Tag Archives: Consent

Ten Rules for Dealing with the “Po-Lice”


Police Encounter (Photo credit: Huzefa Mogri Photography)

dislike some elements of this video because it seems to be conditioning all of us to be cooperative “house niggers” when we confront the police/massas.  It teaches people to be somewhat docile and overly polite, even when the police are unreasonable.  It’s tough to keep your cool when you feel your rights have been ignored or violated.  But the video says we must do so as the first requirement for dealing with a police encounter.

The video is right.  My instinct is wrong.  As much as I might like to give the officer a “piece of my mind,” it’s probably better to stay calm, make no aggressive “rants”–and take the time to sue the S.O.B. at some later date.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on November 5, 2012 in Consent, Fascism, Police Abuse, Police State, Video


Tags: , , ,


This image was selected as a picture of the we...

Founding Fathers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The most radical statement in 2,000 years of western political history is found in the third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence”:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Declaration that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights is the foundation for individual sovereignty and government as a public servant rather than a public master.

The third sentence of the Declaration is almost as profound:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The first half of that sentence declares the fundamental purpose of government as envisioned by the Founders:  to secure to every man, woman and even unborn child their God-given, unalienable Rights.

The second half expresses another principle that is fundamental to freedom:  governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Thus, the concept of “consent” is fundamental to the foundation of governments established by the Founders.

But what, exactly, does consent mean?  Can I run stop signs if I don’t “consent” to obey traffic laws?  Can I avoid paying income taxes by simply withholding my consent to be bound by Title 26 of the United States Code?

The concept of consent is both fundamental our de jure form of government—and extremely hard to grasp and apply.  OK—you do have the right to consent or not to consent, but you don’t have the right to consent or not to particular laws . . . or do you?

The concept of consent is particularly important if a fundamental hypothesis advocated on this blog—the difference between The State (the States of the Union) and “this state” (an administrative division of a singular territory of the United States)—is valid.   If “this state” is a real governmental structure that exists as an alternative to The State, it appears that we may only be subject to the laws of “this state” based on some manifestation of our consent to submit to “this state”.

Thus, if we could more fully understand the concept of consent, we might be able to avoid being subject to the laws of “this state”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , ,

Jury Refuses to Convict for Marijuana Possession


English: Removal of liquor during prohibition

Image via Wikipedia

A Montana judge had to dismiss charges against a man caught with marijuana.  Why?  Because the judge couldn’t find a jury willing to convict.


Our government imposed a prohibition on alcohol with the 18th Amendment in A.D. 1919.  The result was enormous profits in booze, an increase in alcohol use, and an increase in violent crime.  That prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment in A.D. 1933.


I’m told that the real reason the government ended the prohibition on alcohol, was not to reduce the increased use, profits or crime that resulted from prohibition.  The reason prohibition died is because jurors refused to convict bootleggers, booze smugglers and the operators of speakeasy’s.


Once the people, when called to serve as jurors, simply refused to convict the alleged “criminals,” there was no longer a reason to prosecute, and the underlying law became void and of no effect.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , ,

The Tiny Dot

Scatter Dots Diagram

Image via Wikipedia

Larken Rose has produced a 7 minute video to illustrate the relationship the between government, taxpayers and tax collectors.

The fundamental point is that the income tax could not be enforced without the people’s consent.  I.e., we are millions; they are are thousands.  We’ve been conned into fearing the “little man behind” the curtain.  In fact, we are big enough, we are strong enough, to stop the oppression any time we want to get up off the couch and stand up for our rights.

The government knows this to be true.  The People (mostly) do not.


Posted by on March 9, 2011 in Government as Gangsters, Income Tax, Video


Tags: , , ,