Showing posts with label sovereignty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sovereignty. Show all posts

Sunday, December 6, 2015

On Restoring American Sovereignty by Withdrawing from the United Nations


Originally Written on January 13th, 2011
As “Continued U.S. Membership in the United Nations
vs. the Restoration of American Sovereignty”

Edited on December 6th, 2015



I support ongoing attempts [rather, efforts] by Texas Representative Ron Paul[,] and an unfortunately infinitesimal enumeration of his Republican colleagues in the House[,] to pen and pass an American Sovereignty Restoration Act, the most recent iteration of which was House Resolution 1146, proposed during the 111th Congress.
The legislation was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs (formerly known as the Committee on International Relations) on February 24th, 2009, but failed to receive significant support, and died in committee. It has also been referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. Similar legislation authored by Representative Paul once garnered eighteen co-sponsors, and at a 2007 event in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Representative Paul was applauded for voicing his support of withdrawal from the United Nations.
The specific language contained in the most recent iteration of the bill would repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Act of 1946; the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act of 1947; and the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973.
The legislation would effectively end U.S. membership in the U.N.. It would also direct the [p]resident to terminate U.S. participation in the U.N. and its affiliated agencies, commissions, and bodies; mandate that the U.N. cease to occupy and use all U.S. Government property and facilities; require closure of the U.S. Mission to the U.N.; repeal U.S. participation in the World Health Organization; and bar U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command.
Additionally, the act would prohibit the authorization of funds for U.S. contribution to the United Nations and / or its military operations, and the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation.
The U.N. Participation Act was ratified and signed without [c]onstitutional authority because U.S. government officials only have authority to sign treaties between sovereign and independent nations, and not to subordinate the American people to the U.N. Charter, which is not a treaty but an illegitimate constitution.
The U.N. Security Council has been utilized by past presidents to bypass congressional authority in order to deploy U.S. Armed Forces. Free speech and the right to bear arms are constitutionally protected freedoms which may be obliterated by encroachment by the United Nations. Also, the imposition of global standards of economic and social justice by international agencies and tribunals is undesirable. The United States funds an entire fifth of the U.N.’s budget, and recently, an attempt was made to halve U.S. monetary contribution to that body.
As of 2006, 26% of the American public favored withdrawal from the U.N., and only 31% of Americans had a favorable opinion of that body. Withdrawal has more Republican support, especially by independent Republicans, than Democratic support.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 20, 2014

On China, Global Warming, and Population

Written November 18th, 2010



Most of the Republicans are completely out of touch with the mainstream of the reasonable American populace. I'll admit that I agree with them that there is not a scientific consensus on global warming, but going so far as to pull out the Bible to prove that God won't flood the world again? This is not science.

Whether mankind is affecting global carbon dioxide levels does not matter; arguing this point is a waste of time. It is politics and not governance; it distracts from doing what needs to be done. Who cares whether we sign the Kyoto Protocol? We can accomplish the same things without relinquishing any degree of our sovereignty. Why should we spend our time lobbying the government to impress the international community? What really matters is that we utilize government to compel those who pollute to compensate the people whose property they damage. Enforce contracts, keep people from hurting one another. That's the whole purpose of the government, nothing less, nothing more.

People who lead the Western lifestyle consume five times as much as the average human being. An American woman who does everything she can to reduce her carbon footprint still increases her impact on the environment nearly forty-fold simply by giving birth twice. Conservative Christian Republicans. Be fruitful and multiply my ass!

And these are the people who are bitching the most about how Communist China is going to own us within decades, some even going so far as to say we should cut off all trade with them. China, with its 1.3 billion citizens, passed the one-child-only policy. Highly populated countries like China are not the ones who need to reduce their populations the most.

Western civilizations like the United States and the European Union need to reduce their populations. The 300 million Americans consume about as much as the 1.3 billion Chinese.

Sure, a rapidly-industrializing nation like China, with its low environmental and consumer-safety standards, and its lack of concern for human, labor, and political rights, needs to be dealt with firmly, but what, are we going to impose sanctions on a fifth of the world's population, let them think we want to drag them into World War III just because of a few human rights violations?

Hell no! We're going to continue to borrow two-thirds of a trillion dollars from them every year until we can get our own population and industry under control, and transform ourselves into the economic and social good example for the rest of the world that we once were!

Mitt Romney has bigamists in his ancestry, and the Republican leadership is worried about losing jobs and industry to China. Give me a break.


For more entries on environment and climate change, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/cap-and-trade-legislation.html

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


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: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Molinari Meets Stirner

There is a market in legitimate coercion, and the federal government wants to monopolize. It horizontally integrates with other States through internationalism and globalism, and it vertically integrates with state and local governments, making them into their ostensibly co-sovereign subsidiaries.

"...the production of security should... remain subject to the law of free competition... no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity." - Gustave de Molinari

The State is a governance corporation which has monopoly over permit and charter, and thus wields the power to contractually enjoin those who would compete against it. The State thereby takes advantage of the fact that order, security, protection, defense, judgment, justice, and civility are high-demand commodities, for which the average person is willing to pay dearly, whether in freedom, in money and resources, or in both.

The State - in the quasi-infinite knowledge that comes with the territory of those who seek to monopolize information - wants to maintain a monopoly over the legitimate allocation of social and economic welfare, because it believes that, as the representative of the people en masse, it is the only entity capable of judging what is in "the people"'s best interest.

It professes to give voice and effect to the interests of the individual, while undermining the ability of the individual to judge for himself whether he has retained a choice between his undiminished set of alternatives, and how and in what manner he may wish to act in accordance with the desires of others.




Right-conflationists tend to interpret the works of Ayn Rand as meaning that there is a kind of moral imperative to act according to one's own self-interest, and to be more self-interested, and also to reject the existence of reciprocal altruism out of a tendency to reject selfless altruism without promise of reward, all of which can express themselves as an imperative to be more selfish, and to only give to others if you think it may benefit yourself.

Acting in pursuit of self-interest is not so much a moral imperative as much it is a prerequisite for the scientific study of rational economic behavior. It is assumed that individuals act in accordance with the pursuit of their own self-interest under rational expectations. I feel that seeming to promote this pursuit as imperative often fails to account for determination of actions which could be described as irrational due to expectations based on incomplete and unique possession of necessary information and conscientiousness. Appearing to tell people to behave rationally only enables the voodoo economic scientists to manipulate us and control the circumstances around us better.




The establishment economic scientists are studying us,
and they think their manipulation is part of the experiment.
For their voodoo science to work, they need to assume
rational behavior and local non-satiation of preferences.

They think that the assumptions of the experiment
are conditions which they need to create
in the laboratory which is the tax-farm society.

And so they instill in us a desire to behave "rationally"
(i.e., in accordance with their own expectations)
and create local non-satiation of preferences
through artificial shortages and manufactured desire.

Their experiment can be ruined if we act "irrationally"
- keeping in mind that roots of most integers are irrational,
and that to be radical is to "get to the root of things",
and also that "rationality" is defined as
"the pursuit of self-interest with rational expectations" -

by tempering our desires and making thorough use of resources
- with an underlying goal of alleviating the symptoms of
the establishment of written contractual permit and charter law
to uphold unmerited claims to private and public property rights
which perpetuate existing artificial shortages -

to build a society based on voluntary cooperation and voluntary interaction,
thereby transforming all taxable commercial interchange into gifts,
being that exchanges which both parties do not see as beneficial would not occur.

Let us expect what it is unreasonable to expect:
that we may come to structure social relationships
around the desire to rationally serve the interests of others,
in reciprocity and mutuality.

Let us free the market to abolish capitalism.
Let us see the abolition of capitalism as a market service,
and that that market should be freed, and opened to competitors.
Let us not pretend that capitalism can be replaced by
monopolists, oligarchs and autocrats.

 Let us reject too the idea of a revolutionary workers' state
- which simply replaces the existing system with another unitary Leviathan -
being that Molinari rejected communism as "an extension of monopoly".

We must have a revolution which is freely participated-in
by proponents of the various ideologies which oppose so-called capitalism
(really neo-corporatism, integral nationalism, tripartism).

We must have Revolution by a Union of Egoists and of Egoist Collectives;
a society comprised of societies which perceive an admittedly non-corporeal oneness.



For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:


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

For more entries on social services, public planning, and welfare, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/taxpayer-funded-benefits-for.html

For more entries on theory of government, 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...