As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.).

Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all, thus our legal rights become limited to what is stated. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't seem to me to agree with that simple premise; rather it seems to try to justify the document we got (which was full of fuckery from the get go) and put lipstick on a pig. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.).

Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all, thus our legal rights become limited to what is stated. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.).

Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all, thus our legal rights become limited to what is stated. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of the Rights of every Individual.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.).

Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of the Rights of every Individual.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.).

Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of the Rights of the Individual.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.).

Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) makes clear a recognition of the Rights of the Individual.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.).

Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all. Only a recognition of Sovereignty makes clear a recognition of the Rights of the Individual.

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.)
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.)
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go and insists that we need a Ruler. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.)
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.)
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is a recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.)
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is a recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do?

As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.

Always nice to start a reply with an insult.

It should have had stronger wording

The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:

• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are recognized as Sovereign (Ultimate Authority over their Jursidiction).
• Explicit statement of what that Jurisdiction is (Life, Liberty, Property, Household, e.g.)
• Explicit statement that all Signatories to the Treaty are People. None of this "State" or municipality bullshit, which just pushes the "King" off to a subgroup.
• A reasonable exit clause. No one should be part of any Treaty unless they want to. If they choose not to, then they fall under Natural Law as all Sovereign Entities do.

A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is a recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.

All the rest of everything you said doesn't agree with that simple premise, but rather tries to justify the document we got, which was full of fuckery from the get go. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI.

I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people

How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler to tell them what they can or can't do?