The 9th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America is the one that is NEVER talked about in legal or political circles. It's the one [they] don't want you to think about.
It preserves ALL rights that ALREADY existed before the Constitution was created, with the only exception being those rights that were delegated to government by the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment is about We the People fighting off enemies, foreign or domestic.
But the right to self-defense, gun ownership in general, and all the rest are in the 9th Amendment.
Remember: All of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are to LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and NOT to "create" any new rights of the people.
Most people do not know there even is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, much less have ever read it. Here is the Preamble:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Catch that? RESTRICTIVE.
The Bill of Rights are ALL restrictive, as to what the federal government is NOT permitted to do.
The 1st: Congress shall make NO law ...
The 2nd: ... shall NOT be infringed.
The 3rd: NO quartering of soldiers ...
The 4th: ... shall NOT be violated ... (btw: "unreasonable" search or seizure means without a judge's signed warrant)
The 5th: NO person shall be held/compelled/etc. ...
The 6th: The government SHALL provide several protections to anyone accused of a crime.
The 7th: Anyone involved in a civil case SHALL have certain rights preserved.
The 8th: Excessive bail shall NOT ...
The 9th Amendment says that ALL rights of the People, that ALREADY existed BEFORE the government was created, were STILL IN EFFECT AFTER that government was created. Here is the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Get it? RETAINED.
Originally, Madison wrote 17 amendements, mostly modeled after George Mason's work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He scaled that down to 12. He did not omit anything, but merely rearranged them so that some of them were consolidated from two or three into one. The 5th, for example, has several restrictions of the federal government included within one amendment, rather than having them each in their own separate amendments.
The 12 amendments were presented to the States, and 10 were approved. The other 2 had to do with the number of representatives in the House, based on population, and congressional salary increases not taking effect until after the next legislative session. Those 2 did not pass. However, the one on salaries was given new life more than 200 years later, and was ultimately ratified in 1992, to become the 27th Amendment.
The 9th Amendment is KEY. It preserved ALL rights that humans had before the government was created.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/billofr_.htm
As the Declaration of Independence stated (which was written just 13 years earlier), certain truths are SELF-EVIDENT. Namely, that we have rights that existed BEFORE the government existed, and for which the government shall never be permitted to violate (inalienable/unalienable). And ...
... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Government does not grant fundamental rights. Those rights existed before the government existed, and those rights were used to CREATE the government in the first place.
Once created, government CAN create "civil rights," which are rights that are really privileges, and can be regulated by their creator (the government). But the government cannot create civil rights that supercede natural/God-given rights, because those rights are inalienable/unalienable (untouchable).
Voting would be an example of a civil right, but not a fundamental right. This is because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights: fundamental (aka natural, aka God-given), constitutional, civil, contractual.
Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties, and not to anyone else.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
It IS a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. It is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, generally, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed. The rights are associated with the property, not the individual, and a particular individual(s) has possession of those rights at any given time.
When I sold my property to you, the rights that belong to the property WERE mine, but NOW they are yours.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," for example, because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it -- and the government has no lawful authority to stop anyone from that pursuit.
Which brings us back to the 9th Amendment: Did Americans in 1789 have a right to pursue health care? Did they have that right in 1776? If yes, then we do today, as well.
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, no matter what the law of the legislature says -- because that is written mostly by morons and assholes).
I can only say, good post
If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.
Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.
While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.
A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.
In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).
Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by Civil and/or Constitutional Law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.
This was absolutely by design. If "Property" had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign (AKA Ultimate Authority) can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).
This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud. The confusion of differences in "meaning" is one of a Sovereign's jurisdiction.
I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.
This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.
I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:
It looks like we might be talking past each other. We need to define our terms.
What is a "right?"
Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature. You cannot go into the forest and pick up a bundle of rights and bring them home with you.
Rights are a human construct that we created as a means to understand how we SHOULD behave towards one another.
If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.
That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.
Now, not everyone agrees that a particular human action is a right. But that does not change the fact that the idea is to figure out what we SHOULD agree on, and once agreed, we consider those who would take actions to violate "rights" to be outlaws and unwelcome in civilized society.
Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.
Says who? YOU? Who are you to make such a claim?
Maybe you stole that apple from my apple tree. In that case, you are in unlawful possession of MY property.
The reason we humans created the concept of "rights" is to try and avoid these types of disagreements, which are likely to lead to bloody outcomes.
And if you took it from me? Should I kill you? One of the concepts of "rights" is that because they are about ACTIONS, we also have to accept that along with rights comes duties and responsibilities. One of those is to keep things in perspective. Stealing that apple from my tree does not justify me killing you and your entire family.
This is why the Middle East is so fucked up. They never had a John Locke or Thomas Jefferson anywhere in their history. They have no concept of rights, and tempering action based on the DEGREE of violation.
In some African languages, they don't even have words to describe variations for context (they can say "up" but not "half-way up"). The reason that these words to not exist is because words are represenations of mental concepts, and they do not have these concepts. Hard for us to believe, being that English is the most complex language on Earth, but it is what it is.
I hope you are not trying to say that animals have "rights."
"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.
"War" is also a human construct, and more specifically one dreamt up by governments and the types of tyrants that would want to "be" the government.
It's not a matter of right, which is a human conctruct. It is a matter of nature, as the tiger is doing what tigers do, by nature. And you are no match for its speed and power -- by nature.
You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.
Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.
"By right," gravity causes the apple to fall from the tree. But that is not the same thing as saying, "I have a right to own the apple, because I own the tree, because I was the first settler to lay a claim on the land where the tree is located."
The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.
Once owned, it is a contractual right, which the government is required to protect via constitutional authority and powers, which were delegated to it by the People (collectively) in their sovereignty because they possess God-given/natural/fundamental rights, which includes instituting a government to protect those rights.
Even God-given rights are a human construct. We say they are God-given to emphasize the point that they are NOT given by other men (whether via government or otherwise). They exist at nature, even if there is no government -- like if you are on that island with other humans.
The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists. Ownership is a human construct because it is part of the "rights" we SAY we have, because there can be NO OTHER OPTION.
THAT is the key point here.
Again, the Declaration of Independence spells it out: "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..."
This means we BELIEVE that these are truths BECAUSE NOBODY CAN CLAIM OTHERWISE.
This conversation could go WAY deeper into philosphical discussion, which is really what we are talking about here. Humans CREATED the concept of "rights" so that we could peacefully co-exist with each other.
Any person who attempts to "prove" that the right of speech is not a "real right," for example, would have to USE that ability in their attempt to "prove" it does not exist.
We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.
That's what Jefferson was writing about.
And we have constitutional rights and contractual rights and civil rights BECAUSE we have funamental rights, and we have fundamental rights BECAUSE we say so, and any attempt by anyone to prove that we don't will AUTOMATICALLY prove that we do.
It is axiomatic. That's what the Declaration of Independence is ALL ABOUT. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" MEANS that (a) we must agree that human rights exist because (b) it is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.
You said, "... the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want ..."
I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.
CAN they bring guns and storm troopers and physically rip the property out of your hands, or shoot you dead if you won't give it to them? Physically, yes. But legally, no.
As long as you are not dead in the process, you DO have legal means to STOP them.
The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.
THIS IS WHAT MADE AMERICA DIFFERENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.
The American founders say that is NOT the way a society SHOULD be constructed.
ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.
COULD I beat the fuck out of a 12-year old girl? Of course. But SHOULD I do that in a civilized society? Hell, no.
This is WHY the Muslims will rape 9-year olds and also WHY Jefferey Epstein held parties for degenerates to do the same on his island.
YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow. This is WHY they claim that what they do is perfectly a-ok.
This is WHY they are evil.
They do NOT respect the concept of rights. They think that beating the piss out of people, killing people, torturing people, conning people out of their property and livlihood is a-ok ... as long as they can get away with it.
That's what the British king and his parliament thought, too.
That is WHY the American revolution happened in the first place.
According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.
It is ONLY via the human concept of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.
The 9-year old has rights, too, even though they cannot physically or mentally defend them. That's why adults have to step in and defend them.
I will tell you this: If YOU, personally, actually believe in that bullshit, rather than just writing in frustration of what you see going on every day -- if YOU actually believe that shit is a-ok, then you are my enemy.
I hope that is not the case.
I don't think YOU actually believe that, but are simply stating that OTHER people do.
And this is what we are up against.
These people abuse the term "natural law" to mean ONLY the "law of the jungle."
The tiger lives by the law of the jungle BECAUSE HE CANNOT DO OTHERWISE.
But the human CAN DO OTHERWISE, which is WHY we do.
We have the intellect to understand the concept of "rights" in more than one context (even though many people drop context and use the term to mean different things, confusing the issue).
We have the intellect that no other animal has, and THEREFORE, we must live in a way that no other animal does.
That is why these people are sick and twisted and evil, and most importantly ... WRONG about "natural law" when they equate it with ONLY the law of the jungle.
We must ALSO include the fact that within that jungle, we humans have a mental ability to understand how to treat each other, and the animals and plants, that no other animal has.
Call that a gift from God, or whatever you want, but the fact is that it exists, and THAT is part of nature, too.
Why?
Some would call that term an oxymoron. If sovereignty only means ultimate authority, and citizen means one who lives within the authority of a particular governmental jurisdiction, then that does not compute.
There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.
You use that term a lot.
Define "war."
You just said that "sovereign" can ONLY mean "ultimate authority." I said that the word can have different meanings. You said no, it can ONLY mean ultimate authority. But here, you talk about two different sovereigns.
By your logic, ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority." Are you suggesting that everyone must battle it out to decide who gets to rule?
We are back to my statement that the words have different meanings, and you are dropping context (a logical fallacy) when you argue both ways.
Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.
They do not.
Neither does the supposed "social contract." Therefore, they are NOT contractual rights. They are a different type of right.
There is never a "meeting of the minds" of all parties concerned, which means there is NO contract.
Gotta take off.
Check back later.
You and I are in conflict as to the concepts we are thinking about when we use certain words to describe those concepts.
Therefore, we must define our terms.
How are YOU defining:
1/2
First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.
Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:
I define all rights like this:
For War, BLD says:
I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):
When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.
All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).
This is not true. I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here. If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.
The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.
This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.
That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.
See definition above.
The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.
Once you understand my definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.
This is not what is happening.
Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.
I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.
Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.
All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:
Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.
As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:
It can also mean:
These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.
The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.
We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand).
These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).
The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.
I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be Civil Law.
The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).
We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.
The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.
It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.
Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).
A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.
A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.
A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).
A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.
Wanna bet?
Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.
2/2
I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.
The Constitution is a Social Contract. It was signed by people. It was not signed by ALL people, and that was a fraud, but the Federal Government was intended to be mostly powerless excepting only in The Common Defense, other foreign affairs, and Interstate Commerce. Internal affairs, other than at the borders between Sovereign States (travel, commerce, etc.), were not to be addressed by the Federal Government at all.
The State Constitutions were also a Social Contract, and should have been signed by all people. There must also be an exit clause, or it is fraudulent, and does not respect the Sovereignty of the Individual. The Social Contract is the set of laws that one can choose to live by if one joins society. If not, then one lives under Natural Law alone.
You seem to believe that a person who chooses not to live under a Social Contract would be a bad person. Let me give you an example of a Social Contract. Let’s say there is a town. In that town there are local laws, for example: no shooting your gun off in town except to defend yourself. If a person chooses to go into that town, local laws apply. They can always choose to not go into the town, or choose to leave the town (exit clause). Within the town, you follow the rules or face the consequences, written by law. Such laws must be clearly stated before entry (see The Postman (movie) as an example, you see exactly such a social structure within the various towns, and it works really well.) This is in fact exactly how our whole world is constructed, as is the United States internally, with multiple levels of jurisdiction, and different laws between them. The problem is, the laws aren't clearly stated, and a whole mess of them are violations of Sovereign Rights, on every level. There is also no clear exit clause (though it does exist, but it is obfuscated by fraud).
You are seeing things under the scope of past actions which I assert are not what they appear to be. Our history has been rewritten. The word “Anarchy” itself is completely misunderstood. It only means without ruler. A "Ruler" is a Sovereign. If we have a Ruler, we are vassals. But we are not vassals, we are Sovereign (jurisdiction defined above). Anarchy has nothing to do with “no laws” or “no social contract” or “chaos” etc. Those are what we have been told the term means, because if people really start to think about what it means to live without a ruler, they will want to live without a ruler, and the rulers would lose power.
I think you also may think that I mean because a thing is "allowed" under Natural Law as an act of war, that means there are no consequences. On the contrary, there are always consequences and what would happen is exactly what already happens.
When a person commits murder, for example, they may be violating civil law, but that is irrelevant. Whether there is civil law against it or not, it is that they have declared war under Natural Law, through that act, that ensures the consequences.
Society might murder them back for example. Doing so has nothing to do with civil law per se, even if it is also in compliance with it. The person who committed the murder doesn't have to agree with the consequences. That particular consequence of "murder in return" (or jail in return, or whatever the consequence is, assuming it is against the persons will) enacted without the approval of the murderer, is a direct violation of their God Given Right to pursue the path of their own life.
Such action as murder (or jail against a persons will, etc.) is always an act of war no matter what (no matter who is doing it or the justification). We say "it's the law" (by which we mean civil law) but that's not what's really going on. What's really going on is that we are, through our own justification of law, declaring war on the person who committed the murder, to remove them from this plane of existence against their Right to remain here. All acts of murder (or other such direct violations of another's God Given Rights) are acts of war according to Natural Law. Whether it also has a civil law to back it up is completely irrelevant except in how we (the murderers of the murderer) justify the response.
Nor does such an action bypass due process, or all that other jazz. The point is, when it comes down to brass tacks, it is identical in all ways. It is identical in all ways BECAUSE it all comes down to Natural Law. Whether a person agrees to the social contract or not, the results, on all levels, are the same for direct violations of a persons Inalienable (God Given) Rights (i.e. those crimes that are "against the law" regardless of what Civil Law has to say about it).
See my newest post as my response to you.
Edit: somebody needs to clear his tabs.
Great posts, you two!
To elaborate on that, “theft” is a sin. For theft to be a sin, it follows that property must be a right granted by God. Property, in the vein of “come, let us reason together” is a necessity because two men cannot eat the same apple not farm the same land with two different crops. Both these items would create conflict if the right to manage them was not somehow reasonably derived.