2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society). A Social Contract is a treaty, between Sovereigns, to act in accordance with the treaty when interacting with other signers of the contract (citizens).

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).

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society). A Social Contract is a treaty, between Sovereigns, to act in accordance with the treaty when interacting with other signers of the contract (citizens).

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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society). A Social Contract is a treaty, between Sovereigns, to act in accordance with the treaty when interacting with other signers of the contract (citizens).

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society). A Social Contract is a treaty, between Sovereigns, to act in accordance with the treaty when interacting with other signers of the contract (citizens).

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.

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society). A Social Contract is a treaty, between Sovereigns, to act in accordance with the treaty when interacting with other signers of the contract (citizens).

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.)

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society). A Social Contract is a treaty, between Sovereigns, to act in accordance with the treaty when interacting with other signers of the contract (citizens).

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. 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.)

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society). A Social Contract is a treaty, between Sovereigns, to act in accordance with the treaty when interacting with other signers of the contract (citizens).

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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 (the initial act or the retribution). 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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 (the initial act or the retribution). 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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 is always an act of war no matter what (the initial act or the retribution). 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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 is always an act of war no matter what. 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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 is always an act of war no matter what. 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) feel about it.

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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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," 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 is always an act of war no matter what. 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) feel about it.

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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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 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," 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 is always an act of war no matter what. 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) feel about it.

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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by a group of individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

A 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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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.

2/2

Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.

I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.

civil: pertaining to the internal affairs of society

Social Contract: a contract signed by all individuals if they choose to participate in civil affairs (i.e. affairs pertaining to a society)

A 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 and Interstate Commerce. 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.)

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 it 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.