STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Look Around! Common Law Works. Government Statute Doesn’t.
By Joe Jarvis - September 22, 2017

How can something be considered a crime if there is no victim?

This is a problem. You can go through life making sure you don’t hurt anyone, and still break the law. Wouldn’t that be great if you could simply base your actions on common sense and respect for the standards of a community?

Instead, people must also make sure they don’t do anything labeled wrong by the government. Of course, it is impossible to know all the laws which the government has created. And what they call wrong is not always intuitive, nor offensive.

Government statute law goes beyond the resolution of disputes between individuals and groups. In contrast, the whole point of common law was to settle disputes in non-violent ways.

Now, there are third-party enforcers trolling around looking for a statute that has been broken. There doesn’t have to be a victim. No one has to have been wronged by the legal breach. They actually create conflict instead of resolving it. Their actions often lead to violent altercations, rather than deescalating disputes.

In an essay called “The Obviousness of Anarchy,” John Hasnas discusses the origins of common law, and how it was born out of anarchy. He says that clearly, no society can exist without governance. Part of the definition of a society is that it is somewhat organized and held together by common traditions. But that does not necessarily mean government, as the term has come to be understood.

In arguing for anarchy, I am arguing that a society without a central political authority is not only possible but desirable. That is all I am doing, however. I am not arguing for a society without coercion. I am not arguing for a society that abides by the libertarian non-aggression principle or any other principle of justice. I am not arguing for the morally ideal organisation of society. I am not arguing for utopia. What constitutes ideal justice and the perfectly just society is a fascinating philosophical question, but it is one that is irrelevant to the current pursuit. I am arguing only that human beings can live together successfully and prosper in the absence of a centralised coercive authority. To make the case for anarchy, that is all that is required.

Inevitably, there will be disputes between humans. Hasnas argues that the best society achievable is one where the entire governing structure exists exclusively to settle disputes. The rule of law was born out of trying to peacefully solve disputes that might have otherwise erupted into violence. Common law is a collection of these outcomes. Others in similar predicaments can look to precedent to see what worked to avoid violent outcomes in past similar circumstances.

…common law provides us with rules that facilitate peace and cooperative activities. Government legislation provides us with rules that facilitate the exploitation of the politically powerless by the politically dominant. The former bring order to society; the latter tend to produce strife. Hence, not only is government not necessary to create the basic rules of social order, it is precisely the rules that the government does create that tend to undermine that order.

This means there had to first be a conflict before any legal proceedings started. No Victim, no crime. Without an alleged injured party, there was nothing to resolve. People went about their business unmolested.

Courts consisted of respected members of a community who had been involved in previous conflict resolutions. They were therefore well equipt to suggest outcomes that had in the past avoided violence. Their job was to find an arrangement that satisfied both parties involved in the dispute.

English common law is, in fact, case-generated law; that is, law that spontaneously evolves from the settlement of actual disputes. Almost all of the law that provides the infrastructure of our contemporary society was created in this way. Tort law, which provides protection against personal injury; property law, which demarcates property rights; contract law, which provides the grounding for exchange; commercial law, which facilitates complex business transactions; and even criminal law, which punishes harmful behavior, all arose through this evolutionary process.

When it comes to criminal law, obviously things get a bit more complicated. But none of those complications are avoided in the current legal system. They are actually exacerbated by having the same group make the laws, enforce the laws, prosecute the cases, and judge the cases. These are no longer disinterested third parties. They have many interests wrapped up in performing their jobs to satisfy bosses and colleagues rather than victims and people in dispute.

And it is further complicated by the fact that government has mixed arbitrary statute law with laws which allow real victims recourse for wrongs done to them. But is the government really necessary to say, murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and rape is wrong?

It is true that most of our current law exists in the form of statutes. This is because much of the common law has been codified through legislation. But the fact that politicians recognised the wisdom of the common law by enacting it into statutes, hardly proves that government is necessary to create rules of law. Indeed, it proves precisely the opposite.

Rape, murder, and theft were being resolved and punished before the government codified those crimes into law. This is because victims and their families naturally have an incentive to bring suit against people who have wronged them.

In common law, the best practices naturally became widespread. The entire point is to solve a problem. The best solutions were more widely adopted.

But that doesn’t mean those solutions and methods had to be implemented in other places. Cultures are different, and communities have different values and standards. One culture may see picking an apple off a neighbor’s tree as trivial, while another may take the crime quite seriously.

But still, obeying common law does not require years of legal study.

Understanding the traditional rules of common law requires only that one be a member of the relevant community to which the rules apply, not that one be an attorney.

Government legislation, in contrast, need have no relationship to either the understanding or the moral sensibility of the ordinary person.

So it is the responsibility of an individual to understand how the rules differ from place to place. But under common law, that would only require not victimizing. If you don’t know the cultural acceptance of picking apples that don’t belong to you, don’t do it!

By contrast, governments have arbitrary statutes that are not intuitive. You may know that walking around with an open alcoholic beverage isn’t hurting anyone, yet the legality of this action differs from town to town, and state to state. The same applies to carrying a concealed weapon, possessing marijuana, and taking your shirt off. Yet none of these actions hurt anyone.

Throughout his piece, Hasnas repeatedly tells readers to look around when it comes to evidence that things can, will, and do function just fine without government law in certain areas.

Business is contracted around the world among parties from virtually all countries. Although there is neither a world government nor world court, businesses do not go to war with each other over contract disputes. News is almost always the news of violent conflict. The very lack of reporting on international business disputes is evidence that international commercial disputes are effectively resolved without the government provision of courts. How can this be?

The answer is simplicity itself. The parties to international transactions select, usually in advance, the dispute settlement mechanism they prefer from among the many options available to them. Few choose trial by combat.

What businesses avoid is American courts because of their slow speed and unpredictable rulings. And this is the main argument for why there would still be effective governance without government. Disputes, violence, and unpredictability threaten profits and wealth.

So we don’t need legislatures: all law can be created through dispute resolution. We don’t need government courts: in current situations with no government, disputes are settled just fine without violence.

And we don’t need government enforcers. They create conflict by initiating violence when a statute has been violated, even when no victim exists.

Government sponsored law enforcement is relatively recent, and society as we know it predates public police.

The proper response to the claim that government must provide police services is: look around. I work at a University that supplies its own campus police force. On my drive in, I pass a privately operated armored car that transports currency and other valuable items for banks and businesses. When I go downtown, I enter buildings that are serviced by private security companies that require me to sign in before entering. I shop at malls and department stores patrolled by their own private guards. While in the mall, I occasionally browse in the Security Zone store that sells personal and home protection equipment. I converse with attorneys and, once in a while with a disgruntled spouse or worried parent, who employ private detective agencies to perform investigations for them. I write books about how the United States Federal government coerces private corporations into performing criminal investigations for it. When I was younger, I frequented nightclubs and bars that employed “bouncers.” Although it has never happened to me personally, I know people who have been contacted by private debt collection agencies or have been visited by repo men. Once in a while, I meet people who are almost as important as rock stars and travel with their own bodyguards. At the end of the day, I return home to my community that has its own neighborhood watch.

Look around!

The most important laws that actually protect people from harm were not created by government. The most effective courts which settle disputes without violence were not created by government. And most current security which keeps us safe, investigates crime, and brings people to justice are not government forces!

No, it’s not about creating utopia. But what could exist is a society in which it becomes extremely unprofitable to be aggressive.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Rich Angley

    The move away from common law is directly related to empowering the NWO. The NWO cannot exist without statue law which empowers totalitarian regimes. The question is how to roll back the system.

    • There is no need to “roll back the system”. Abandon it.

      • Laura Amanda Allen

        And, you know what, people do exactly that! When a system becomes too onerous, people simply “go around the wall” and create something that does work. Think about the people who create charter schools in the midst of bureaucracies that no longer deliver education. It’s natural. It’s how “systems” work!

      • Phil Freeman

        That remdey is found in the law of nations.

        • The “law of nations” brought us to where we are. The “remedy” is found in secession–to the level of the individual.

          tinyurl(DOT)com/Autarchy-is-self-rule
          tinyurl.com/Autarchy-is-self-rule

          • Phil Freeman

            No man is an island unto himself. And without the protection of an association of other likeminded people you’ll last as long as a fart in the wind. People are aggressive and greedy and covet the belongings of others. Therefore people create association with others for mutual protection generally. A non aggression principle is a utopian pipedream when there’s a shortage of basic resources.

          • Those are exactly the issues that I address in “The Bare Minimum”.

            bit.ly/The-Bare-Minimum

          • Phil Freeman

            As an aside, the constitution is an express trust governed by the statute of uses, wills and testaments. The elected are administrators of the trust and you are the beneficiary but abandoned your inheritance by contract/agreement.

    • :p

      See above. We can solve this by the end of the week, if people understood the law. Applying statutes to the people is a capital crime because those judges, prosecutors, ‘law’ enforcers are actually levying war on the US to overthrow the government. We access our Grand juries en masse for treason indictments against any government employee who ever applied statutes to the people then convict them and sentence the traitors to death. They will try to obstruct justice but once set into motion their obstructiobs will only be more evidence of their guilt. They beed publuc hangings so that the shockwave is so hard that no one in government will ever attempt to apply statutes to the people again. The solution is the full awakening that statutes is law for government and has no application to the people and interpreting actions to the contrary as acts of war. We intepret 8n this manner, the traitors die, and no future judges, prosecutors, peace officers will ever think of attempting to apply stat7tes to the people. This is the answer to fix america but everyone is soooo slow getting here. Sentence them to death America it will free us from their tyranny and remove their unlawful power. DO IT NOW!! I have tried to access the grand jury myself to get the presents made informing the ‘government’ of their violation but the courts are obstructing justice which is why we need EVERY awake american to converge on the Grand juries to get the indictments. We can do it now just like we could have done 100 years but americans are literally idiots who don’t kn8w what the grand jury is for or how it works. We don’t need to beg overlord politicians please allow us to do something. We need to sentence ‘government’ employees to death who try to enFORCE rules for their capacity upon us. Please america wake up. Endless wars, concentration camps, police mass myrdering innocent people across america, the traitors need to die ao that their successors won’t even think about trying to apply rules to the Sovereign people.

  • The summary paragraph is simply wonderful and deserves repeating:

    Look around!

    The most important laws that actually protect people from harm were not created by government. The most effective courts which settle disputes without violence were not created by government. And most current security which keeps us safe, investigates crime, and brings people to justice are not government forces!

  • Doc

    Common law might have its strengths and weaknesses. But whatever law you adhered to used to follow the person, not the territory. The personality of laws is what it’s generally referred to as. It has been present all over the world over time.

    It is in the most fundamental sense the opposite principle of the current territorial and monopolistic system we all slave under.

    Conflict solving has a great historical principle as well, actor sequitor forum rei, i.e. plaintiff follows forum of the case, that is, the law of the defender or accused, not that of the accuser. Mixed courts were also common.

    None of this required ir requires anything like anarchy. Anarchy is only suitable to the anarchists, and even the anarchist should be allowed to have their own version. But we really should be able to decide on an individual level without having to move somewhere else.

    No need to reinvent the wheel.

    • Phil Freeman

      That system we slave under is Babylonian. Come out of her my people.

      • Doc

        Phil, I’m curious in what way it’s Babylonian?

        • Phil Freeman

          Babylon created the money system we have today. Its kabalistic pagan and doomed as are those who support it. We don’t know history. That’s a problem.

          • Doc

            OK, I was commenting on the laws, not the money, and that confused me.

            I think it matters little what laws and money you want to use as long as you don’t impose it on others.

          • Phil Freeman

            A nation’s laws are founded on its money/medium of exchange.

          • Doc

            That’s something you would
            need to explain.

          • Phil Freeman

            We had the common law when we had honest weights and measures in our money (silver in our coinage). We abandoned that in 1965′ and accepted a wholly maritime commercial system. The UCC. All crime is commercial see the CFR.

          • JRX

            How did that explain “A nation’s laws are founded on its money/medium of exchange”?

          • Phil Freeman

            You’re infected. Cure it.

          • JRX

            What a revealing display of intelligence.

    • :p

      Awesome! Thank you so much. I have been informing others of the same concepts for more than a decade.

      • Phil Freeman

        I hope you’ll share it. You’re welcome.

  • Ron_at_Home

    The Constitution was written by men who lived under common law. The Bill of Rights was written to guarantee common law principles and protections. The Ninth Amendment must be read with that perspective in mind.

    The way that I read the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” is that any peaceful action is an exercise of those rights and is protected by the amendment.

    Statutory law should be for the administration of government, controlling the conduct of its employees, and providing punishment for abusive actions against the People by those employees, elected or appointed. Statutory law is written to control the actions of otherwise peaceful individuals.

    Statutory law was born when the English parliament decided it was superior to the People and declared their contrived laws superior to the common law. The First Amendment to the Constitution should have included the common law in its protective embrace.

    • :p

      “Statutory law should be for the administration of government, controlling the conduct of its employees, and providing punishment for abusive actions against the People by those employees, elected or appointed. Statutory law is written to control the actions of otherwise peaceful individuals.”

      ^That^ is exactly what statutory law is- law for government capacity and any statute that violates Constitution is null and void. The application of statutes to the people is not authorized by the Constitution. Those in government applying statutes to the people are the psychos who are levying war on the US to overthrew the government. Juries should indict, convict and sentence to death every prosecutor, judge, ‘law’ enforcement who has ever applied statutes to the people. Applying statutes to the people are capital crimes and they should all be given the death penalty. This is the only way to reverse the tyranny. If they aren’t put to death the whole society is going to crumble in less than 50 years. We need to access our Grand juries in mass by the millions to seek treason indictments against the traitors.

      • Mike Dugger

        The problem is you applied to be a U.S. government employee when you applied for a Social Security card. Of course, the U.S. government was more than happy to hire you and subject you to its corporate policies – most especially Title 26 of the U.S. code.

        • :p

          It is fraud and extortion and I have gone through the necessary steps to prove it, obtaining all the evidence of each element that makes up the crimes of fraud and extortion directly from their own mouths and signatures (on official record). So you are incorrect, I never “applied to be a U.S. government employee”. Any US code references have exactly ZERO application to me. May your chains rest lightly…

    • Phil Freeman

      The constitution is an express trust and YOU are not a party to it. You are not a signatory or of the signers posterity. What is more is there was never a plebiscite. That is a serious procedural error. On the part of the founders.

      • And those are exactly the issues addressed by the Covenant of Unanimous Consent!

        bit.ly/The-Bare-Minimum

        “Men have passed on the knowledge of how to mix cement, lay brick, splice a line, navigate a ship, make steel, and dozens of other crafts, yet in politics, statecraft, and social relationships we continue to repeat old mistakes.”
        ~ Louis L’Amour

        He identified the problem but offered no solution. I offer this article about Governance and the Covenant. YOU get to be the judge! If you agree, you can start today by using it in your daily life.

  • autonomous

    Conflict resolution always follows conflict. Laws create conflict and rarely resolve the conflict they create. Too often laws seek to preserve ill-gotten gain and as they proliferate serve as means to gain advantage for the law-giver/thief.

  • Generally admirable thinking, but I have some inline comments that I think are important.

    “How can something be
    considered a crime if there is
    no victim?”
    Because the government’s definition of “crime” is any action
    contrary to any of their laws. Governments and enforcers do not
    give any validity to morals or ethics but solely to *law*.

    “…Wouldn’t that
    be great if you could simply
    base your actions on common
    sense and respect for the
    standards of a community?”

    No, because “the standards of a community” can be just as
    irrational and illogical as any government laws, in being totally
    divorced from human biological and social reality.

    “Instead, people must also make
    sure they don’t do anything
    labeled wrong by the
    government.”
    No, not labeled
    *wrong*. Governments do not recognize “wrong” as being meaningful
    for any human actions, but only the term “illegal” – meaning an
    action contrary to one of their laws.

    “Of course, it is
    impossible to know all the
    laws which the government has
    created. And what they call
    wrong is not always intuitive,
    nor offensive.”

    Rather, the important point here is that what governments call illegal
    does not accord with what are the principles of human action which
    best benefit all humans.

    “…There doesn’t
    have to be a victim.”

    Government always consider there is a victim whenever one of their
    laws (statutes) has been breached, if only the victimhood of
    society as a whole.

    “No one has to have been
    wronged by the legal breach.”

    It is illogical to keep using a word such as “wrong” (even if you mean “harmed”) when no
    definition has been given and it is not recognized by governments
    or enforcers. In fact, the fundamentals of “right”, “wrong” and “harm” are
    basic to any full resolution of the problem of social
    organization.

    “…He says that clearly, no
    society can exist without
    governance.”

    This is correct but only in the sense of self-governance. More
    strongly and fully would be that no individual can continue to exist
    without a modicum of self-governance. However, I think that it is
    pragmatically unwise to use the word governance for this purpose
    since its etymological origin and predominant usage has always
    related to the governance of others.

    “Part of the definition of
    a society is that it is
    somewhat organized and held
    together by common traditions.
    But that does not necessarily
    mean government, as the term
    has come to be understood.”

    Yes, and that also does not mean that such common traditions are
    behaviors that will promote the benefit of all members of the
    society.

    NOTE: Since I have been a proponent of a rulerless society
    (correct definition of anarchist) for 38 years, the rest of my
    comments will assume that and relate only to peripheral aspect of
    what has been written. BTW, I have been familiar with John Hasnas’
    work for several years and think it to be highly admirable as far
    as it goes. My own solution to the organizational and
    interactional problems of society written at http://selfsip.org preceded that
    knowledge by some 10 years.

    “In arguing for anarchy, I
    am arguing that a society
    without a central political
    authority is not only possible
    but desirable. That is all I
    am doing, however. I am not
    arguing for a society without
    coercion.”

    The problem with this is that it depends strongly on the
    definition of “coercion”. For example many would argue
    (illogically, IMO) that refusing to let someone purchase items in
    your store would be an act of coercion against them. And I also
    think that “initiatory coercion” would be a better term.

    “…What
    constitutes ideal justice and
    the perfectly just society is
    a fascinating philosophical
    question, but it is one that
    is irrelevant to the current
    pursuit. I am arguing only
    that human beings can live
    together successfully and
    prosper in the absence of a
    centralised coercive
    authority. To make the case
    for anarchy, that is all that
    is required.”

    Not so. Surely it is required to show that such a stateless/rulerless
    society can potentially be more successful and prosperous for its
    members than any society with a government can possibly be.
    Therefore, you have no choice but to fully deal with the
    philosophical question of how “live
    together successfully and
    prosper” can be effected by stateless/rulerless
    social organization. That requirement is *not* peripheral to nor separate from Hasnas’ argument but
    rather essential to it.

    “… Hasnas argues that the best
    society achievable is one
    where the entire governing
    structure exists exclusively
    to settle disputes.”

    See my Natural Social Contract at: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html
    and its multitude of hyperlinked annotations for an example of
    such a “governing structure”.

    “The rule of law was born
    out of trying to peacefully
    solve disputes that might have
    otherwise erupted into
    violence. Common law is a
    collection of these outcomes.
    Others in similar predicaments
    can look to precedent to see
    what worked to avoid violent
    outcomes in past similar
    circumstances.”

    The problem with this approach is that common law was very different in widely different locations
    on Earth (partly because it was not based on the fundamental
    nature for human reality) and it has largely been forgotten and
    ignored by the modern world.

    “…not only is
    government not necessary to
    create the basic rules of
    social order, it is precisely
    the rules that the government
    does create that tend to
    undermine that order.”

    The above is certainly true and well-said, but
    common law also did not fully solve the problem of discordant
    human interactions. So once again there needs to be a sound basis
    to show that common law will always (or even generally) result in
    less strife than government laws and judgments.

    “…This means there had to first
    be a conflict before any legal
    proceedings started. No
    Victim, no crime. Without an
    alleged injured party, there
    was nothing to resolve.”

    Conflict does not equate to “injured party”, unless initiation of
    violatory harm occurs along with the conflict.

    “Courts consisted of respected
    members of a community who had
    been involved in previous
    conflict resolutions. They
    were therefore well equipt to
    suggest outcomes that had in
    the past avoided violence.
    Their job was to find an
    arrangement that satisfied
    both parties involved in the
    dispute.”

    This description is similar to my Natural Social Contract linked above, which fully defines and
    codifies all the methods involved.

    “English common law is, in
    fact, case-generated law; that
    is, law that spontaneously
    evolves from the settlement of
    actual disputes. Almost all of
    the law that provides the
    infrastructure of our
    contemporary society was
    created in this way. Tort law,
    which provides protection
    against personal injury;
    property law, which demarcates
    property rights; contract law,
    which provides the grounding
    for exchange; commercial law,
    which facilitates complex
    business transactions; and
    even criminal law, which
    punishes harmful behavior, all
    arose through this
    evolutionary process.”

    However, none of these various kinds of early law were *essentially* based on the Social Meta-Needs
    of humans relative to their total
    reality. It therefore worked (as much as it did) only during its time and in its location. Many of those precedents are no longer complete
    or practical, nor would they apply to other world societies or to many aspects of modern
    technological societies. However, this lack of current and future global
    practicality does not apply to my own approach because it does not
    rely on any particulars of place, time and human technology except
    that the latter makes it more effective overall.

    Since I think that I have now made it clear where I have
    problems/differences with this piece (and Hasnas’ approach, in
    general, even though it is an admirable step in the right direction) I
    will end my critique here.

    • james chappell

      If We, the People believe in God and the Declaration of Independence wherein it states, “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, the question of government control has been settled. Our Creator created us and WE created our government. We are the sovereign “children” of our Creator. Our government is NOT. It is a fiction. It was created to serve us as a public servant.
      Once the united States of America became the United States, Incorporated, we went from American Common Law of the land to Admiralty Law of the sea. We, the People became serfs, servants and slaves to the out-of-control government. It is as simple as taking our control back by NOT be subservient to that which we did NOT create.
      We can start by cancelling all agreements and contracts we made with our so-called public servants under permits and licenses. As hundreds of court cases have indicated, we do NOT need a driver’s license to travel on public highways. A driver’s license is ONLY for those involved in commerce or a regulated commercial enterprise for profit or gain. As so it is for a marriage, business and every other license. Just cancel them. My great grandfather did NOT have a state approved or sanctioned birth certificate. We don’t need them or a social security card/number. All permits and licenses offer benefits attained by the recipient by forfeiting a Right for a privilege. Let’s go back to being truly free, sovereign, non-resident, non-person, American State Nationals. Period. The money you put into social security you can invest on your own. Let’s go back to a lawful society as opposed to a legal one. We actually have started the process.

    • Aristaeus

      Thank You, Paul, for providing the link to:
      “Self-Sovereignty Solutions”
      http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html

      While I need more time to absorb the content, at first glance, it looks like a social contract to which I would agree and sign. It is this type of agreement which provides for a society where a natural person can live a free life.

  • georgesilver

    “Look Around! Common Law Works. Government Statute Doesn’t.”

    Pure fantasy.

    Government statute is the one they use. Common law is the one they don’t use.

    So what are you going to actually do about it?

    • :p

      Have our grand juries issue treason indictments forevery judge, prosecutor, ‘law’ enforcer who has applied statutes to the people. Indict convict sentence to death and hang them in public for ALL of them who have applied statutes to the people. After they hang en masse in public how many future judges, cops, prosecutors will try to apply statutes to the people?? If we hang them all then it will take about another 120 -150 years for society to ‘forget’ then it can be done over again.

      • georgesilver

        When are you starting or is this just talk?

        • :p

          I have already tried to access Grand Jury to present the evidence I have been building for years. The DA,State Attorneys, and US attorneys are obstructing justice by preventing access to the Grand Jury-blocking access to Grand Jury is proof that they have overthrown government – I have been collecting the evidence against every one of them. We need EVERYONE to converge on Grand Juries so that they can’t block access to Grand Jury and we can arrest them immediately if they try to. So I started years ago, it is the lawless Americans that are behind the curve.

      • Felonious Punk

        Wouldn’t it be simpler and more efficient to just stop paying income taxes?

        • :p

          Stop paying taxes won’t solve the problem. Taxes at this point is simply an inflation control drain-drain 40+% out of circulation annually to not have hyperinflation so their counterfeiting operation can continue. If we stop paying taxes then we need an alternative money otherwise they keep printing ahead of inflation curve and we lose while they prosper. Indictments, conviction and hanging is THE solution. Just waiting on the rest of good Americans to wake up and help ensure the Grand Juries are accessed so that the cleanup can begin in orderly lawful manner.

          • Jack Hamilton

            Actually, taxes are NOT required except to pay interest on the borrowing of fiat money from the private banking cartel, the Federal Reserve and is used as a means of impovershing people so they slave to make ends meet and have little time or energy to learn of their slavery or combat it. Plus, the amount collected in tax pales to the Federal Reserve pumping counterfeit money into the world and thus, it would have no meaningful effect on inflation if taxes were dropped completely and replaced with more Fake money!

        • Anon.

          It’s actually very easy. Not simple, but if you understand enough and like to read it can be easy.
          http://sedm.org/Search/SubjectIndex.htm

          http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipDiagrams.pdf

      • Phil Freeman

        Inpowermovement.com

  • Phil Freeman

    We effectively abandoned the common law when silver coin was removed from general circulation. That was the last element of (God’s money) honest weights and measures in our medium of exchange. Once removed we acquiesced to maritime law. Shorty after silver was removed we saw the codification of the UCC by the various boards of governors. Absolutely nothing will change until w stop using the private bank’s debt instrument as our medium of exchange and return to honest weights and measures like silver bullion in Troy ounces.

    • thefinancedude

      how much honest measures do you possess? what is money? answer that and the money problem solves itself…there is no spoon(s)…

      • Phil Freeman

        I trade in silver all the time. I’ve developed relationships with the small business owners who accept it. Its accepted globally as well. The dollar isn’t.

        • thefinancedude

          yes it is accepted globally in private payment…part of the international public money problems are few have money of exchange and the ones who do are refusing to exchange it for money of account, ie dollars…

          money is man…man is the money…mediums dont matter…i’ve followed it since i was a child brother – and i was going be the cfo of a fortune 500 company until i took my first accounting class where i realized the bullshit and knew i had to investigate how it was all legal…

          then i realized where the power was seated and got up from that table and found my fathers house and sat down at his table…rules at that table are much more intuitively reasonable (negative law vs man’s positive)…

          common law is still not it…but coming (back) home is a slow process 🙂

          • Phil Freeman

            You could not be more incorrect. Nevertheless, its not my duty, nor objective to instruct you as to the error. The lesson comes like as not.

          • thefinancedude

            so using non double negative language (what attorneys use) – we have, you could be more correct…because everyone can be more incorrect but to not be more incorrect is to be correct…so thanks for giving me some love mr freeman lols…

          • Phil Freeman

            I’m not writing a doctorate dissertation. Its disqus dood. If you feel compelled to atrend to my structure, syntax, fluency in sentence formulation I’ll leave you to it. The lesson comes like ad not and a critique upon my style of writing may be a pedantic nonverbal tick you possess that manifests in the all too familiar ways of those who are lost on the issue of defending their position as forensic debate, and resort to those tried and true logical fallacies. Strawman, appeal to authorities non existent and not germane to topic at hand. Red herring, ad homenim, et.al. I find my time to be best managed and most meaningful when the focus is on the solution to a problem which we find socially vexing and common place as well as having an unusual longevity. Since we know that society and the physical foundations and intangible variables which make up large portions of it are dynamic and certainly not static. So when we observe elements of society which have an unusually long pattern of longevity and stamina and appear to exist without obvious external support, I say that is worthy of our attention, in especial if it is that which restricts, restrains, censors, inhibits, harms, impedes, prohibits, or prevents our exercise of full liberty and freedom, including our access to experience every level of human consciousness available to us. Anyway, you were on about manuals of style, or some such? Sorry, lost interest.

          • thefinancedude

            its time for the new and old school to come together is my point – the idea that silver is somehow superior or gold is fallacy b/c it will sit in the ground worth no value until a consciousness comes along and says its valuable AND finds agreement in another consciousness…

            i use common law to access the biblical code at the federal level…the only place it can be heard so i’ve come to know…

            we share far more in common, than not mr freeman 🙂

  • Felonious Punk

    I believe a massive tax rebellion will in fact solve the problem. It was the lynch-pin upon which this country was founded.

  • thefinancedude

    I only take one exception being a law researcher for the past ten years – the “american courts” are not american in operation – its like federal reserve not being a reserve – the american courts are american court HOUSES sure…its american LAND that the court occupies, yet after One arrives to the dock/et (where aliens are processed LMFAO) – you have just entered a foreign vessel in dry dock known as the british summary courts aka the exact same courts the “patriots” fought over a few hundred years ago…

    nothing new under the sun…is true everywhere i view 🙂

    • Joe Jarvis

      Thanks for the insight!

  • thefinancedude

    the law discussion is more simple that even common law – do you wish to live by natural law, ie the negative law or do you wish to live by man’s law, ie the positive law?

    how well does that positive law work for all?

    time to go backwards to get forwards? we ready to moonwalk yet?

    government is a contract offer btw 🙂 those statutes are on offer…its all commerce to them…just business…opt out – i have…but it takes time to populate across the endless databases/etc….

  • Anthony Weiner does NOT belong in prison, though I dislike his politics and I scoff at his surname. Is he s sick deranged pervert? Probably, but that doesn’t necessarily make one a criminal. Did he come into physical contact with the alleged 15 year old girl and force himself on her? No. If he had, then her father would have been in the right to take a Louisville Slugger to him!

  • Sui-juris Dave

    Superb discussion of a topic in which I’ve been interested for many years. Statutory law is cheap, expedient, arbitrary, political, and largely for revenue enhancement and aggrandizement of the State; Common law reflects local culture and traditions, reveals itself (is “discovered”) over a long period of time, and is moral and rational.

    • Joe Jarvis

      Thank you!

  • Bill Ross

    Perhaps pondering “rule of law” will simplify matters even further and, as a bonus, make “justice” measurable:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34

    …and predictable by taking “arbitrary rule of biased man” out of the equation

    Some day, I’ll publish my “hate mail” from legal “professionals” futilely defending their indefensible monopoly on “truth”

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.