Protecting Victims Through the Abolition of Law

Originally Written on August 21^st, 2015

Expanded on December 3^rd, 2015

 

Edited on December 3^rd, 2015 and January 22^nd, 2016

            Libertarianism is perhaps best known for its opposition to laws that criminalize victimless actions; for example, the use and sale of drugs, prostitution, pornography, file-sharing, offensive speech, and (arguably victimless) tax dodging, et cetera.

            But I would like to argue that consistent libertarianism additionally opposes laws that criminalize actions which do have victims. This is partially due to the fact that the victims can become accused criminals in the process, and also fall victim to lack of justice. It is also due to the libertarian’s position that laws (statutes and ordinances drafted by legislative bodies) should be replaced with private, mutual contracts.

 

Victims can become repeat victims of injustice, in that some laws against victimizing people come with statutes of limitations; laws that limit justiciable remedy based on how long the victim went without reporting the crime.

In such situations, even if the criminal attempts to turn himself in, lawyers will most likely advise him against turning himself in, and moreover, police might not even arrest him unless he is doing something unlawful at the moment of the police encounter.

The result of all this that – since it is the state’s responsibility to charge a perpetrator with a crime, and the victim may only charge the accused with civil rather than criminal charges – the victim becomes disempowered.

The effect is, or might as well be, as if the victim has been the property of the state all along. If the state doesn’t care about the damage that its property (that is, the victimized human being) suffered, then the state doesn’t have any responsibility to ensure that justice is delivered. Furthermore, the state will suffer no repercussions, because it can continue to compel the victim to remain its client (i.e., its citizen), and no other agency can effectively challenge the state’s failure to deliver justice.

This is true even when the reason why the victim waited so long to report the crime, is because the victim had been so viciously traumatized, that it took years or decades to notice that the crime had even occurred, and/or that it took that long for the victim to relocate to a sufficiently safe space where reporting the crime would be a safe enough option to consider.

 

My proposed solution to this set of problems is that all laws made through legislative avenues be immediately abolished, leaving law and precedent to arise only through private, mutually agreeable contracts. Such contracts should be enforced by neutral third party arbitrators having no substantial vested interest in the outcome of the resolution of the dispute, creating precedent (precedent which resembles, but is not, legislation) through court decisions, and through interlocking arbitration agreements (which are norms and customary standards which govern how courts and arbitrators interact).

Such a paradigm would render all infractions – even true corpus delicti crimes against persons and their legitimate property – torts (i.e., civil matters) rather than criminal matters. Such a paradigm – a system of private law – would retain for the victim (or his or her loved ones, if the victim is deceased) the right to charge the accused with civil violations, as well as the right to hold the accused person(s) responsible for any damages.

 

Criticism of the Secret Ballot Voting System

Written on December 8th, 2011

Edited in April 2014

   Any candidate for public office whose campaign does not emphasize the abolition of the secret-ballot voting system - whether Democrat, Republican, or independent - favors a secret, private government; one which rests on power which is maintained through aggressive, violent force and the threat thereof, rather than on consent, voluntary association, and duly-delegated decision-making authority.

   Secret ballots make for secret government; government which is - by force and power disguised as "law" - unaccountable and irresponsible to the people of which it claims exclusive dominion.

   Irresponsible, exclusive dominion is indistinguishable from the right of private property; these politicians literally own us. Why should we elect a politician who does not make it an issue that he will only use his violence-defended power but once, in order to release us from his ownership?

   Show me the document that proves you ever authorized one of your elected representatives to make decisions on your behalf. You can't do it because the secret-ballot system makes this impossible and "illegal".

   "All votes shall be by secret ballot." - Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, Article III, Section 3.

   Read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.

[The remainder of this entry is a response to someone's comment that "The secret ballot protects my right and yours to vote for whom we choose without intimidation or force. Abolishing the secret ballot would be abolishing the most crucial element of a democratic republic. It's an idiotic idea."]:

   It’s fine when people agree to use the secret ballot, like when they freely join labor unions, and vote on issues in them. But we’re talking about the government here. Take the State of Wisconsin for example.

   The land of Wisconsin was conquered (stolen) and secured through force. Nobody ever unanimously consented to be governed and protected by the Wisconsin government – especially the people who had the right to the land – and now people have no choice as to who protects them.

   Governments have a monopoly on the provision of security, and a “monopoly of legitimate violence” (which Obama has supported). We are forced to pay them taxes, which gives them the power (but not the authority, by which I mean authorization) to defend us against real enemies, as well as any enemies they feel it necessary to invent.

   But even if any group of people had ever unanimously consented to be controlled by a government which operates under the secret ballot, those people’s consent would not be binding upon we individuals today. We are absolutely sovereign to control our own destinies, and our ancestors cannot compel us into supporting a system which we wish to have no part in.

   Being that we must consent to be controlled by the government which claims the exclusive, monopolistic right to protect us within the territories over which they exercise jurisdiction, the secret ballot only entrenches the government’s power to do things that we do not wish them to do, including to hide the results of the elections from us, or at least from the majority of us, and only show those results to unaccountable bureaucrats.

   The secret ballot does not protect us against intimidation and force; the secret ballot is the basis of government intimidation and force. We are not free to resist the government, and that is why all voting is done under duress. We are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and we are never free to choose that nobody control us.

   If any one of our politicians were asked to produce a list of the group of people who delegated their authority to him, he would legally not be able to do it. Our politicians can also not produce written evidence that they ever swore an oath to support our government’s founding document.

   They are not accountable to the people, they are not accountable to a piece of paper, they are accountable to nobody but themselves. Clearly the secret ballot is the problem. Whether and how an open ballot system might be the solution remains to be seen.

   I say it’s worth a shot.

For more entries on elections and campaign finance, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/spooner-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/barry-goldwater-and-conservative.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/contracts-of-surety-and-secret-ballot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-partisans-in-us-federal-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-monopoly-and-scott-walker-recall.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-voting-is-not-necessarily-evil.html

For more entries on government secrecy and N.S.A. surveillance, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/spooner-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/contracts-of-surety-and-secret-ballot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/sovereignty-and-secrecy-freedoms-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/list-of-projects-by-cia-and-affiliated.html

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

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/fourth-amendment-image.html

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

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-syria-debate-in-congress.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-china-global-warming-and-population.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/military-industrial-socialism-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-response-to-question-about-patriot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/criticism-of-glenn-becks-libya-coverage.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/summary-of-webster-tarpleys-libya.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/barack-obama-universal-sycophant.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/notes-on-duplicity-in-us-foreign-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/notes-on-conflict-in-syria.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-two-state-solution-in-israel-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/military-intervention.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/us-military-service-under-united.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/us-withdrawal-from-united-nations.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html

For more entries on government secrecy and N.S.A. surveillance, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/spooner-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/contracts-of-surety-and-secret-ballot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/list-of-projects-by-cia-and-affiliated.html

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

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/fourth-amendment-image.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/criticism-of-secret-ballot-voting-system.html

For more entries on transportation, transit, travel, and the automobile industry, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/spencer-stuart-recruited-executives-for.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-about-roads-eminent-domain.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-transportation-security.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/identification-and-travel-documents.html

For more entries on the United Nations and international law, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/us-military-service-under-united.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/us-withdrawal-from-united-nations.html

Contracts of Surety and the Secret Ballot in English Common Law and the Wisconsin State Constitution

The following was written in March 2012.

Act of Parliament, Regnal. 29 Chas. 2 c. 3, 1677:

An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuryes:

IV. No Action Against Executors, &c. Upon a Special Promise, or Upon Any Agreement, or Contract for Sale of Lans, &c. Unless Agreement, &c. be in Writing and Signed:

“Noe Action shall be brought whereby to charge the Defendant upon any speciall promise to answere for the debt default or miscarriages of another person unlesse the Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note thereof shall be in Writeing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized”

Wisconsin Constitution:

Article I, Section 11; Attainder; Ex Post Facto; Contracts:

“No… law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate”

Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. La Follette, 18 Wis. 2d 637, 33 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1982):

“A challenge to legislation must prove: 1) the legislation impairs an existing contractual relationship; 2) the impairment is substantial; and 3) if substantial, the impairment is not justified by the purpose of the legislation”

Wisconsin Constitution:

Article III, Section 3; Secret Ballot:

“All votes shall be by secret ballot”

Wisconsin Constitution:

Article XIV, Section 13; Common Law Continued in Force:

“Such parts of the common law as are now in force in the territory of Wisconsin, not inconsistent with this constitution, shall be and continue part of the law of this state until altered or suspended by the legislature”

For more entries on elections and campaign finance, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/spooner-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/barry-goldwater-and-conservative.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-partisans-in-us-federal-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/criticism-of-secret-ballot-voting-system.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-monopoly-and-scott-walker-recall.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-voting-is-not-necessarily-evil.html

For more entries on government secrecy and N.S.A. surveillance, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/spooner-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/sovereignty-and-secrecy-freedoms-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/list-of-projects-by-cia-and-affiliated.html

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

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/fourth-amendment-image.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/criticism-of-secret-ballot-voting-system.html

For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/01/against-tammy-baldwin.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/scott-walker-vs-unions.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/01/against-pocan-roys-worzala-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/04/against-lee-pocan-roys-worzala-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/04/campaign-tri-fold-flyer.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/05/campaign-poster.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/08/speech-at-capitol-in-madison-wisconsin.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-happened-when-i-skipped-obamas.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/speech-at-great-midwest-marijuana.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/wisconsins-2nd-district-us-house-debates.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/press-release-october-12th-version-3.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/october-12th-press-release-version-2.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/speech-at-deforest-area-chamber-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/joe-kopsick-vs-fighting-bob-lafollette.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/04/letter-to-tammy-baldwin-on-gun-control.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-didnt-unions-do.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/wisconsin-and-collective-bargaining-my.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/initial-reaction-to-scott-walkers.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/initial-reaction-to-scott-walkers_20.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/critical-notes-on-tammy-baldwin.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-milwaukee-journal-sentinels.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-monopoly-and-scott-walker-recall.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-scott-walker-fascist.html

Agorism and Mutualism: Summaries, and Compare and Contrast

   Agorism is a system in which free and voluntary society is pursued through competition with the State and counter-economics.
   Counter-economics is market action which is either forbidden by the State (black market) or unapproved or unintended by the State (gray market); for example, "under the table" interactions, tax-dodging, trading-out, sharing, gifting, bartering, and trading.
   While minarchism expresses the notion that the State should only secure and defend people, protect their property, and provide essential military, police, and justice systems; Agorists view each of these services as a market in which there should be competition.
   Agorism would therefore see the State monopoly on the provision of those goods replaced by multiple syndicates (or companies, agencies, organizations) which compete against one another for customers.
   Additionally, Agorism seeks to specialize services typically provided by the State, causing its functions (such as personal security and defense; detention and arrest; detection and investigation; dispute-resolution / arbitration / adjudication; restitution; and property protection and insurance) to be split-up into separate industries.
   Significant contributors to Agorist thought include Samuel E. Konkin III (basic theory), J. Neil Schulman (counter-economics), Wally Conger (class theory), Robert Murphy (private law and defense, and insurance), Brad Spangler, Gary Chartier, Charles W. Johnson, and Mike Gogulski.

   Mutualism is an ethical philosophy and theory embracing mutuality and reciprocity, as well as an economic theory. It intends to be the “synthesis of community and property”, and is associated with the phrases “anarchy is order without power” and “property is theft”. Mutualists support titles to landed property, as long as it is continually occupied, used, and accessed.
   Proudhon favored possession of land, workplaces, and means of production by individual workers and peasants, or by collectives thereof; and desired that access to land not be arbitrarily withheld from those who desire to labor on it.
   Mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon described himself at various times as an anarchist and a federalist, favoring a federation of voluntarily-associating co-operatives (or workers’ associations). He also favored a national bank which would give loans at a minimal interest rate, its administration costs funded by income tax on capitalists and stockholders, and also by the minimal interest rate.
   Although Mutualists oppose income derived from loans, investments, ground rent, and interest on capital, Proudhon wrote that he would not support legal prohibitions of those practices. Mutualism is based on the labor theory of value, promotes a system in which trade represents labor, and supports workers earning the full product of their labor as property.
   Many Mutualists disagree with the notion that having wealth gives one a right to accumulate more wealth – especially through rent, profit, and interest – viewing such practices as forceful, fraudulent, and / or coercive.
   Significant contributors to Mutualist thought include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (articulation of ethical theory into anarchist theory), Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and William B. Greene.

   Disputes between Agorists and Mutualists typically revolve around:
- Whether unoccupied, unused landed property should be protected as a right (especially in regards to the Lockean proviso, which gives that homesteading is permissible only when one adds his labor to it, and enough land is left for others)
- Whether value should be thought of as subjective, or objective (such as value and trade based on labor)
- Whether exploitation of labor by capital for profit is coercive (and objectively unethical), or merely hierarchical (and subjectively unethical)
- Whether the Non-Aggression Principle of voluntaryism and the ethical imperativeness of  reciprocity are valid expressions of the Golden Rule and / or an objective ethics (if such a thing exists)
- Whether Agorism and Mutualism are tactics, or philosophical theories
- Whether revolution, insurgency, or reform are feasible or ethical tactics
- Whether internationalism, nationalism, federalism, municipalism, and panarchy are feasible geographical organizational structures

   Agorists and Mutualists generally agree that:
- Monopolies of many or all varieties should be opposed
- The right of contract should be supported
- Voluntary cooperation should be promoted
- Counter-economics / social counter-power / dual power, and gradualism are feasible and ethical tactics
- Anarchy is a form of order (articulated by Austrian economists as catallaxy; spontaneous orders include catallaxy [associated with market-anarchism] and stigmergy [associated with social-anarchism])
- Most varieties of capitalism and socialism are insufficiently supportive of individual rights

 Approximate figures regarding topic of argument,

"Agorist-Mutualist Alliance" group on Facebook

For more entries on banking, the treasury, currency, inflation, and business, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/comparative-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-madison-flyer.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/inflation-adjusted-minimum-wage-vs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-institutional-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-anarchism-economists-vs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/inflation-adjusted-minimum-wage-vs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-campaign-for-liberty.html

For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/loss-of-public-planning-department.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-social-libertarianism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/comparative-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/agorism-summary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/08/panarchist-welfare-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-market-anarchism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-institutional-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-ron-paul-wrong.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-panarchy-without-adjectives.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/twenty-five-reasons-why-political.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-criticism-of-ron-paul.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/municipal-services-fifth-amendment-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/using-profit-incentive-to-promote.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/labor-protectionism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/aristotle-and-rousseau-on-natural.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/thrasymachus-support-for-justice-being.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-social-libertarianism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/materialism-stirner-vs-marx.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/feudalism-and-class-war.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/population-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

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

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/political-compound.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/two-competing-class-theories.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-market-anarchism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-panarchy-without-adjectives.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-anarchism-economists-vs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/10/map-of-contiguous-united-states-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/twenty-five-reasons-why-political.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/monopoly-and-property-rights.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/statism-to-anarchy-staircase-model.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/political-theory-flow-chart.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/illustration-of-lange-model.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-partisans-in-us-federal-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-philosophy-of-taxation-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/viewing-legislation-through-economic.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-i-am-not-liberal.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/military-industrial-socialism-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/general-philosophy-on-government-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-social-corporatism-and-tripartism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-is-political-radicalism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-about-ayn-rand.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/using-profit-incentive-to-promote.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/thoughts-on-statism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/alliance-against-tripartism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-locke-roderick-long-and-voluntary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/summary-of-my-political-views.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-campaign-for-liberty.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-proper-role-of-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-general-welfare-clause.html

The Spooner Amendment

 

The Spooner Amendment

The following is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. Its purpose is to put into practice principles which were endorsed by Reconstruction-era author Lysander Spooner in his 1867 essay “No Treason”.

Section 1.

      Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, according to the whole numbers of citizens in each State.

Section 2.

      All elections to federal, state, county, and municipal public offices shall be conducted through open ballot voting, wherein the evidence of the candidate or candidates for whom each participant in an election voted is open to public scrutiny.

Section 3.

      The Senators and Representatives, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, and the Oaths and Affirmations before mentioned shall be written, signed, sealed, delivered to, and witnessed and acknowledged by the persons who elected them, or their servants, attorneys, or Representatives, under penalty of forfeiture of salary, removal from office, and revocation of citizenship of public officers, and of revocation of citizenship of voting citizens.

Section 4.

      For having been party to the proceedings of elections, or to assumptions to and execution of the duties of public office, which shall have occurred prior to the enactment of this legislation, and in a manner which is inconsistent with the processes required by Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this legislation, no person shall be held to answer to a charge of any criminal or civil offense.

Section 5.

      The Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place.

Section 6.

The Congress shall make no law prohibiting any person from questioning, contesting, disputing, or doubting the validity of the public debt of the United States.

Section 7.

      The several States may enter into any Confederation.

Section 8.

      The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In defense of Section 2 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Lysander Spooner wrote the following on the subject of voting:

"No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly and in a way to make him personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them...

"[T]he general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of [secret ballot] voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and... murder, the rest of the people...

"[Secret ballot] voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily. So far, therefore, as [secret ballot] voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all."

      “On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which the pretended agents of the people take [‘]to support the Constitution,[’] are of no validity or obligation… [because] …they are given to nobody. There is no privity (as the lawyers say) – that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement – between those who take these oaths, and any other persons.

      “…[S]ay that, among… persons, in whose presence the oath was taken, there were [a given number of persons], who had secretly – by secret ballot, and in a way to avoid making themselves individually known to me, or to the remainder of the [people] – designated me as their agent to rule, control, plunder, and, if need be, murder these… people.

      “The fact that they had designated me secretly, and in a manner to prevent my knowing them individually, prevents all privity between them and me; and consequently makes it impossible that there can be any contract, or pledge of faith, on my part towards them; for it is impossible that I can pledge my faith, in any legal sense, to a man whom I neither know, nor have any means of knowing, individually.”

      Spooner criticizes secret-ballot voting by invoking the term “privity” (meaning a legally-recognized relation between two parties, such as that of service) as preferable to and distinct from “privacy” (meaning the state or condition of being free from public attention).

      It is precisely this freedom from public attention which is embodied in the practice of secret-ballot voting that makes that system of voting antithetical to the idea that government processes should be open to the public, and to its scrutiny.

      This is because any defense of the secret-ballot system which invokes the necessity of defending individual “privacy” rather than “privity” undermines the openness of the legitimate, voluntary social contract, whereby people make themselves individually known to one another, and the decisions which they make in the public sphere known to one another (or, at least, potentially so).

      In topics pertaining to the administration of public policy (particularly in regards to elections whereby authority is delegated), the term “privacy” is, practically, synonymous with the term “secrecy”, as has been (in some cases) the term “independence”.

      It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 2 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that "[a]ll elections to federal, state, county, and municipal public offices shall be conducted through open ballot voting, wherein the evidence of the candidate or candidates for whom each participant in an election voted is open to public scrutiny”, would – as Spooner prescribed – provide for the furnishment of legal evidence that certain individuals voluntarily support the Constitution, and that it would also make individuals personally responsible for the acts of their agents, so long as such agents act within the limits of the power delegated to them.

In defense of Section 3 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Spooner wrote the following on the subject of contracts:

"...[S]ince 1677 – there has been on the statute book of England, and the same, in substance, if not precisely in letter, has been re-enacted, and is now in force, in nearly or quite all the States of this Union, a statute, the general object of which is to declare that no action shall be brought to enforce contracts of the more important class, unless they are put in writing, and signed by the parties to be held chargeable upon them.

"...Furthermore, the law everywhere (probably) in our country, as well as in England, requires that a large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds, etc., shall not only be written and signed, but also sealed, witnessed, and acknowledged.

"...[W]e are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which, inasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general principles of law and reason – such principles as we are all governed by in regard to other contracts – the merest waste of paper, binding upon nobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind."

The statute to which Spooner referred was An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries (29 Chas. 2 c. 3), a 1677 Act of the Parliament of England. The act provides that contracts of surety (also called guarantee) for another’s debt are unenforceable unless evidenced in writing.

      It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 3 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that “[t]he Senators and Representatives, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, and the Oaths and Affirmations before mentioned shall be written, signed, sealed, delivered to, and witnessed and acknowledged by the persons who elected them, or their servants, attorneys, or Representatives, under penalty of forfeiture of salary, removal from office, and revocation of citizenship of public officers, and of revocation of citizenship of voting citizens”, would – as Spooner prescribed – provide for the furnishment of authentic evidence that a given individual has voluntarily delegated to a given public official the authority to act as his or her agent and representative.

The effect of Section 3 of my proposed legislation would be to amend Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “[T]he Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

 

In defense of Section 1 of my proposed legislation:

 To enact and enforce Sections 2 and 3 of this bill but not Section 1 would eventually cause some problems with regards to the apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives according to the populations of the respective states.

This is because population-based political apportionment is based on the principle that political liberties and responsibilities shall be distributed according to the number of persons living within the territory over which a given government claims and exercises jurisdiction, rather than according to the number of persons whom actually voluntarily submit to such jurisdiction (and – at that – in a way that is both authentic and verifiable).

It is because population-based political apportionment is based on the assumption that it is desirable that the federal government distribute political freedoms based on the number of people available to be coerced within a given territory rather than based on the number of people actually volunteering to part with certain freedoms and liberties in exchange for the privilege to participate in the government of themselves and of their consenting compatriots.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states that "[r]epresentatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Section 2 of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution – which amended the aforementioned clause – states that "[r]epresentatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

      Being that to have either of these two laws in place while enforcing Sections 2 and 3 of my proposed legislation would cause different percentages of populations living within the territories in which governments claim and exercise jurisdiction to voluntarily consent to participate in the American governmental system operating under the authority of the Constitution, the outcome of this would be that the relative number of consenting individuals represented by the various members of the United States House of Representatives would eventually tend to vary by a wide margin – that is, to an even further degree than that to which is does currently – because some people living within the jurisdictional territorial boundaries of the United States – and of its subsidiary governments – would choose to not subject themselves to their laws.

      It is for these reasons that I have included in my proposed legislation the mandate that “[r]epresentatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, according to the whole numbers of citizens in each State”; i.e., citizens who are citizens because they consent to the Constitution in a manner that is voluntary, authentic, and verifiable, rather than because they begrudgingly, inauthentically, and unverifiably became citizens for the purpose of retaliating in a civil and civilized manner against the perpetrators of some secretive, aggressive act of initiatory coercion and / or expropriation.

In defense of Section 5 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Spooner wrote the following on the subject of the questioning of federal public officials:

"...[B]y the Constitution... the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who... shall never be [‘]questioned[‘] as to any disposal they make of them.

"...Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, '[f]or any speech or debate [or vote,] in either house, they [the senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.[']... this provision protects them from all responsibilities for the laws they make.

"...The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them.

"Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?... they shall never be [']questioned,[']... for violating their oaths... The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property... The two are identical... they own us as property... they are our masters, their will is our law."

      It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 5 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that “[t]he Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place” – which would amend Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and also invalidate a portion of it – would, as Spooner prescribed, permit the senators and representatives to be questioned; which is to say that – just as the senators and representatives may withhold the salaries of, impeach, and remove from office judicial and executive officers – senators and representatives would be subject to the same type of "questioning" which I have just described, but by their electors – i.e., the people who voted in the elections which they won – rather than by the executive and judicial branches of government.

Additionally, I would note that such "questioning" of senators and representatives could take place immediately upon refusal of any such public official to sign a written oath in support of the Constitution, and – in pursuance of Section 3 of my proposed legislation – such “questioning” would be administered in the form of “forfeiture of salary, removal from office, and revocation of citizenship” of the offending public officer.

In defense of Section 6 of my proposed legislation:

In "No Treason", Spooner wrote the following on the subjects of taxation and debt:

"...[T]axation is made compulsory on all[;] whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt so as to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone…

“To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used against his injury... is... no proof at all [that he supports the Constitution].

"On general principles of law and reason, debts contracted in the name of [']the United States,['] or of [']the people of the United States,['] are of no validity. It is utterly absurd to pretend that debts... are binding upon... millions of people, when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence – such as would be required to prove a private debt – that can be produced against any one of them, that either he, or his properly authorized attorney, ever contracted to pay one cent.

"...[T]here is in existence no such firm, corporation, or association as [']the United States,['] or [']the people of the United States,['] formed by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary contract, and having corporate property with which to pay these debts... this secret band of robbers and murderers, who were the real borrowers of this money... do not propose to pay their debts otherwise than from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders."

The full text of the first sentence of Section 4 of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution reads, "[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

The fragment of that sentence to which I aim to draw attention is, "[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned."

Not only did Spooner point out that, when a person is taxed against his or her will, a subsequent act of consent by that person to the so-called authority which levied the tax does not validate or confirm that person's consent retroactively; but Spooner also makes it clear that, when such a person consents to the authority of such agencies, that consent is not even legitimate because no authentic written evidence can be produced that such an act of consensual delegation of authority ever took place.

To reiterate and summarize, all government proceedings have, thus far, occurred without authentic, verifiable, written proof of consent to delegate authority, the payment of such debt is always contingent upon the future power and ability of governments to coercively extract payments from persons.

It is for these reasons that I contend that Section 6 of my proposed legislation, which mandates that “[t]he Congress shall make no law prohibiting any person from questioning, contesting, disputing, or doubting the validity of the public debt of the United States”, would ensure that no person shall be punished for questioning the validity of the public debt of the federal government.

 

      In defense of Section 7 of my proposed legislation:

      Article III Section 3 of the Constitution states, “[t]reason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

      The statutory Act of April 30^th, 1790 states, “…[i]f any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death.”

      About the Act of April 30^th, 1790, Spooner wrote, “[t]he whole pith of the act lies in the words, [‘]persons owing allegiance to the United States,[’]… [i]t does not attempt to show or declare who does [‘]owe allegiance to the United States;[’] although those who passed the act… wished others to think, that allegiance was to be presumed… against all born in this country… As the Constitution professes to rest wholly on consent, no one can owe allegiance, service, obedience, or any other duty to it, or to the government created by it, except with his own consent.”

      This is what Spooner intended to imply in choosing the title of his essay, which is that no act of treason was committed in the action of the Confederate States in attempting to dissolve the political bands which had once connected them to the Union.

      The fact that the Confederate States no longer felt that the manner in which the Union interacted with them upheld the Constitution – and their revolt against the Union – embodies the revocation of consent which is implicit in the notion of legitimate delegation of authority; namely, that the administration of all governance is predicated upon the existence of consent of the governed to continue to be governed.

      The significance of this is that any and all aggression which was committed against citizens of Confederate states whom did not own slaves and / or participate in the legalistic sanctioning of their continued slavery is deemed to have been initiatory aggression – and therefore immoral, unjust, and in violation of the non-coercion principle – while violence against slave-owners and those who utilized the rule of law to officially sanction the propagation of slavery is deemed to have been moral, just, and an appropriate exercise of (what would incorrectly be described as) force.

      It is for these reasons that I have included in my proposed legislation the provision that “[t]he several States may enter into any Confederation” because Lysander Spooner’s primary reason for writing “No Treason” was to argue against slavery – and in favor of the right of the Union to demand that the Confederacy emancipate the slaves – while defending the Confederate States’ rights to secede from the Union, as an act of legitimate revocation of consent to be governed by a Constitution which was illegitimate to begin with.

      The effect of the enactment and enforcement of Section 7 of my proposed legislation would be the invalidation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads (in part), “[n]o State shall enter into any… Confederation…”.

 

In defense of Section 4 of my proposed legislation:

      I have included in this bill the mandate that “[f]or having been party to the proceedings of elections, or to assumptions to and execution of the duties of public office, which shall have occurred prior to the enactment of this legislation, and in a manner which is inconsistent with the processes required by… this legislation, no person shall be held to answer to a charge of any criminal or civil offense” because the election of the public officials who may vote on my proposed legislation – in addition to the actual voting on the bill itself – as well as the potential ratification and signing-into-law of the bill (due to there being a total lack of written evidence that any such public officials had ever been properly delegated the authority of the persons who they claim to represent) shall not have been legitimate in the first place, given the secret-ballot voting system which has been (evidently, de-facto) in place since the Constitution was written, as well as the aggressive actions which were and have been required to implement it, its subsequent amendments, and the statutes whose legitimacy is predicated upon it.

      The unfortunate significance of this concession is that my proposed legislation itself – even once it has become “law” – would never be authentic, or, indeed, truly legitimate. I also concede that the moral and legal implications of Section 4 are monstruously hypocritical and duplicitous, and I would even go so far as to conjecture that it would be vehemently criticized, opposed, disregarded, neglected, and / or ignored by Lysander Spooner himself, as well as by the vast majority of his supporters (at least those who understand contract law, and, thus, would properly interpret my proposed legislation as an apologia for Statism and for its institutions and processes).

      However – being that the very enactment and enforcement of the Constitution represented an aggressive act of initiatory force (i.e., violence) against its supposed subjects – were public officials who were to assume and execute the functions of public office to be charged, prosecuted, and punished for the offense of doing so illegitimately, the only appropriate crime with which they would be charged would be treason – which is traditionally punishable by death – and I believe that the execution of some half-a-million elected U.S. government officials and another twenty million appointed and hired civil employees would constitute a great loss of civic and governmental procedural knowledge for our society.

      Additionally – in regards to the some hundred and thirty million people who vote in the United States every year – it would be preposterous to argue that three out of every seven Americans should be arrested, charged with treason, prosecuted, and executed for participating in a process which they believe to be legitimate, but which does not conform to standards set by a British legal document which is nearly a hundred years older than is their government itself, and which is relatively obscure by the standards of the modern civic and political culture of the United States.

      Although it may ultimately prove futile to do so, I would defend this assertion by once again quoting Spooner himself: “…a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist… [h]e sees… that, if he will but use the ballot… he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave… a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being… until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others.”

      In summary, I would use this quote to defend the notion that voters and public officials should not be held responsible for their participation in the governmental system – as it stands right now – due to the fact that each of them was compelled to do so, that compulsion having been in the guises of liberty, voluntarism, and consent.

      While I can only hope that this defense of my proposed legislation will be sufficiently satisfactory to the citizens of the United States in general, and the followers of Lysander Spooner especially, I believe that unless and until this bill is passed, enacted, and enforced, the legitimacy of American government, the transparency, responsibility and accountability of the action of its agencies and its officers, and the liberty of its subjects, will remain a usurpative delusion which flies in the face of common law, contract law, and the freedom of association.

 SUMMARY

SECTION 1

Require the apportionment of the House of Representatives by the number of citizens (not denizens) in each State

[Amending Section 2 of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution;

which itself amended Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 2

Permit the public scrutiny of the evidence of voting results for elections of candidates in all jurisdictions.

SECTION 3

Require that the oaths of public officials to support the Constitution be written, signed, sealed, delivered, witnesses, and acknowledged

[Extrapolating the contract-law-relevant English Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries as applicable to U.S. common law; amending Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 4

Immunize public officials from criminal and civil prosecution for having governed without written evidence of having been elected and having signed an oath to support the Constitution.

SECTION 5

Completely revoke U.S. Senators’ and U.S. Representatives’ privilege from arrest

[Amending Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 6

Legalize the questioning of the validity of the public debt

[Invalidating Section 4 of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 7

Permit the States to enter into confederations

[Invalidating a portion of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution].

SECTION 8

Empower the Congress to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.

For more entries on elections and campaign finance, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/barry-goldwater-and-conservative.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/contracts-of-surety-and-secret-ballot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-partisans-in-us-federal-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/criticism-of-secret-ballot-voting-system.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-monopoly-and-scott-walker-recall.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-voting-is-not-necessarily-evil.html

For more entries on government secrecy and N.S.A. surveillance, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/contracts-of-surety-and-secret-ballot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/sovereignty-and-secrecy-freedoms-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/list-of-projects-by-cia-and-affiliated.html

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

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/fourth-amendment-image.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/criticism-of-secret-ballot-voting-system.html