind with the government; therefore no one has accepted legitimate responsibility for paying for its “services”. Being forced to pay for “services” via coercive taxation nullifies ANY “agreement” to pay for them.

            “If you do not then you should not seek help from any of the services the government makes available and that the rest of us pay for.”

            I do not, sir.

            I defend myself, as is my right, at my own expense, and I purchase fire fighting and insurance, ambulance services, and all other services that I desire from private sector providers.

            I rely on my own resources, and if they prove to be inadequate, I appeal to charity from my neighbors and others if I am in difficult straits, a far more morally sound, more dignified form of assistance than any offered by government’s welfare schemes because, unlike those schemes, all of which are funded by theft, charity is provided and funded voluntarily.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            DonRL brayed, “There is a legitimate tax. It is to pay for what we have agreed that the government provide to us.”

            The government cannot provide ANYthing to ANYone without first forcibly taking the means by which to provide it in the first place.

            There is nothing whatsoever “legitimate” about a tax because it is coercive. It is an act of theft, legalized theft, but theft nonetheless.

          • MountainMan

            Exactly, thank you, you get it.

            Or, as Frederic Bastia put it:

            “The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else.”

          • NobodysaysBOO

            nonsense, pay your own DUES!
            or quit the club!

          • Nobody

            How bout we arrest you for extortion along with your authoritarian bureaucrat buddies and throw all of you in the slammer …

            Extortion is a felony. Protecting extortionists is misprision of extortion, also a felony.

            Keep defending the crimes with this bs of ‘dues’. We owe them nothing, they are criminals who must be removed from society permanently for their extortion. Keep it up, the fuse is getting shorter by the day and when it runs out no more of this brainwashing bs will be tolerated. You want dues, pay them but if you force anyone else then you are the criminal too.

          • NobodysaysBOO

            your a nutjob . good luck

          • Nobody

            Funny, that is the same thing the Federal agents told me in 1998-99 when I told them the Bush family along with members of the Carlyle group and skull and bones were planning a major attack on the US to take the US to war all over the world, bring in a supra federal law enforcement agency to consolidate their fascist loyalists into power over everyone’s id and travel, and crash the US economy. Those agents called me a “nutjob” only to come back in 2008 and tell me “you were right about everything”. Genius seems like madness to morons. Maybe you are a moron and don’t know it?? Problem with stupidity is stupid people don’t know they are stupid. Maybe you’ll figure it out someday but I won’t be waiting for you to catch up.

  • Praetor

    Consent is about property rights.!!!

  • MountainMan

    “Yet our society is predicated on ignoring consent.”

    “We must be consistent, or we arbitrarily choose when we can violate an individual’s consent.”

    That’s the whole trouble with this society. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not solve this little hitch in the proceedings.

    For a long time, I have theorized that they were culturally and psychologically unable to break away from the COERCIVE government model of their forbears, the British.

    Thus, our present dilemma. The current political system is clearly unsustainable and is, even now, willy-nilly, breaking up. I will not be sad to see it go, but I will be shocked and chilled to the bone over the violence surging forth from those who refuse to allow their neighbors the most basic of freedoms.

  • Gus Polinski

    “But currently, federal laws generally trump state laws. Wouldn’t everything just be easier if we let each state do what it wants?”

    That’s the entire basis of our Constitution and way of life.

    Here’s the irony, that mass secession was attempted in the mid-1800s, but the federal government used “guns and military” to disallow it, and those today decrying the horrors of the federal government the most support it retroactively.

    That’s how idiotic and/or non-thinking the average American is.

    • SnakePlissken

      Its not their fault. Most Americans are victims of the Ministry of Indoctrination AKA the US Dept of Education.

  • MyronGoodrum

    Daily Bell

    You moderated (didn’t allow) my comment. You are now suspect to be in the pay of the White Witch with me…

  • DEH

    The author is a little mixed up about what consent is. When I get a building permit to build on my property I am obtaining the consent of my neighbors by following the rules that have been set up in my community. When I build it does affect my neighbors because the building will change the view, and also change other things such as drainage, land use etc.

    • Nobody

      Where does the consent come from if you build on your property and no neighbors complain but bureaucrats come in and tear down your work or fine you for not getting a permit? If neighbors consent to your injury without remedy then the neighbors are lawless psychopathic control freaks.

      Where does the consent come from to make ‘rules’ when no one asked for or consented to those rules?

      The problem with your theory is it is based on some ethereal ‘consent’ that does not in fact exist but is only presumed. If work on your own land injures your neighbor then they have a valid cause to take action but not before.

      My position is that all bureaucrats and ‘neighbors’ should be imprisoned for the fraud of claiming anything is by consent that is not explicit and voluntary. Stopping you from pursuing happiness because of what might happen is no grounds for action (court action) because valid cause requires actual or imminent injury. If they stop you with only ethereal claims then they are the injuring party who needs to be brought to justice.

      Sick of ninny neighbors who demand a slave state of ask for permission from nanny state to do anything. The ninnies are criminals just as bad as thieves or murderers.

      • DEH

        If you want a society with no rules you will have to live with no one else around for miles. People don’t tend to get along when some thinks lawlessness is the answer. The fact that many people want to live where there is a homeowners association should tell you that people want to live by rules. I don’t want to live in a neighborhood like that but many do. I do not want to live where there are no rules. That kind of society is one where the most powerful can do whatever they want and the weaker get stepped on. That would end up with a lot of gunfights in our day. You mentioned going to court for injuries but a court implies laws and must have laws or there is no basis for a judgement. You cannot get redress for grievances without laws (rules) to go by. If you are not able to understand that simple fact then there is no help for you.

        • Nobody

          My understanding of law is that one has the right to face their accuser. The ninny neighbors want to hide themselves behind tyrants instead of facing those they accuse with their accusations. The criminal ninnies want anonymous phone tips and have criminal bureaucrats come injure their neighbors without any liability – exactly the same as nazi germany. My understanding is that nazi germany was total lawlessness un the name of upholding the law. I am willing to face those I accuse which makes me the law abiding man.

          Your response is exactly the authoritarianism that has turned the US into a lawless cesspool of one group saying they make all the ‘rules’ which never apply to them – a society where the most ‘powerful’ get to do whatever they want because they make rules that apply to everyone else. You are totally lost and your advocacy of ‘rules’ that manifests exactly what you state is undesireable proves how lost you are.

          • DEH

            There is a very angry and aggressive tone to your writing so I can understand why no one wants to face up to your aggressiveness. The lawlessness and lack of justice in the US is a different subject and does not mean we would be better off without laws. You can stay pissed off as long as you want but a reasonable person would be making plans to move. You do have that freedom in this country. I think you should exercise the freedom you have instead of being one of the whining ninnies you complain about.

          • Nobody

            The laws existed way before they were ever written as statutes but intellectually bankrupt people do not know that. No where did I say anything about not having law. My plans are to see to it that every criminal bureaucrat in this country is convicted of their crimes and given a one way ticket to the slammer or the gallows. The tolerance for authoritarian criminal psychopaths is over. Not leaving when I did nothing wrong and they did. Anger is one’s the natural response to criminal psychopaths injuring them. The anger should be embraced as motivation towards proper not suppressed to admit defeat.

            Still looking for the real men…

          • DEH

            If ‘they’ broke the law then you should do something about it. Your original post did not make that clear.

          • Nobody

            I tried but the prosecutors are obstructing justice by blocking access to the Grand jury thereby proving that they overthrew the government. It’s time for the militia to step in to ensure the law is upheld but there is no militia, no real men anywhere to be found.

            The fact is that they have not only broke the law but completely dismantled the law by unlawfully applying their statutes to the people. We are under criminal siege and I took the steps to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. I have many case files with evidence of each element of each crime each of them committed against me and each violation of their statutes and Constitutional violations. When I went to get the criminal indictments they blocked access. They are a lawless gang of criminal traitors and the heart of treason conspiracy is the bar association -they are the criminals who evince a design to reduce us to absolute despotism.

            Once you understand what the bar did then you realize that the ‘consent’ you originally spoke of does not exist, it never was intended to work that way and such thinking is within a paradigm of crime executed b6 traitors who already overthrew the government over 100 years ago.

          • DEH

            Each state in the union began to take away individual rights almost immediately. The Federal Government under Lincoln destroyed the southern states to cement total federal control over everything. Unfortunately I am getting too old to be much use in a militia. Take of yourself and family the best way you can.