I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Abolitionism" or "Voluntaryism." You may not have meant it that way, but since you capitalized the terms, it suggests they are formal ideas/philosophies.

I am not advocating any specific "ism," rather, I am attempting to clarify a simple understanding of what Sovereignty is and how it has been convoluted. Our ubiquitous misunderstanding is caused by our purposefully designed systems of Civil Law (which itself, as an idea, is completely misunderstood by almost everyone). One of the greatest offenders of that system is that our current Civil Law purposefully obfuscates Natural Law. That is no where more potent than in our understanding of Sovereignty (or lack there of).

You cannot have both a true understanding of Sovereignty (who is really the Ultimate Authority) and our current system of Civil Law. They are completely incompatible. In other words, a "truly civil society" cannot exist without a ubiquitous fundamental understanding of an Individual's Sovereignty. Any other attempt to define Sovereignty other than the one defined by Natural Law subverts the fundamental nature of the Universe, and, in "civil society" is always (can only be) a power grab.

“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” – Barbossa

Civil Law can only be used as a guideline. Any other application becomes a subversion of Natural Law.

Another essential misunderstanding related to Natural Law that seems to be ubiquitous is that there are always consequences. There is no free lunch. People believe (mistakenly, because of purposeful fuckery) that if we didn't have the type of system of law that we have, there would be "lawlessness," "anarchy," and "chaos." Nothing could be further from the truth (not the least of which is that people don't understand what the word "anarchy" means, another purposeful fuckery). In truth, a "lawless" society cannot exist. There are always consequences.

These then are essential components of civility (if not necessarily a formal system of "civil society.") We must grok our Sovereignty (what everyone's Sovereignty is), what our Jurisdiction is (what everyone's Jurisdiction is), and that there are always consequences, no matter what anyone particular "law" (stated guidelines) may say about "allowed actions" or consequences.

With these things, which is a matter of reteaching people what they have been mistaught, our society, and the individuals made up of it, would be what we were always intentioned to be (whatever that may imply).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Abolitionism" or "Voluntaryism." You may not have meant it that way, but since you capitalized the terms, it suggests they are formal ideas/philosophies.

I am not advocating any specific "ism," rather, I am attempting to clarify a simple understanding of what Sovereignty is and how it has been convoluted. Our ubiquitous misunderstanding is caused by our purposefully designed systems of Civil Law (which itself, as an idea, is completely misunderstood by almost everyone). One of the greatest offenders of that system is that our current Civil Law purposefully obfuscates Natural Law. That is no where more potent than in our understanding of Sovereignty (or lack there of).

You cannot have both an understanding of Sovereignty (who is really the Ultimate Authority) and our current system of Civil Law. They are completely incompatible. In other words, a "truly civil society" cannot exist without a ubiquitous fundamental understanding of an Individual's Sovereignty. Any other attempt to define Sovereignty other than the one defined by Natural Law subverts the fundamental nature of the Universe, and, in "civil society" is always (can only be) a power grab.

“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” – Barbossa

Civil Law can only be used as a guideline. Any other application becomes a subversion of Natural Law.

Another essential misunderstanding related to Natural Law that seems to be ubiquitous is that there are always consequences. There is no free lunch. People believe (mistakenly, because of purposeful fuckery) that if we didn't have the type of system of law that we have, there would be "lawlessness," "anarchy," and "chaos." Nothing could be further from the truth (not the least of which is that people don't understand what the word "anarchy" means, another purposeful fuckery). In truth, a "lawless" society cannot exist. There are always consequences.

These then are essential components of civility (if not necessarily a formal system of "civil society.") We must grok our Sovereignty (what everyone's Sovereignty is), what our Jurisdiction is (what everyone's Jurisdiction is), and that there are always consequences, no matter what anyone particular "law" (stated guidelines) may say about "allowed actions" or consequences.

With these things, which is a matter of reteaching people what they have been mistaught, our society, and the individuals made up of it, would be what we were always intentioned to be (whatever that may imply).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Abolitionism" or "Voluntaryism." You may not have meant it that way, but since you capitalized the terms, it suggests they are formal ideas/philosophies.

I am not advocating any specific "ism," rather, I am attempting to clarify a simple understanding of what Sovereignty is and how it has been convoluted. Our ubiquitous misunderstanding is caused by our purposefully designed systems of Civil Law (which itself, as an idea, is completely misunderstood by almost everyone). One of the greatest offenders of that system is that our current Civil Law purposefully obfuscates Natural Law. That is no where more potent than in our understanding of Sovereignty (or lack there of).

You cannot have both an understanding of Sovereignty (who is really the Ultimate Authority) and our current system of Civil Law. They are completely incompatible. In other words, a "truly civil society" cannot exist without a ubiquitous fundamental understanding of an Individual's Sovereignty. Any other attempt to define Sovereignty other than the one defined by Natural Law subverts the fundamental nature of the Universe, and, in "civil society" is always (can only be) a power grab.

“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” – Barbossa

Civil Law can only be used as a guideline. Any other application becomes a subversion of Natural Law.

Another essential misunderstanding related to Natural Law that seems to be ubiquitous is that there are always consequences. There is no free lunch. People believe (mistakenly, because of purposeful fuckery) that if we didn't have the type of system of law that we have, there would be "lawlessness," "anarchy," and "chaos." Nothing could be further from the truth (not the least of which is that people don't understand what the word "anarchy" means, another purposeful fuckery). In truth, a "lawless" society cannot exist. There are always consequences.

These then are essential components of civility (if not necessarily a formal system of "civil society.") We must grok our Sovereignty (what everyone's Sovereignty is), what our Jurisdiction is (what everyone's Jurisdiction is), and that there are always consequences, no matter what anyone particular "law" (stated guidelines) may say about "allowed actions" or consequences.

With these things, which is a matter of reteaching people what they have been mistaught, our society, and the individuals made up of it, would be what we always intentioned to be (whatever that may imply).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Abolitionism" or "Voluntaryism." You may not have meant it that way, but since you capitalized the terms, it suggests they are formal ideas/philosophies.

I am not advocating any specific "ism," rather, I am attempting to clarify a simple understanding of what Sovereignty is and how it has been convoluted. Our ubiquitous misunderstanding is caused by our purposefully designed systems of Civil Law (which itself, as an idea, is completely misunderstood by almost everyone). One of the greatest offenders of that system is that our current Civil Law purposefully obfuscates Natural Law. That is no where more potent than in our understanding of Sovereignty (or lack there of).

You cannot have both an understanding of Sovereignty (who is really the Ultimate Authority) and our current system of Civil Law. They are completely incompatible. In other words, a "truly civil society" cannot exist without a ubiquitous fundamental understanding of an Individual's Sovereignty. Any other attempt to define Sovereignty other than the one defined by Natural Law subverts the fundamental nature of the Universe, and, in "civil society" is always (can only be) a power grab.

“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” – Barbossa

Civil Law can only be used as a guideline. Any other application becomes a subversion of Natural Law.

Another essential misunderstanding related to Natural Law that seems to be ubiquitous is that there are always consequences. There is no free lunch. People believe (mistakenly, because of purposeful fuckery) that if we didn't have the type of system of law that we have, there would be "lawlessness," "anarchy," and "chaos." Nothing could be further from the truth (not the least of which is that people don't understand what the word "anarchy" means, another purposeful fuckery). In truth, a "lawless" society cannot exist. There are always consequences.

These then are essential components of civility (if not necessarily a formal system of "civil society.") We must grok our Sovereignty (what everyone's Sovereignty is), what our Jurisdiction is (what everyone's Jurisdiction is), and that there are always consequences, no matter what anyone particular "law" (stated guidelines) may say about actions or consequences.

With these things, which is a matter of reteaching people what they have been mistaught, our society, and the individuals made up of it, would be what we always intentioned to be (whatever that may imply).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Abolitionism" or "Voluntaryism." You may not have meant it that way, but since you capitalized the terms, it suggests they are formal ideas/philosophies.

I am not advocating any specific "ism," rather, I am attempting to clarify a simple understanding of what Sovereignty is and how it has been convoluted. Our ubiquitous misunderstanding is caused by our purposefully designed systems of Civil Law (which itself, as an idea, is completely misunderstood by almost everyone). One of the greatest offenders of that system is that our current Civil Law purposefully obfuscates Natural Law. That is no where more potent than in our understanding of Sovereignty (or lack there of).

You cannot have both an understanding of Sovereignty (who is really the Ultimate Authority) and our current system of Civil Law. They are completely incompatible. In other words, a "truly civil society" cannot exist without a ubiquitous fundamental understanding of an Individual's Sovereignty. Any other attempt to define Sovereignty other than the one defined by Natural Law subverts the fundamental nature of the Universe, and, in "civil society" is always (can only be) a power grab.

“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” – Barbossa

Civil Law can only be used as a guideline. Any other application becomes a subversion of Natural Law.

Another essential misunderstanding related to Natural Law that seems to be ubiquitous is that there are always consequences. There is no free lunch. People believe (mistakenly, because of purposeful fuckery) that if we didn't have the type of system of law that we have, there would be "lawlessness," "anarchy," and "chaos." Nothing could be further from the truth (not the least of which is that people don't understand what the word "anarchy" means, another purposeful fuckery). In truth, a "lawless" society cannot exist. There are always consequences.

These then are essential components of civility (if not necessarily a formal system of "civil society.") We must grok our Sovereignty (what everyone's Sovereignty is), what our Jurisdiction is (what everyone's Jurisdiction is), and a that there are always consequences, no matter what the "law" (stated guidelines) may say.

With these things, which is a matter of reteaching people what they have been mistaught, our society, and the individuals made up of it, would be what we always intentioned to be (whatever that may imply).