The Aquarian Agrarian: Sovereignty and Secrecy: The Freedoms of Association and Travel Under Threat

Originally written in February 2012

Is there real proof (for lack of a better word) that any or all U.S. governmental entities are violent / aggressive / coercive, or are they merely so fraudulent and deceptive that they should be considered so?

Putting aside the federal government's unconstitutional encroachment on the sovereign, independent power of the states, would we care to make the assertion that even though juries have the right to decide the facts as well as the law, we were never asked by our states to consent to a system whereby we have the right to be judged by a jury of our peers?

Should the fact that government agents never inform us of our right to not declare ourselves as U.S. (federal as opposed to state only) citizens, and our Right of Expatriation, as well as the fact that U.N. documents guarantee rights to freedom of (and from) association (and of travel) without having any tangible material assistance to back up that claim of an existing right, be construed to constitute a massive deception across national and international governments, making them fraudulent by design, fraud being something which cannot be tolerated, and therefore on equal par with aggression, coercion, and violence?

I'm trying to say that more evidence that the State is violent may lie in legal documents and political contracts rather than philosophical ideas like estoppel theory.
To some extent, the states gave up some sovereignty to the federal government, and to some extent, the federal government intrudes on the sovereignty of the states by force.
To some extent, the federal government protects citizens against the states by (claiming to) provide them with privileges and immunities, and to some extent, the federal government tricks individual citizens into giving up their common-law sovereign "rights" under the states.
To some extent, the states presume that we are subservient to them simply because we are born there, and to some extent, the jury powers within the states are some of the greatest protection of the rights of the accused and of the rights of the community to judge peers that have existed in history, consent to that system although we may have not.Bottom of Form

So, yes, there is some violence and fraud in each relationship (individual-to-state, individual-to-federal, and state-to-federal), but there is also some legitimate delegation of authority in each relationship.
To me, the international and federal governments seem the most easy to reject (taking the question of fire-power out of the equation), and the authority of the state governments (with their age-old court systems and theoretical rights of the accused) seems the hardest to reject philosophically.

Does the fact that there is some violence ingrained into the system invalidate any and all semblances of legitimate delegation of authority?
Are states' rights worth asserting if it means better protection of the rights of the accused; more active citizen participation in the judgment of peers; and a more personal, face-to-face debate on the rights of the individual (accused) versus the community (jury)?

It is possible to stop being a citizen of the federal government and the states, but you have to choose another country to control you, or else you become ungoverned.
When you become ungoverned, your freedom of travel is severely limited, because not every country has taken the appropriate steps toward implementing the "right of travel" guaranteed by the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This system technically may not be force (i.e., force keeping me in the cage that is this country), but I believe that the world's governments have effectually colluded to strictly limit the freedom of choice when it comes to people deciding who governs them, and I consider these restrictions to be tantamount to force.
First, because of all the legalese I will have to wade through and the expensive traveling I will have to do to regain my sovereignty, and second, because I did not choose where to be born, and the government did not reveal all this information to me when I came of age.

U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 20, Section 2:

"No one may be compelled to belong to an association".

The same document also stipulates that elementary education shall be compulsory. I assume it means that countries belonging to the U.N. must educate their people, and not that all human beings should be educated by whoever cares to use force (or license-out the use of force) in order to attempt to teach people against their will. Maybe they would claim the educational relationship is not a form of human association, and so therefore people may be forced into it.

One can become stateless by getting a U.N.-authorized World Passport. Unfortunately, not every country accepts the World Passport, so you will have difficulty traveling. Perhaps if the U.N. would have required countries to accept the World Passport as a condition of joining the U.N. (and required them to produce their share of the wealth necessary to ensure that this happened), then the Declaration of Human Rights would have had some concrete means to bring into existence the "rights" - actually privilege - that the U.N. had arbitrarily declared to exist without considering that availability conditions privilege.

An individual should have the ability to assert his right to travel (without stealing or damaging the property of, threatening, or hurting someone) independently of the United Nations, and assert his sovereignty as equal to that of the U.N.. Unfortunately, the U.N. doesn't recognize sovereign individuals, because it views states as the principal actors in international public law. States' sovereignty is only recognized if all or almost all U.N. members recognize the state, it has a government, and controls a territory.

This is how the U.N. presupposes that states have sovereignty. It gives no real, feasible mechanism for people to appeal to it for the privilege of travel, or to assert independently (as an individual who is free to resist compulsion to belong to an association; for example, the U.N.) their freedom to refrain from associating with the U.N..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not only based on unfeasible privileges disguised as rights; it is inconsistent: a document which requires governments to compel people to be educated, but also guarantees liberty and the freedom from association should not be given standing or even lip-service in international public law.

For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/iran-and-israel.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/middle-east-foreign-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/local-inhabitants-per-deployed-us.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/defense-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/07/seeds-of-world-war-iii-being-sown-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/response-to-andrew-klavans-video.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-second-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-zionism-and-state-of-israel.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/national-defense-authorization-act-for.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/geopolitics-images.html