Showing posts with label secrecy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secrecy. Show all posts

Friday, September 4, 2020

On Spying, and One-Party and Two-Party Consent Laws for Recording Conversations


     The principles of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, and Pareto improvements, tell us that nobody should ever be involved in a social situation, economic transaction, nor political association, which deprives them of the right to consent, nor of the right to negotiate and interact with others at a level of equal standing and power.
     This is to say that we must always recognize others' rights to give consent, but also their right to be fully informed about what they're getting involved in, and their right to deny or revoke consent if they believe that they don't stand to benefit from the action or decision whatsoever.
     Externalizing costs, and negative consequences, onto other people, without their knowledge or consent, is unacceptable, if we want to create an economy and a society in which nobody is pressured to sacrifice, or give up their rights, such as their right to fully understand the things they are consenting to.
     The importance of the principle that everyone involved in a decision should both benefit, and participate on a voluntary basis, is essential to creating a free and fair economy, and a free and fair society.

     However, in cases when someone is violating your freedom to remain unharmed, or your freedom to avoid being defrauded, we have to consider the possibility that that person's right to fully consent to whatever happens to them, should no longer be respected.

     It's not that we shouldn't respect a person's right to deny consent; we should. The problem is that a person who has just shot someone to death, or stolen something, will usually not consensually submit to arrest, so they have to be taken into custody against their will.
     They didn't respect your right to deny consent, so why should you respect theirs? They made it clear that they don't even believe in your right to deny consent, and that they don't respect your boundaries.

     Now, we could avoid the need to force people to submit to arrest, by allowing people to volunteer to become outlaws (and live outside the law, without its protections). Allowing people to become outlaws would remind criminal suspects that they have an incentive to turn themselves in, because failure to do so would mean that they must forfeit the state's protection.
     But for people who don't have time to learn about 7th Amendment methods and the rules of the Old West, and time to start a movement to re-popularize those sorts of rules, I'll restrict this discussion to laws that currently exist on the books today.
     And so, I turn now, to the subject of one-party and two-party consent laws, in regard to recording conversations via audio and/or video.

     Ten states have what are called "two-party consent laws", in which both or all parties to a recorded telephone call or other conversation must give consent to be recorded (and know they are being recorded in the first place), in order for the recording to be made legally and to be admissible as evidence in a court of law.
     Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington (nearly all of which are governed by Democrats).
     It would seem that two-party consent laws protect the consent of every person involved.
     With this in mind, and with the need to preserve the full consent of everyone involved, it would seem that one-party consent states have effectively legalized spying on someone and recording them without their knowledge or consent!
     Surely such an action should be banned, and both parties' consent required.


     On the other hand...

     As a libertarian, the right to privacy is an important concern for me, and it always will be. But again, as a libertarian, the power of the government to legalize its own crimes, is also a huge problem. Maybe even a more important problem.
     I say this because we need to think about whether it's more important to protect somebody else's right to privacy (such as a police officer or politician) than it is to protect yourself (your body, and your freedoms, and especially your freedom from being defrauded by elected officials).

     I worry that these two-party consent laws are just a scam - invented by blue-state politicians - intended to protect lawyers', judges', and police officers' privileges to lie to us about the law, and commit crimes, and then suppress our ability to record them while doing so.
     And the politically well-connected, will, and do, suppress our ability to record them. Even if we are only recording them for our own safety and protection, and to ensure that we are not incriminated nor robbed of the ability to create an accurate account of what happened to us while in contact with such legal authorities.
     After all, we could lose our lives during interactions with police, and we can't exactly file a complaint against the police when we're a decaying dead body.


     What the debate about one-party consent laws should come down to, is the issue of whether the person who is being filmed against their will, has a reasonable expectation of privacy, based on whose property they're on, and what they're doing, when the incident is filmed or audio-recorded.
     If a person is trespassing, or violating a law, or starting a fight – and that's why they're being filmed in the first place – then they have no right to expect privacy.
     You forfeit privacy when you attack someone. Not because privacy can be turned from a right into a privilege, or anything like that. You lose privacy when you deliberately subject somebody to abuse, harm, or theft, and when you invade the privacy of someone who has done nothing wrong (and/or is not reasonably suspected of having done anything wrong, nor is suspected of having begun to plan an attack or the commission of a crime).
     Your right to privacy ends when you start infringing on others' rights to enjoy their property, or a public place, calmly and in peace. You cannot make an assembly violent, and then expect to have your “right to privacy” respected. That is just the right to shrink from public controversy after you have done something wrong; it is the right to remain unresponsive and irresponsible. The ancient Romans made it clear that citizens do not have such a right.

     If any type of consent laws for recording conversations, should be banned, then it shouldn't be one-party consent laws (which afford “privacy” to criminals, corrupt police, and professional liars); it should be two-party consent laws!
     Or, at the very least, states that have two-party consent laws, should pass amendments to those laws, which specifically exempt people who believe they may be under arrest, and witnesses to (and victims of) crimes who attempt to capture video evidence of those crimes. Additionally, whistleblowers. These include people like Edward Snowden, who arguably “spied” on the National Security Agency (N.S.A.) to report their unconstitutional bulk data collection.
     After all most of the bulk data collection that the N.S.A. did, was done under conditions of zero-party consent. So the need to stop zero-party-consent data mining, arguably made it necessary, or at least advantageous to our freedoms, to sacrifice two-party consent, in order to preserve respect for one-party consent.
     By this, I mean that it became necessary to sacrifice the government's supposed need for “privacy” (or rather, secrecy in their unconstitutional activities), to promote the greater good. I mean that every person should be free to film what they reasonably believe to be criminal wrongdoing, if it is necessary to procure evidence, and preserve their rights. Especially if secret filming or audiotaping is the only way to provide a reliable record of what happened.
     As long as you don't unreasonably invade someone's privacy, and you believe that your or someone else's safety or freedom is at stake, then "spying" is fine. If this seems unfair, then think about it this way: Abusers typically lie to people, and hurt people, "in private". That is, in what they think is private. If there are two people present, then the only witness is also the victim. To use video or audio tape to record an incident, is to create a witness, which is not a victim (i.e., the videotape or audiotape). Also keep in mind that abusers treat people differently in "private" from the way they treat them in public. Finally, if taken literally, "private" could imply that only one person is present. There's really nothing "private" about attacking or abusing someone else while nobody is around. That is not private; there is another person there.
     It is often necessary to drag "private" affairs or problems into the public, in order to expose the fact that an incident happened, to a third party who was not involved; in order to get an outside perspective, and in order to find a neutral party who can moderate the dispute. An abuser and his victim will typically not come to a peaceful, equitable arrangement without an unbiased outside influence to moderate or arbitrate.


     If you don't want to be filmed, then don't do anything wrong.
     This is not to say that anyone who is filmed against their will, is doing something wrong. It is not to “victim-blame”, nor is it to say that it is OK if the consequences of your free speech include being harmed or being filmed against your will.
     It is simply to say that if you keep going around harming people, starting fights, daring people to fight you without hitting them, pointing guns at people, threatening people, or psychologically abusing or brainwashing people all the time, then you should hardly be surprised when someone pulls out a camera or a camera-phone or a tape recorder, and starts capturing proof.
     Hell, sometimes taking out your phone and filming, and threatening to broadcast it and show it to other people, is the only way to get an aggressive person to stop doing what they're doing! It is not a “threat”, nor a deprivation of income, to expose aggressive and disrespectful people, to the real-life social consequences of their actions (as long as you're not physically hurting them without cause, or slandering them).

     Spying is wrong, except when it is the only realistic way to save lives, or to protect defenseless or systematically discredited people.
     Spying on dangerous people might make us feel dirty or ashamed, but it is sometimes necessary, to prove things that most people would never believe happens behind closed doors.
     Aggressive people mistreat others, when there is nobody whom they respect, around to keep their behavior in-check. And there are very few people for whom aggressive individuals feel a sense of respect in the first place.
     Just as they say about allegations of government corruption, to cure manipulators' and aggressive people's mental illnesses and personality disorders, "sunlight is the best disinfectant".
     To argue otherwise is to be a "Karen" who projects on others, saying that she feels attacked, when she is non-violently outed for attacking or harassing others.





Written on July 17th, 2020

Edited and expanded on September 4th, 2020
and March 27th, 2021

Published to this blog on September 4th, 2020

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 5, 2014

To Critics of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Written in January 2012
Originally published 1-23-2012



     On November 6th of this year, we will elect a representative to the U.S. House who will be paid 174 thousand dollars a year. Now, the Statutes of Frauds which are found in the legal codes of the various states provide that if two parties agree to sell goods worth at least a number well below 174 thousand dollars, that contract is unenforceable unless it is made in writing.
      But why should the requirements for contracts to provide the public services of government be any weaker?
      We have been led to believe that the secret-ballot-voting provisions in most of the states’ constitutions enhance democracy and protect our privacy. But – in truth – there is a more sinister reason why our voting is private, secret, anonymous, and unwritten; and why our elected representatives stand in a giant room in Washington speaking their congressional oaths instead of being required to sign a written oath to support the government and the documents upon which it is based.
President Kennedy once said that “[t]he very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society”, but the secret-ballot system protects our unduly-elected representatives’ privilege never to be bothered to provide written evidence proving that any particular person delegated his authority to them.
Although it has been suggested that to destroy the secrecy of the voting system would signify the abolition of civil society, the abolition of the secret ballot would in fact serve to augment its freedom and openness. Your revered secret ballot possesses the same type of freedom and independence held by the Federal Reserve Bank which brought on the current financial crisis; and that type of freedom is ownership.
      Our government agencies are contractually irresponsible to the people they control. This irresponsible, exclusive dominion has been described as “political slavery… identical to the right of private property”. What this means is that when we vote, we are being permitted to choose who owns us – who we must pay to control us – without ever being given the option of choosing not to be treated as other people’s property in the first place.
Let it therefore be said that voluntary action, free association, and written contracts are the basis for all just and legitimate governance.

      Since the current financial crisis began, our Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin has voted for a round of bailouts and restructuring that have cost our government an estimated 12 to 24 trillion dollars, which is equal to 80 to 160 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.
      Not only this, but the total unfunded liabilities projected over the next 75 years now number somewhere around 165 trillion, which is 11 times the Gross Domestic Product, and 10 percent larger than the planet’s annual earnings. Every 3 ½ years, the federal government’s unfunded liabilities double.
      Unfortunately, there is no legal safeguard against such excessive spending. In fact, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone from questioning the validity of the government’s public debt. But the 14th Amendment also prohibits involuntary servitude, except as punishment.
      So now I ask: do we have the voluntary choice to either support and obey this government or not, or are we compelled to serve it involuntarily? Do we have free will and the right to our own bodies, or are we nothing more than political debt slaves being used as the whipping boys of the politicians who have stolen from ourselves and our children?
The current political system – inasmuch as it is a secret, closed, and unwritten system – is in fact the world’s wealthiest criminal gang, and that we the people – inasmuch as our associations remain free, open, and voluntary – are charged with the responsibility to bring charges and punishment against those who would provide aid, comfort, or material support to our treasonous, alien enemy the State.
      This debt that we are required to pay at the threat of being put in a tax prison; what is it more than restitution – that is, criminal responsibility and liabilities for having committed theft – being passed onto a group of people who never signed a single written document promising to pay the government’s generational debts?

      Set aside Citizens United and the railroad robber barons who wrote their privileges into the Supreme Court reports during the Industrial Revolution; if you want to talk about how corporate personhood is corrupting elections, let’s talk about another oft-overlooked legal fiction.
      The vast majority of us were made U.S. citizens and given Social Security numbers within our first year of life, at a time when we have no comprehension or awareness what is being done under our assumed consent.
      But once we come of the age of reason; are we given the option to renounce our citizenship and end our use of the public services provided by the established civil society, or are we told that we will be sued for over 100 thousand dollars if we do not agree to potentially kill and die for the government if and when asked?
      Why do we permit our government to assume our permanent consent, blackmail us into murdering foreigners, and limit our rights to privacy and to defend ourselves?

Wisconsin’s new Republican-supported Castle Doctrine law provides that if a home owner injures someone who breaks into his home trying to kill him, the home owner may be sued to pay that person’s medical bills, so long as the home owner was engaging in criminal activity at the time, or the victim was a peace officer performing official duties. Democrats objected that the bill would provide too much leeway to home owners assessing the threats against them.
What the Democrats failed to see in this issue was that the rest of the bill – in concert with federal legislation like the PATRIOT Act and the 2012 N.D.A.A. – would do nothing to stop a federal agent from unconstitutionally writing his own search warrant, breaking into your home, enter into evidence your glass bong and your hundred-dollar receipt that you gave to an overseas charity that the government doesn’t like, coming after you with a gun, suing you to pay for any injuries he sustains trying to prevent you from defending yourself, charging you with providing material support to terrorists, and asking the Secretary of Defense to allow military personnel to place you in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely and without due-process access to legal representation.
I repeat, this is the policy of the Democrats; Democrats like Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who were recently grilled on the CIA / Homeland Security “Operation Fast and Furious”, which later became “Project Gunrunner”.
Imagine the American people’s surprise when they discover that these two Obama appointees conspired to assassinate Republican Federal District Court Judge John Roll and Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who were investigating the matter with a Congressman from West Texas.
While some have described President Obama as supporting gun control, murdering political figures while arming drug lords suggests an intentional relinquishment of control over weapons. But Democrats in the state legislature have been actively pro-gun-control.
When gun freedoms are too loose, a child may shoot his friend to death with his father’s shotgun, or a madman may shoot 30 people, and that is certainly very sad. But when gun controls are too tight, gun control proponents like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot may obliterate five percent of humanity, and that – my friends – is a tragedy.

It has been just under three months since the day a fifth of the unarmed audience of the Wisconsin State Assembly was arrested by armed security guards while their fellow audience members brandish plastic handguns in open mockery of their new-found temporary privilege to defend themselves, while Democrats failed to make the Republicans give up a little of the people’s leeway against criminals as well as the established, organized cadre of violent police and military agents that we call our duly-delegated sovereign.
The politician who votes to keep weapons out of any place – whether private or public – is sending a message to criminals that law-abiding citizens in such places will be guaranteed not to be able to defend themselves.
I will accept nothing less than my absolute freedom to defend myself against those who would seek to harm my person and describe my resistance as illegal competition against their exclusive monopoly power to force, compel, coerce, defraud, intimidate, and manipulate me.
The offender has made it clear that this is a battle based on power and strength; I have no delusions that giving up my right to stronger weapons and shields – whether real or symbolic – will inspire sympathy in him.

      But I mentioned the government’s monopoly force, an idea to which President Obama subscribes. This is the monopoly force of government that privileges the large, well-established, and centralized banks from fair competition with smaller, newer, and more community-oriented ones; that privileges large, well-established, and multinational companies from fair competition with smaller, newer, and community-oriented ones.
Despite their awareness of the roles of monopoly capital and monopoly government colluding to engineer the current economic crisis, most on the left have still neglected to examine the role of monopoly unionism in all this.

Gone are the days of dual- and multiple-unionism and wildcat strikes which were once the tactically-pure principles of the labor movement, uncorrupted by the desire of institutionalization and privilege conferred by coercive monopoly government.
This conflict was the reason for the 1924 split in the I.W.W., between those seeking political union privilege; and those who sought to refrain from using violence to compel others to accede to their demands, but instead to make employers and the public aware of and sympathetic to their concerns, and to spread information about the plight of the working man through peaceful discourse.
But the administration of the banker Franklin Roosevelt effectively ended this dispute; in 1935, his National Labor Relations Act outlawed wildcat strikes, and required management to negotiate with the agents authorized to represent their employees.
Certainly we can agree that when workers with more modest demands form their own rival union to compete with the established union in their workplace, this can undermine worker solidarity within that workplace. But when a more extreme segment of employees feel that the established union is being too modest, and desire to have a wildcat strike, the established union can bring charges against the more extreme workers, sacrificing their just demands in the name of getting things done.
Thus, we see the established unions undercutting the efforts of both the more modest and the more extreme workers, each group of which assuming the risks and responsibilities associated with their actions. It becomes evident that – primarily – the established unions seek not solidarity, but rather the entrenchment of their own exclusive power to represent workers; their monopoly power of representation.

To this day, the I.W.W. promotes dual unionism, and even goes so far as to recommend that non-unionized workers engage in solidarity unionism tactics, rather than to pursue, quote, “the legalistic strategies that have led us to the current mess”. Perhaps the I.W.W.’s humble anarchism explains why it claims just one-nine-hundredth as many members as the A.F.L.-C.I.O., one-fifth of whose members are associated with the public service and automobile industries which were bailed out under Bush and Obama.
Despite all his rolling-back of union privileges, Governor Walker has stated that he has no desire to use the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act to make Wisconsin a Right-to-Work state… and to the detriment of the labor movement. For history has shown that when and where union membership is optional and voluntary; union membership, employment, and wages tend to increase.
Now that we have discussed the dangers of using government force to grant monopoly privileges to oligarchical labor and capital, we are ready to understand how to undermine the very monopoly of force on which the government and its dependents rest.

The actions of the Obama Administration have shown an appeasing unwillingness to allow the governments and the states compete against the federal government to provide public services. The Administration has taken a similar attitude towards private enterprise.
I believe that the state governments, the private sector, and fledgling labor unions pose some of the most significant threats to the perception that the federal government is the most legitimate, moral, efficient, and qualified to provide public goods and services; and – as such – experimentation regarding their role competing against the federal government to do so should be encouraged. It is this competition that undermines the monopoly of government.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived at a point in American political economy when the majority of leftists have deviated from their socialist roots and acceded to the power of the established centralized, federal social democracy; even – sadly – the Mutualists, who have exalted both the free-market principle of competitive capital and the anarcho-syndicalist principle of competitive labor.
But to the extent to which an embrace of Mutualist anarchism would solve the problem of monopoly labor and capital, the problem of competing against monopoly government – specifically, centralized monopoly government – remains to be addressed; in particular, the monopoly power that Governor Walker and the Republicans currently have the potential to wield over regulating the benefits and negotiation privileges of government employees providing public services.
Make no mistake; the Democrats constitute no real challenge to the current Republican power monopoly. In fact, most if not all Democrats actually desire to entrench the government monopoly; namely, through increased taxation which would provide for the expansion of government cooperation with both established unions and – quite often – established capital. We would be hard pressed to find a single Democrat in power who votes to encourage competition against both established monopoly labor and monopoly capital.

But replace Governor Walker with a Democrat if you must. Replace him with a Democrat who wants to– even further than the Republicans do – chip away at your right to defend yourself against those who would seek to threaten violence against you for rightfully asserting that you never knowingly entered into a contract promising to give them as much money and blood they please for the rest of your life.
Or instead we can bring charges against our state governments, compelling them to decide whether the Statutes of Frauds violates the secret-ballot provisions in the state constitutions, or whether the secret-ballot by its very design flies in the face of basic principles of the Anglo-American common contract law; essentially, getting the states to declare whether their authority comes from us voluntarily giving up the right to make some of our decisions, or else getting them to admit that they are only based on domination and force.
Instead we can abandon these spectres of secret, coercive, monopolistic government, capital, and labor; and instead provide public goods and services through open, legitimate, local government; through charity and religious organizations; through consumer- and citizen- advocacy agencies; through gift-giving, bartering, trading, and sharing; through the efforts of small and local private businesses seeking to undermine the strength of the established multinational corporations and state-sponsored enterprises; and through direct-action general and work-to-rules strikes, picketing, boycotts, and confrontation of management by freely associating and disassociating segments of mutually sympathetic workers; lest we consign ourselves to manipulation by big-labor leaders, corporate lobbyists, and corrupt, well-paid career politicians in the national government who until this moment have used us as pawns to entrench their own wealth and power.
Instead we can revive the principle enshrined in the 10th Amendment – that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people – ushering in a new era, wherein the federal government’s grip on the affairs of the states and the people is loosened, permitting us to engage in political experimentation in which exalts participatory democracy and local governance over representative democracy and centralized governance, for only then may we learn to tolerate a diversity of administration of best practices, and come to discern for our own subjective purposes which combination of practices suits us best.
Let us require no teacher or health care worker to worry about his pay and benefits while toiling under the reign of a politician who doesn’t represent his political and economic interests. Let those who provide public goods and services – Republican or Democrat, libertarian or socialist – work to provide them in the way they see fit.
Achieve these goals, and you will have total liberty and equality of opportunity, without sacrificing a financially secure outcome for those who provide us safety, peace, and prosperity.



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

For more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 4, 2014

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

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

For more entries on transportation, transit, travel, and the automobile industry, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...