Misdirected Rage

Have you ever wondered why some people are so on edge and downright rude these days? I mean think about it. The road rage we hear about and people going “postal” over what seems like a trivial inconvenience. It seems like there is a ticking time-bomb inside so many of us just waiting to explode at the slightest provocation. We give someone an obscene gesture because they cut us off in traffic. We fume when we have to wait in line at the grocery check out. The examples are numerous.
Why are people’s tempers so incendiary lately? My theory is that it is a case of misdirected anger. Let me explain. I believe that most people focus their anger at the easiest and most accessible target. For example, if you have a complaint about, say, the rising cost of your cable bill. You call the customer service department of your cable company and let the representative at the other end of the line have it. You take your frustrations out on that person and it makes you feel a little bit better. You feel like you’ve done something. But is your cable bill going to go down? Absolutely not. Why? Because the customer service representative is not the person who controls the price of cable. They are paid to listen to our complaints and maybe even endure some of our verbal abuse. The end result after we hang up the phone is that we usually feel better because we made ourselves heard. But, have we accomplished anything other than to relieve a little pent up frustration? I would have to reply with a resounding “No!” Our cable bill will not go down and more than likely those who determine the rates will never even be aware of our complaint.
What it comes down to is that people are frustrated by the entities that have power over them and are a major factor in determining both their financial and personal destinies, the greatest of which is the government. People feel as if they have so little control over their lives and finances because of the usurpation over them by the government. The government, like a cancer, has managed to metastasize itself into so much of our lives until we find that our vitality has been completely drained and we resign ourselves to the palliative of apathy and passivity. Why do we choose this pain management approach instead of serious invasive surgery of the malignant tumor that is our government? Because we are overwhelmed with a sense of hopelessness and despair that we can make a difference and regain control over our lives and destiny. But, the anger and resentment is always lurking right under the surface, ready to rear its ugly head at the slightest provocation.
What we need to realize is that the government does not have our best interest in mind, but the best interest of themselves and the big businesses who can afford to send lobbyists to Washington to “appeal” to Congress to pass laws that benefit them. Think, for example, of the seatbelt law. I hate to sound jaded and I know that the government would hope you would write my ideas off as such, but if you think about it, this really is a country for the wealthy. The government likes to remind all of us that we have a voice in how our government is run. Well, they are right about that. We all do have a voice, but we have little or no influence because we have no financial backing. The laws imposed on us by the government are for the most part passed to benefit those in power and those with money and influence. In fact, on the hill those words are synonymous. Money is influence. Does congress want to prove me wrong? Here’s how they can: I challenge Congress to refuse to entertain lobbyists and their payoffs right now and prove to us that big money doesn’t run this country. To give every American subject, I’m sorry, citizen, an equal voice. Whether I earn $15,000 dollars a year flipping burgers or $200,000 and own my own business. Folks, it’s not going happen and for the most part, we will not do anything about but complain and misdirect our rage at the most convenient target as we have been. Rudeness and road rage will continue and the level of violence will continue to increase. People will find release more and more in alcohol and drugs to escape the reality that they have had so much control over their destiny taken from them “for their own good” and to “protect them from themselves” And the vicious circle will continue as more laws are passed to restrict us and lull us into an ever deeper stupor of passivity.
The government’s true vocation is in fact not to pass laws, but to create criminals. Let me explain: Ordinary Joe Citizen is a decent law-abiding and taxpaying citizen. He has no criminal record. He votes in every election because, in his naivety, he believes it still makes a difference. He’s never stolen or cheated on his taxes. He’s a quiet, God-fearing man and a model citizen. Now, our Mr. Citizen enjoys bungee jumping off high bridges. It is his way of feeling young and vibrant and a diversion from his daily routine. He takes several bungee jumping excursions per year and looks forward to each one with great relish and anticipation.
One day, Congress passes a law that bungee jumping is now illegal. This law is the result of several years of lobbying by the insurance industry in which one million dollars was spent. The insurance companies have had to pay way too much in claims because of injuries and even a few deaths as the result of bungee jumping accidents and it was really beginning to cut into their bottom line. So the time and money expended on the lobbying effort was considered to be a worthwhile investment by the insurance industry. Incidentally, the increase in premiums as a result of the bungee jumping accidents will stand despite the fact that bungee jumping is now illegal and claims for such will drop considerably. A nice additional benefit for the insurance companies, huh?
This reminds me of what is being done with gasoline prices, but that’s another article my friends.
Okay, let’s return to our friend Joe Citizen. He has a much anticipated bungee jumping trip planned for the day after the new law goes into effect. What to do? Today Mr. Citizen has no criminal record, tomorrow if he takes the trip, he will in fact become a criminal. See how the government, with the help quite often of big business, creates criminals?
If Mr. Citizen goes on the trip, he is in fact a law breaker and subject to criminal punishment. If he scraps the trip and all future trips, a very enjoyable part of his life will forever be changed. Our Mr. Citizen may even become very angry and resentful that his one form of recreation that he really enjoys has been taken from him. He may become irritable and take it out on his wife and children. He may start to drink now because he doesn’t want to be a law breaker and go bungee jumping. No way, he needs to be a good citizen and obey the laws.
This is just one example of how resentment is created by the overbearing oppressiveness of the government I hesitate to use the following illustration because I don’t want to be mistaken as a member of the religious right. The fact is, I am not a religious person at all. However, since it is my belief that the majority of this nation’s citizens do believe in God, I think the following illustration is appropriate and worth any risk of me being labeled a religious fanatic. If God almighty believed that only ten commandments are sufficient to regulate and guide human conduct, why does the government think we need thousands of laws to keep us in line? I believe most of these laws were designed for no other purpose than to keep the government in power and to ensure that every cent that is earned by the hard work of each American is accounted for and taxed. That’s right, my friends, the government just can’t bear the thought that maybe we might earn a few bucks that they haven’t gotten their “share” of by taxation. Take for example property taxes. Suppose you live in a home that you inherited from your parents. A home possibly that has been in your family for generations and has long ago been paid for. Now, lets say through no fault of your own, you came upon some hard times. Perhaps you’ve just lost your job because the company decided to pack up shop and move to Mexico where they can hire cheaper labor and continue to sell their products to Americans at the same price they charged when they were paying more for production. Or, maybe a huge corporation bought the small company you worked for and then restructured and your loyal services were no longer required. Suppose it takes awhile to find a job that can allow you to live the kind of lifestyle you were accustomed to and as a result you were forced to make choices as to what you can afford and what needs to be given up. Perhaps it comes down to paying your property taxes or buying groceries or medications since you no longer can afford health insurance. So you default on your tax bill to buy the necessities and one day the government comes in and puts your home up for auction. After all, they need the tax money to fund public education. But, you need a roof over your head! My question is twofold: Firstly, If something you “own” can be taken, how can you really be said to own it at all? Doesn’t ownership imply that the thing owned belongs to you and can only become someone else’s property by your agreement of sale or by theft? Well, when the government takes your property, I don’t think it was an agreement of sale, so it must be theft. Secondly, if the government feels justified to steal your property and sell it to recover lost tax dollars, why can’t you apply the same justification to your own actions and steal someone else’s home because after all, you need a roof over your head? Or maybe you can go to the local supermarket and steal some food because you have to eat. And, as important as public education is, it is not a necessity to survival like food and shelter are. Do you see what happens when you apply that kind of justification to theft? Or is it only okay for the government to steal from its citizens because they are more powerful? That kind of “might makes right” philosophy is for savages and not the enlightened, but, we are talking about politicians here.
So my request to all in congress is this: Kindly back down and leave us Americans alone to get by in an already difficult economic climate. Keep your hands out of our wallets and quit trying to regulate our lives. Simply, go find some other way to exercise your lust for power, or offset your sexual inadequacies, or whatever your motivation is for forcing all your unnecessary laws and restrictions on the population.
As for the rest of us, next time someone is rude to you, give them the benefit of the doubt and realize that their anger is more than likely really directed at the government and its annoying habit of foisting itself into every aspect of our lives and robbing us of our vitality and resources. Then just go resume the position and take it like a good citizen

Dispossessed And Mute Just As The State Wants You

I recently listened to an excellent lecture by Professor, David Harvey about accumulation by dispossession. How Capitalists foreclose on the homes of people who cannot afford their mortgage payments because perhaps they’ve lost their jobs, or are going through a major health crisis, family break up, market fluctuation or whatever reason. He also spoke about the vulnerability of home owners and how because of their economic precariousness they may be more prone to accept unfair treatment because one who has a mortgage is one who had better not make trouble. He says that the government could have bailed out the people who were facing foreclosure which in the process would have also helped Wall Street by paying off “toxic loans.”  But rather than help the individuals facing foreclosure, the state, as it always does, chose to help only the bankers and financial institutions; the state’s true constituency. By doing so the financial institutions can continue to lend money and of course continue to make profits through interest charges. But is there perhaps a more sinister reason why the state supports the financial institutions and not the people?  Perhaps the state wants people to be in debt and therefore demoralized because people who are in debt and live hand to mouth are not going to cause trouble. These are the kind of people who will stay quiet and keep a low profile. And timid, low-profile and docile citizens are just what the state wants.

Downsizing And Cancer

Have you ever considered that American companies that leave this country and go set up shop elsewhere such as Mexico or Singapore, in order to obtain cheaper labor are a lot like cancer? There really are several parallels between the two:

The most obvious is the dread and fear we have of both. Just like when cancer strikes, when a person is faced with losing their job due to downsizing and or because their company decides to stop producing products here in favor of production over seas, the employee is faced with the uncertainty of how they will survive. How will they pay their bills and keep their family fed? They wonder what their chances are, especially if they are older, of finding employment with the same level of pay they have been used to. Many facing unemployment in this manner have even required counseling and medications due to the anxiety it causes.

Another similarity between a diagnosis of cancer and this type of job loss is the anger. After fear and disbelief have run their course, anger begins to take their place. The cancer victim wonders why he or she has been dealt this blow. Perhaps they have never smoked a day in their life. They don’t drink excessive alcohol and try to watch their diet and exercise. But, despite all their efforts, their body has decided to turn against itself and produce and reproduce rouge cells to overtake the good cells.
Not much differently, the person faced with losing his or her job asks the same question. Maybe they have been a loyal employee of that company for decades. Maybe they are just a few years away from retirement. Maybe their work and attendance records are superb. Perhaps in the past the company even demanded mandatory overtime from them. Now the company executives determine they can save money by making their product in Mexico and this employee, this human being who gave his or her life to the company is now seen as nothing but a liability to be eliminated.

Still another similarity between cancer and job layoffs is the apparent arbitrariness of it. Just like cancer doesn’t discriminate when it strikes, so companies do not discriminate or care who is left behind when they close shop in the United States. Both the hard working, loyal employee and the goof off are left to stand in the unemployment line. Layoffs, like death, have become the great equalizer. Funny how we were all taught as children that if we play by the rules and behave we will have success. I now believe that is just a way to instill fear in people from the very beginning while they are still impressionable in order keep them under control as they age. I say that because playing by the rules does not guarantee you success. Cancer strikes people who take care of their bodies just as often as it attacks those who don’t. And job layoffs due to downsizing and corporate greed strike the loyal and the loafer indiscriminately. Why? Because the employee and his or her loyalty and hard work or the lack thereof are not even on the table when a company executives decide to downsize. The only thing on the table is how much money can be saved and how much profit can be gained and the employee be damned. So, next time you tell a small child that if they are good and follow the rules they will have success, make sure they know that only applies to successfully crossing the street in one piece by following the rule of looking both ways first, not for keeping a job when they grow up.

Perhaps the most illusive parallel between cancer and job downsizing is that in addition to the harm they inflict on their victims, they are chaotic and ultimately self defeating in nature which makes them irrational. Cancer is parasitic and is only able to grow and spread by feeding off the victim. But once the person dies, the cancer dies. That is the only thin “comfort” that one who has watched helplessly as cancer ravaged a loved one can cling to. The killer has died with it’s victim.

In a less obvious and indeed more long term way, job downsizing will ultimately “kill” the very company that chose to take the shameful path of abandoning the employees who contributed to it’s success. Consider the whole economy as a body and employees as healthy cells. The treasonous companies that betray their employees and leave the country that sustains them are the cancer cells. Just as more and more cancer cells destroy the healthy cells, more and more layoffs leave less employed and more unemployed or under employed in their wake. Just as the body becomes weaker as more good tissue is overtaken by cancerous tissue, so our economy becomes weaker as more people become unemployed and unable to purchase goods, etc. Finally, like the cancer victim, our economy succumbs and so do the treasonous companies who left the country to save a few bucks, because nobody will be able to afford their products. And while we mourn our lost livelihoods, we celebrate the demise of the greedy corporations that took the easy road to short term profit and long term death.

Interestingly, there is also a parallel between chemotherapy, the most common treatment for cancer and our government. I am not, nor do I pretend to be a doctor, but I’ve known enough people stricken by cancer to have learned that chemotherapy destroys good cells in the process of trying to destroy cancer cells. Parenthetically, I have never understood why, at a time when the body is being ravaged by the horrible disease of cancer, the treatment prescribed should be so destructive to the body and its immune system. It seems very counterproductive to me and may be why chemo has such a bad track record at ultimately healing cancer victims. Or maybe I just don’t understand the process correctly. But, alas, back to my illustration. Government intervention into the whole corporate downsizing phenomenon is about as effective as chemo is in ultimately curing cancer. Why is it? My guess is that the government receives major contributions from these corporations. Think about it, it isn’t your small mom and pop companies that downsize. It’s the big corporations, many of which are big contributors to the political machine.

Anyone who is familiar with my writings knows that I am a big proponent of individual rights and against government intrusion into our lives. But corporations are not individuals. It’s interesting that a government like ours presently, that just loves to regulate and pass laws on individuals, has not outlawed American companies moving out of this country and leaving financially and emotionally devastated former employees in the lurch. Ponder that? 

 

Payment For Services Situational, Not Moral According To PennDOT

PennDOT is confirming my belief that money, being an abstract thing with its value determined by fiat, is in essence unable to be stolen or owed. Sure government and corporations don’t want you to think of it that way because the belief in indebtedness is one of the most useful tools to keep people demoralized and compliant. But the fact is that as long as money is in use in some way, it is in the public sphere and therefore public property. The end result of this is that payment of services is situational, not a moral issue. In other words if circumstances necessitate that you are unable to pay for services, particularly non essential, nonpayment does not make you immoral. It actually makes you prudent, especially given the current economic climate. Now, let me explain how PennDOT revealed indirectly that this is theory true was and that it is a standard practice for them in their dealings with their “customers,” Pennsylvania drivers:

I recently contacted PennDOT concerning their practice of embossing the state website address on the bottom of the license plates. Having the state web address displayed on our license plates makes all of us advertisers for the state web site every time we drive, or even when we are parked for that matter.  I wanted to inquire as to how PennDOT could reduce us to a means to an end by making us advertising agents. I also planned to find out how we could go about receiving compensation for said advertising.

The representative from PennDOT who I corresponded with was one Stephen Tomassini. He informed me that PennDOT has “a prerogative to include public information on the plates.”He also said that drivers “impliedly consented” to be used as advertisers for the state when we registered our vehicles with the Commonwealth.  As for compensation, Mr. Tomassini stated that drivers have “no compensable interest” in the content of the plate since plates will be surrendered to the state when their authorized (italics mine) use is discontinued.

In order to reply to Mr. Tomassini I did some research on the implied consent law which he alluded to and discovered that it is primarily used as a loophole for police to be able to force drivers suspected of being intoxicated to submit to chemical sobriety tests. It did not state anywhere that it can be used to force drivers to provide free advertising for a state website. Although I would imagine that if pressed, the vague and ambiguous nature of an implied consent law could be used to justify anything the lawmakers and their mindless, robotic agents say it justifies.

As for Tomassini’s shallow and pitiful answer that we drivers have “no compensable interest”  in the plate’s content and therefore the state does not owe us compensation, his and by extension the state’s logic is flawed. Let me illustrate with an example of a billboard company. Just as the state owns our license plates, so the billboard company owns the billboards. A certain advertiser may only advertise on a particular billboard for a period of a few months, whereas we maintain the same license plate for years.  Additionally, the fact that the advertiser’s advertisement on the billboard will be removed and replaced with another advertisement for a completely different company does not mean that the former advertiser does not still have to pay the billboard company for the time that it held their advertisement. This makes sense to most of us because we have been taught that we must pay for services we have received out of moral obligation.  But according to Mr. Tomassini and PennDOT we have been incorrect and payment for services is situational and I’d add a matter of priority.

 

Suddenly the entire issue of not being paid for the advertising we provide for the web site seems trivial since the greater lesson that Tomassini and PennDOT are teaching us is that payment for services should be completely removed from the arena of morality and placed in the arena of pragmatism. If advertising for the state web site still gets under your skin, I suggest using duct tape to cover the web address part of your license plate. And you can always do what I plan to do and withhold your annual vehicle registration payment. Mr Tomassini and PennDOT will not mind at all since they demonstrated quite clearly to us that payment for services is situational.

 

What The Social Contract Looks Like

Although I am fairly certain no natural born American citizen ever expressly agreed to the Social Contract to be governed, it would appear that most politicians believe their authority over us is still justified based on our implied consent. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, this would seem sensible as it would probably be a logistical nightmare to obtain expressed consent from every single American without employing  a major propaganda scheme to convince us that it would most definitely be in our best interest to approve. This is not to say that the government could not pull off such a ploy using semantic tricks, double talk and outright lies. They have become quite accomplished at doing just that.  That is exactly what was done with the passage of the Homeland Security Act.  Most Americans were more than happy to give up essential liberties in exchange for “safety” completely disregarding the warnings of Benjamin Franklin. And incidentally, do you feel safer? I’d really like to know.

I mentioned that the enemy’s…. whoops…. I mean the  Government’s belief that our implied consent is sufficient justification for them to usurp…… whoops, damn there I go again… I mean govern us is sensible from a pragmatic standpoint. Pragmatism is a good thing when it comes to determining whether I will vacation in New Jersey or take that sea cruise I’ve been wanting to take. The pragmatic thing to do would be look at factors such as cost, travel time, etc. and base my decision accordingly.  Also, when most of us as individuals make decisions based on sheer pragmatism, they are usually decisions that will effect us. They are also generally not decisions of major life-changing importance.  But the decision to make something as important as our consent to government power be based on an implied consent because it is easier and more expedient is unacceptable. And additionally, it was the government itself that decreed this, not we the governed. That is arbitrary and I would go so far as to say tyrannical. The government, using that logic, could just as easily decree that everyone should submit to being euthanized at age sixty five since from a strictly pragmatic standpoint that could have very positive effects on the economy and also it would be a considered a solution to the Social Security problem. Think about it, what is to stop the government from doing just that? When justification of power is based solely on  pragmatism as the guiding principle, such a scenario could very well become a reality some day because that’s exactly how the government got away with justifying their power and very existence on our implied consent in the first place! 

Anyway,  my main goal in this post is to show my readers what the social contract would look like if we indeed had a copy of it stored away in a safe box somewhere. Francois Tremblay on his excellent site Simply Anarchy  has taken the time to put just such a contract together and I would say it is pretty damn accurate to real life. I wanted to hyperlink it here but for some reason I wasn’t able. Until I figure out the problem, I will just copy and paste it below.  

Social Contract 

Between an individual and the United States Government 

• Whereas I wish to reside on the North American continent, and
• Whereas The United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and
• Whereas tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,I voluntarily agree to the following terms:

Section 1:

I will surrender to the Government a percentage of my property. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my financial transactions.

Section 2:

Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the Government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

Section 3:

I will limit my behavior as demanded by the Government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Govenment. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government’s definition of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

Section 4:

In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

Section 5:

The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America that it controls. Also, the Government will Permit me to speak freely, subject to the limits of the Government’s Congress and Supreme Court.

Section 6:

The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

Section 7:

The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

Section 8:

The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be miniscule. I agree not to hold liable any elected Government officials for acting against my best interests and/or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

Section 9:

I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any and all property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this Contract at any time at its own whim.

 

___________________________________________________________
Signature (signed Voluntarily, With Prejudice and with All Rights Waived)

__________________________________________________
Date

My Correspondence With A State Representative Concerning The Moral Justification Of Government Power

I recently e-mailed my state representative to inquire of her as to how the state in which I reside, Pennsylvania to be exact, has the moral justification to govern me considering I did not ever give express consent to be governed by the wonderful Commonwealth (what a misnomer; wealth is hardly common in Pennsylvania unless you are a politician or corporate CEO) of Pennsylvania. Well I thought it would be interesting if I published here at Consent Withdrawn what the back and forth written dialog between myself and my illustrious Representative so all my readers could read for themselves and become educated as to just how weak of a moral position the state has for governing over us. Here we go:

From: Consent Withdrawn <consentwithdrawn@yahoo.com>
Subject: Consent Question
To: “Mauree Gingrich” <mgingric@pahousegop.com>
Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 7:58 PM

Dear Representative Gingrich,   I am writing to ask a basic question that I imagine most people have not considered; indeed I had not really thought it through until recently after becoming acquainted with the writings of some influential political thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke and Lysander Spooner. Our government is based on the social contract theory of government, which means the government derives its moral justification to govern by consent of the governed. Jefferson wrote as much in the Declaration of Independence. Now my question that I’d really like an answer to is when and in what manner did I consent? Let me give an example. The lease to my apartment is a contract which explains the terms and conditions of renting the apartment. By signing the lease, I have made a contractual agreement with my landlord. I have given my expressed consent. When have I done that with the government? Where is the copy of that contract with my signature?  I eagerly await your answer.   Steve *******   >>> Consent Withdrawn <consentwithdrawn@yahoo.com> 3/16/2009 6:18 PM >>> Dear Representative Gingrich,   I am re-sending my e-mail of March 6th because I have not received an answer from your office. This was NOT a rhetorical question.   Thanks, Steve ******   From: Mauree Gingrich <Mgingric@pahousegop.com> Subject: Re: Fw: Consent Question To: “Consent Withdrawn” <consentwithdrawn@yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 5:42 PM My apologies, Mr. ******.  I do not recall receiving your original email. I am rarely called upon as a legislator to discuss the merits of one political philosophy over another.  Nonetheless, I will address what I hope is the heart of your inquiry. By way of addressing expressed consent of the governed: I would first note that to qualify the social contract theory, it is not actually necessary to achieve expressed consent.  Implied consent has been noted by a majority of scholars to include merely taking up residency in a governed nation and making the decision not to move.  This does not mean, however, that most Americans do not give expressed consent in some form or another.  I would argue that by obtaining and maintaining a driver license in the state of PA you are giving expressed consent to be governed by the Driver License Compact, which is an agreement between 46 states for the “assurance of uniform and predictable treatment of drivers by treating offenses committed in other states as though they had been committed in the home state.”  This, in and of itself, is but one method that we all give expressed consent to be governed.  At the very least, by not taking up residency elsewhere (which is always our choice), it would be hard to argue against implied consent. I hope that I have adequately shared my position on this particular philosophical logic. If you feel this issue is unresolved, I can only recommend that you seek further assistance from the legal community.     From: Consent Withdrawn <consentwithdrawn@yahoo.com> Subject: Consent Question To: “Mauree Gingrich” <mgingric@pahousegop.com> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 10:58 AM Dear Representative Gingrich,   Thank you for your reply. I am not completely satisfied with your answer however. Would implied consent be acceptable in the purchasing of a home or any other agreement among two or more individuals where a contract is used? Why would a contract between an individual and his/her government be treated differently?  Especially when it may be the most far reaching contract anyone would ever be a party to.   Implied consent just doesn’t work for me and I know I’m not alone in that.   And what of the scope of the implied consent? Is it all or nothing? Does consent to some of it necessarily mean one must consent to all of it?    And who decided that implied consent was sufficient, if in fact it is? Was it the government itself that decreed that implied consent is enough? What would be the difference then if I decreed that I wish to build a stadium in my backyard and I assume the implied consent of my neighbors because they haven’t moved away even though my stadium is an eyesore to them. Would that work Representative Gingrich? Who benefits from implied consent? The government or the governed?   What about consent withdrawal? Does withdrawing my consent mean I must move to another country? Am I not a sovereign individual whether I live in the US or France? The government may be sovereign over land, but how can it claim sovereignty over an individual? I believe one can be a member of a community or society without being ruled by that society as long as they do not harm anyone else. The need to rule or govern individuals appears to be a sickness to me, a deficiency in the one who governs that can only be satisfied by usurpation. Perhaps all politicians need serious psychotherapy.   As for the drivers license, having to consent to the compact is the equivalent to a coerced agreement since driving for most of us is not a option but a necessity. How is that different from the gunpoint confession?   Finally as to referring me to the legal community, with all due respect I see that as a cop out and a ploy to get out of truly dealing with my question. Aren’t you a lawmaker? Who better to answer questions of law?   In conclusion I would recommend a reading of Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” I have included a link for your convenience. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html   Thank you, Steve *****   Now I will be the first to admit that I did not obtain expressed consent from Representative Gingrich before publishing here the e-mails she sent me. However, her implied consent by having responded to my e-mail on the public Internet would be, according to her logic, sufficient enough consent for me to publish her e-mails. I also plan to e-mail her a copy of this entry.   One more observation: If implied consent is all that is necessary in the social contract, does that mean it is all the is necessary in any other contract? And if not, why? Representative Gingrich did not provide an answer to that question but instead directed me to seek help from the “law community” What a cop out Mauree!! I am still waiting for an answer and I imagine now that many more who read my blog may be as well.

My Anarchism

I think it appropriate to explain my particular anarchist philosophy, prefacing with the caveat that I adopt a Heraclitean view of  the universe. Believing all reality is dynamic and in process, so should be thought and ideas. Therefore I would expect that my viewpoint would evolve. This evolution however should only be in methodology, not in principle. I am committed to the principle of anarchism as I see no other system of political thought that holds humanity’s highest goals and aspirations as its primary purpose and which in doing so promotes the greatest possibility for happiness, equality and individual expression without coercion. 

 

I am an individualist anarchist with socialist leanings and in retrospect I believe I may have always been an anarchist or at least had latent anarchist tendencies in me even as a youngster. I’ve always had a disdain for authority as well as a very strong sense of justice; which authority seemed unable to dispense and was often the cause of its opposite, injustice. I was able to sense injustice and it would burn within me, even when the injustice wasn’t done directly to me, somehow I still took it as a personal affront; or maybe I subconsciously realized that injustice done to anyone is injustice done to all of us.

 

Although I have a strong sense of justice and a deep longing for humanity to reach a state of equality and happiness without the economic chains of Capitalism or the social chains of government intrusion and coercion, and although I appreciate Voltairine de Cleyre’s  doctrine of anarchism without adjectives, I believe that at this point in history anarchist thought is so diverse as to make that concept meaningless but a noble goal to work towards. To understand my position as an individualist anarchist we must separate the sphere of the individual as a social being and the sphere of individual as an economic being for lack of a better term. Now the perfect goal would be for these two as thesis and antithesis to form a synthesis to borrow Hegelian terminology and that is indeed the sublime and ultimate goal for both the anarchist and the socialist and all lovers of equality and liberty.

 

The human as a social individual must be left to create and define her own reality and to work to realize her full potential as a human being without any coercive forces acting against her from without, whether from another individual or an institution such as the government or the church. Before anyone is a member of a society, they are first a member unto themselves and cannot bring anything to society at large until they have first become a healthy and authentic individual. As existence proceeds essence, so individual proceeds society. But this isn’t in a hierarchical sense, but rather a metaphysical and even psychological sense. My love for humanity and my outrage against all injustice demands that I embrace atheism, as God has been the most powerful force for injustice and bloodshed ever created. And as God, and his agent, the state, have kept humanity in chains and made love a weapon rather than an all encompassing feeling, and have left justice to be defined by the executioner rather than the executed, so God himself must now place his head in the guillotine and die that humanity might live. That liberty might flourish. That justice may shine on all and that love be shared without a cost. Individuals must be the masters of their destiny in every sense or the God that we killed may indeed be resurrected on the third day a second time, but with an even greater taste for vengeance and blood. 

 

I can be nothing else but an individualist anarchist because as an individual it is both a metaphysical and practical impossibility for me to the pass responsibility for my authentic actualization as a person to any other or for me to take on the responsibility for theirs. This is why we have individuals living an inauthentic existence; because they have allowed the responsibility for their actualization to be passed to another. That other could be an individual or an institution, but it is impossible for the individual to live their life authentically and fully when they are not living it truly but only vicariously through another. This is worse than slavery, it is death while blood still flows and organs function. It is reducing an individual to a means or a tool. Doesn’t even the Bible say that we are lumps of clay in the masters hands? The only question now is which master? Is it God? Is it the State? Is it another individual? Perhaps it is even all three with the unwitting assistance of a conscience that through years of brainwashing has become that perpetual gadfly within our very bodies that hounds and grates at us making us doubt our true heritage and willingly accept the shackles of servitude. Oh the task before us is great!

 

But having explained that only the individual can take responsibility for their own destiny, it is neither my responsibility or even in the realm of possibilities for me to do any more than teach, write, and talk and hope to persuade. But the individual that is so accustomed to coercion usually takes the opportunity to disparage the persuader while wishing they had the courage to direct their bile at the intended target; the one that coerces. Then there are those who have seen too much pain and fought too hard without seeing any positive change. They now prefer to desensitize themselves in apathetic resignation. These souls are indeed to be venerated, not hated. They are veterans of the cause for freedom of humanity and not everyone can sustain the revolutionary spirit indefinitely.

 

Even those who are the greatest tools of the establishment and institution of human bondage, the unthinking and superficial who can only repeat the arguments of Theism and Statism, these blind patriots who for the love of God and Country secretly hate humanity. Those individuals who think atheists and freethinkers have a special place reserved for them in hell. Those individuals who perpetuate the myth that anarchy is chaos and destruction. Those individuals who never allow reason to cloud their mind of the propaganda, who couldn’t articulate an argument that doesn’t degenerate to character assassination with the internal self righteous confidence that their intellectual foe will one day pay dearly in the lake of fire for holding to such subversive ideas as the deliverance from bondage of all humanity. It is these individuals who must be pitied. But again, no hatred is ever justified to be directed at individuals, only to institutions and entities. All we can do for these misdirected and brainwashed agents of God and State is hope that someday they may begin to think and become authentic instead of soldiers of misanthropy, divided against their very being, broken, estranged and alienated. If only Origen had become the dominant philosopher of antiquity with his positive anthropology and more enlightened humanism. But instead we are haunted by the dreadful ghost of Augustine and his depressing and guilt ridden anthropology, perpetuated by Luther and Calvin and their intellectual progeny. Remember too, that within our closed minded friends of God and State resides much fear as a result of the innate pessimism of their intellectual heritage. And with fear comes its handmaiden, the need to control. With such a bleak anthropological heritage, authoritarianism is the only answer. And when authority is threatened, fear rears it’s ugly head. To convince that coercive authority is unnecessary, we must first provide disputation as to why the authority was created in the first place; in other words we must seek to change their anthropological perspective. We must be the Pelagius to their Augustine; the Erasmus to their Luther.

 

Now let us turn to the human as an economic individual. Human beings are biological organisms. We are part of the world of matter and as such have certain requirements in order to continue our existence. A rock also exists in the world of matter, but not being organic, but metallic, it requires nothing to exist; if we can even ascribe it existence in any real ontological sense. We and our fellow lesser animals however do require certain things in order to exist . Among these necessary elements are oxygen, clean water, food, clothing and shelter. We literally cannot live without the former three and depending on our culture and climate, the latter two are at least necessary on occasion. Now as there has thankfully not yet been developed a mechanism to contain, dispense and calculate the usage of oxygen, we have a plentiful and free supply equally distributed to all. The same sadly cannot be said for the other necessities. They share oxygen’s plentitude, but not the free distribution to all humanity. Instead these items, so readily available, are kept out of the hands of individuals and are stolen by the few to be sold to the many. I use word stolen because anything necessary to the survival of the individual must never have a price put on it and because these are things for which the raw materials belong to the earth itself. Indeed the very material that we are composed of is the same material that exudes from the earth, so that when we sell something freely given by Mother Earth are we not in essence selling our very bodies indirectly? And if we purchase a product made of the very matter of which we are composed are we not buying back what is ours already? And what of this merchant who profits from us buying ourselves as it were? Is the merchant not as much a victim of this unwilling prostitution as we are by virtue of being a member of the same race and composed of the same matter? Could it be that this more so than the mind/body, God/man, Human/Animal dualism, that legacy of Descartes, is why we are estranged not only from nature but ourselves?

 

To put a price on something necessary to our very existence creates a power structure where the one that sells oppresses the one who must purchase the very thing she needs to survive. This guarantees there perpetuation of the authority against the slave. And what of the dilemma faced by those who have not the means to pay for something so crucial to their survival? Is it theft when that person is reduced to taking what is needed to survive, especially when it is so plentiful and is in fact composed of the very same matter that the person is composed of? And then there is that persistent voice, which seeks to drown out the voice of survival. That voice inside which is the vestige of previous indoctrination that if faced between disobeying authority and all it’s laws and fulfilling the needs of self, the self must always be sacrificed. Sacrifice? A concept so prevalent in the propaganda of both religion and state. But it is always the self that must sacrifice; never the authority. That voice of authoritarian dogma must be suppressed so that the voice of humanity and reason can be heard.

 

As an being with needs, forget wants for now, what reason can there be for denying those needs to anyone when what is needed to meet those needs is so plentiful. Isn’t it a moral outrage that profit must be judged of greater value that life? And in an area where government could help, it fails miserably at the task and then spews nauseating rhetoric to give the impression it cares about the human situation. As the cliche’ states, follow the money trail and you soon learn who the real constituency of the government is. To bring this point that all the elements basic to human survival should be freely available to all, consider this illustration: Could anyone conceive that if a method was developed that could somehow contain all the oxygen on this planet and then distribute it to every human being on earth? And what if this machine was able to measure the oxygen consumption and levy a cost on its usage? And furthermore if one was unable to pay for the oxygen it would be shut of and the person left to suffocate? I would guess that even the most cold hearted Capitalist would consider this idea unconscionable. Perhaps not, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Capitalist. But isn’t food and clean water just as much a requirement to life? Is it only because the deleterious effects of lack of water and food aren’t as immediate as the lack of oxygen that we feel justified to make people pay for these things and go without if they cannot pay? I submit that it is against nature to withhold the necessities of life to anyone regardless of their ability to pay or not, nay it is against nature to have to pay at all for what she freely provides us and which consists of the very matter in which we are made.

 

Having the basic necessities provided would allow individuals the time, energy and perhaps more resources to engage in what we want to do, such as create, build relationships, learn and a million other things without the stress and worry of where our next meal will come from. Only then will the thesis: human individuality and the antithesis: society, finally converge into the synthesis of a free and harmonious, anarchist society where individuals can seek autonomous self realization without the cares of daily survival and its corollary of enslavement. No God, no government, no working for someone else in order to survive while they reap profits, no debt, and no money. Just human cooperation, love at no cost, and freedom and respect for all. This is my dream. This is my anarchism.

 

 

 

 

 

You Are Much More Than Your Credit Score

Does it bother you that you are judged by your credit score? Is there something deep within your being that wants to shout that it is inherently wrong and unfair to judge someone that way? To be judged by your accomplishments and contributions to society or the number of friends you have, or that you are a good father or spouse seems to take a back seat to what your credit score. And what about these commercials that say you are pre-approved for a car loan or this or that even if you have less than perfect credit? Is perfect credit the only credit that counts?

 

This idea that your credit score is the sole indicator as to how good of a person you are is not only blatantly repugnant, but it reveals a, dare I use the word, conspiracy among the lending institutions and others to fleece people with impunity and in the process make millions in interest alone. If you set a standard of perfection and it is not met and consistently held, what do you do? Simple, raise the interest rates because that bad person with less than perfect credit is obviously a higher risk.

 

Here is a thought? Cui Bono? Who benefits by having the standard be that of perfect credit? Do you or I? No it is the lender because they designed the system to make the standard so high as to be difficult to attain and even more difficult to sustain. And of course the politicians who are well taken care of by the political contributions and perks these mega lenders hand out to them will gladly look the other way. Besides, they are too busy regulating the lives of people like you and me to be bothered with being corporate watchdogs. What can we do to fight back? Can we keep the politicians in the lap of luxury with contributions or hire celebrity lawyers to file lawsuits that take years and change nothing while they engage in their courtroom theatrics? No my friends and a thousand times no, we cannot! We have neither the time nor the resources that they do. So we continue to go on ever the victims of both corporate greed and government intrusion. And when the resentment and anger finally can no longer be contained, some of us will go and engage in acts of destruction and terror and of course the government will then curtail more of our freedoms in the name of the “war on terror” never accepting that it is the misdirected rage of years and years of oppression, abuse and coercion that they themselves are responsible for. You know how it works; your boss rides your ass all day about something that wasn’t even your fault and so, knowing you can’t risk your job, you stew all day and then go home and kick the cat, or even worse, take it out on your spouse or children. Well the big corporations, and their mistress, the government, is the boss, and you and I are the cat. And while I don’t want to be misunderstood as condoning what I’ve just described, it is a sad fact that it happens all the time. If only we could focus all that anger and rage against the real culprits and leave our fellow sufferers alone. Haven’t they suffered enough as well?

 

Now with very few exceptions I’m sure, who do you think deliberately tries to sabotage their credit by defaulting on payments or paying late? Isn’t it more conceivable that those who default or pay less are doing so because circumstances in their lives have changed negatively? I know of no person who would default on what they owe just for the sheer hell of it; especially when the repercussions are so grave. When a person’s life circumstances are so drastically and negatively changed, often through no fault of their own, due to loss of job, illness, divorce or a whole myriad of other situations, it becomes increasingly difficult if not impossible to meet all their financial obligations.  They are forced to set new financial priorities. Often it is the credit card payments and money for leisure activities which have to be put on the back burner as it were. And sadly, sometimes even the necessities cannot sufficiently be paid for.

 

Having said all that, I now want to introduce a scenario, imaginary here, but unfortunately all too ubiquitous in the real world. Here we go: A corporation is free to restructure, downsize, or even close or relocate its facility. It can do this for no other reason than to reduce operating costs and thus increase profits. Even if the corporation is doing well financially, if it the CEO and corporate executives believe that they can do even better financially, they can decide to shut down a facility and in the process lay off fifty employees. Now even if we take into consideration attrition and early retirement incentives, there will still be some who will end up on the unemployment lines because of this corporate decision. And I want to emphasize the word decision, I will be coming back to it later. Let’s give one of these employees who is on the unemployment line a name so as to really bring home the personal. Her name is Andrea. Andrea has been an excellent and conscientious employee for the twenty years she has worked for the corporation. But she is only forty two and is nowhere near retirement. Andrea is also the single mother of two children. This “decision” made by her former employer has completely turned her world upside down. She had every intention of retiring from that corporation that she devoted twenty years of her life to. The anger sets in. Andrea hardly ever missed a day of work, and when the corporation had mandatory overtime on a few occasions, she had to scramble to find a sitter for her kids. One time they scheduled mandatory overtime the same day her son was a lead in the school play. It took a while to get over that one and she still thinks about it. Andrea wanted to be a loyal and good employee with the expectation that the corporation would reciprocate by keeping her employed and maybe even some day promoting her.

 

Now the corporation was letting her go, and worst of all, it wasn’t even her fault! She would understand perhaps if she had been a goof off, or called off too much, but she was an stellar employee. But she was also a cost. And as a cost, she needed to be cut. Andrea was expendable for the good of the corporation. A corporation that was already successful and lucrative, but wanted to be more so by a few percentage points.

 

So now Andrea is struggling financially and her entire lifestyle needs to change. At forty two she is not “prime employment material” and she had to settle for a much lower salary than she was used to at the corporation. She has a hard time keeping her anger and resentment in check. She’s moody and seems to be in a lethargic torpor most of the time.The guilt of missing her son’s play returns in spades because it seems as if it was all for naught now.

 

Andrea always had great credit, she always paid her bills on time and she prided herself in that. But now it’s hard to make all her payments. You see, just because she is only making a third of what she made before at the corporation doesn’t mean that her expenses have miraculously dropped by two thirds. That does not happen in the real world. And Andrea is no politician, so she cannot vote herself a pay raise or have many of her expenses covered by a sizable expense account. No, Andrea is one of us. A hard working, tax paying, mother of two who is just trying desperately to survive. No hopes or dreams anymore; just survival.

 

So our Andrea decides that maybe having perfect credit isn’t all that big of a deal if it means having an empty refrigerator. She starts missing payments on her VISA card. Now she is getting hounded by phone calls and today she just got a notice from Chase that they are increasing her interest rates. Oh and of course there are late fees as well for each late payment. Andrea thinks about how cruel and unfair this whole money and credit centered country is. She imagines a world where everyone has what they need. And why not. There is more than enough food to feed everyone. There are more than enough buildings to house everyone. Right down the street is a house that’s been sitting vacant for years. Why isn’t someone living there. Then she comes back to reality and realizes that it is not about helping people, feeding people, or housing people. It is about profit and making sure that ninety percent of the wealth still stays with the privileged ten percent of the population. The privileged few who with the help of the spineless and self serving politicians make sure that Andrea and the rest of us are kept in line.

 

Andrea has an idea, she is in this boat because of a decision, I told you I’d come back to it, that was made for her and through no fault of her own. She is in this position because she was at the mercy of the corporation. But isn’t her creditor a corporation as well? Sure it is. A very large and privileged corporation with a huge shiny billboard on Times Square and with millions of dollars in advertising capital to lure as many people as possible into the entrapment of debt. So if Andrea’s corporation decided to let her go simply to increase profits and reduce costs…damn it irks her to be considered a cost…then why can’t she do the same? If profit is really the motivating factor behind everything in this Capitalist economy and right and wrong and human compassion be damned, then why not play their game as well? I mean if she could completely cut out her credit card debt, she’d have a lot more money at the end of the month for food. Maybe she could even take the kids out to a movie or something too! After all, what’s the difference between her idea and the what the corporation did to her? And the guilt that eats at her because she still feels that there is something inherently wrong with defaulting on her credit card bills, well she tries to remember that it is survival of the fittest. Eat or be eaten in this immoral Capitalist economy. Besides, isn’t guilt so overrated anyway? And who benefits from it?

 

I hope you enjoyed our little story and I hope that you didn’t cry to hard for Andrea because she seems like a survivor to me. But is life just about survival? And after hearing this story and knowing that this type of thing happens on a daily basis, do you feel a little differently about being judged by your credit score? Do you think Andrea deserves to be judged by her credit score now that you know her story. Do you still think she is derelict and if you do why? Her story is many people’s story. Some are even more tragic. Perhaps we should remember not just people’s deeds, but their motivations as well.

 

Oh and one final thought, maybe the government should have used all that bail out money on individuals, like Andrea, instead of corporations like AIG who used it to give their executives a huge bonus. Andrea and all of us paid for that bonus to those “well deserving” executives. And now we hear that the government is going to tax them higher to recoup some of the bailout money. Oh that’s so painful isn’t it? They still get to keep some of it! Did the idiots in government not think that giving that bailout money to the people wouldn’t have kick started the economy? Wouldn’t you have paid off your debts and maybe made some major purchasers? Wait a minute, that’s why they didn’t give the money to us. They don’t want us to pay off our debts because then there would be major loss in interest income to the lenders. Better to give the money to the lenders so they can turn around and loan it to us and make millions in interest and keep us in debt and therefore, under control. The government will look out for where it’s meal ticket comes from and that is not we the people, but they the corporate executives. So not paying debt also undermines the whole economy which is based on usury and interest and debt. Go forth and default my friends. Let’s watch the economy crumble and let the politicians and business executives fight for a spot in the soup lines. Now there is a vision heaven on earth more sublime than anything even Blake could’ve imagined.

 

Taxes: To Pay Or Not To Pay

With tax filing season approaching again, I can’t help but think about all the people who keep bantering about the fact that income tax is illegal and they shouldn’t have to pay it. Well I am not going to even talk about the legality of income tax because to me it really doesn’t make any difference about its legality or lack thereof. The reason is I don’t recognize the governments supposed authority over me. Talk about legality or non legality doesn’t impress me and frankly I’m too interested in living my life to the fullest extent I can to even be bothered by legalities.  My advice is paying of taxes is completely up to the individual for two reasons.

Reason number one is based on the fact of self ownership and the nature of law in light of it. I believe in self ownership and live my life based on that belief. Just as Descartes built his entire system of philosophy on doubting all but the fact that he was thinking, I build my philosophy on denying all authority but that of self.  Self ownership is to me the most basic and self evident fact of human existence. If we don’t own ourselves, who does? So building from the idea of self ownership, I conclude that every individual of mature age is responsible for their own happiness and life’s direction and any intrusion from without, be it other individuals or entities such as religion or government is oppression. Any authoritarian and coercive force has no moral justification and should be rebelled against with all ones might. The only relationships that are justified for free persons are voluntary and equal relationships, devoid of hierarchy or coercive elements.

Law is by its very nature authoritarian and coercive. Law is also given a cloak of respectability because it is considered as timeless and immutable and as coming directly from God.  But law is simply a small group of individuals imposing their collective wills on a larger group under threat of punishment for refusal to obey. Law has no objective existence apart from the lawgiver and the lawgiver is a human being no different than the human beings the law is intended for.  Therefore, law is at best advice and nothing more; and like all advice it can be accepted or rejected.

Reason number two is based on the idea of property ownership, including money. While we do own ourselves, we are the only thing we truly claim absolute ownership of. Private property is a myth. If the government wants to take our property, it can. It can claim eminent domain, or it can take it for failure to pay property taxes. Additionally the government places restrictions and regulations on what we can do with “our” property. If it were truly ours, how could anyone rightfully tell us what to do with it? Face it; we are all renters and caretakers of government property. And while I would agree that private property is a myth, I also believe that government ownership of it is also a blatant lie; but that is for another day.

Just as real estate is not truly individually owned; likewise it is true with money. Printed right on all bills are the words “legal tender for all debts, public and private.” Money is just something we trade for commodities. We don’t own it any more than we own our properties. Therefore, it really doesn’t matter whether we pay taxes or not because the money isn’t ours to begin with. Money is just a tool; a means to an end and the government requires us to use it and nothing else for purchasing goods. But it belongs to the government despite its temporal location at any given time. So theft of money by refusal to pay taxes is impossible with perhaps one exception; it could honestly be considered theft if the money is literally being kept in an isolated location where it isn’t being used, but who does that? As long as it is being circulated in the form of spending or investing, it is in the public realm and is being used as the abstract tool it is. So unless we are hoarding money; we are using it for its intended purpose and therefore we are not stealing it. Whether we pay taxes or not, we are not stealing money from the government; we are only choosing to use it for a different purpose but ultimately it is still circulating within the economy.

I personally have not filed income taxes in three years. This was my choice and I do not regret it. I encourage others to do so as well, but that decision is ultimately an individual one.

 

 

 

When did you sign the Social Contract?

I’m sure most of the readers have at least a cursory knowledge of contracts.  If you own a home, you have a deed. If your home is being financed, you have a mortgage. If you rent, you have a lease. All of these are contracts which you probably physically possess in a lockbox of file cabinet somewhere. They contain your signature (perhaps repeatedly) in which you expressly agreed to the terms and conditions. Furthermore, these terms and conditions are clearly explained in the document and you had the option of agreeing to the terms by applying your signature(s) or you could have declined and gone on your merry way.

The same applies to purchasing a vehicle or obtaining financing to do so. In fact on a smaller scale, any time monies are exchanged for products or goods, you expressly agree or disagree to the exchange. Your express agreement is manifested by you handing over the cash, writing the check, or pulling the plastic out of your wallet. You can always choose to decline by walking out of the store empty handed.

Now let me discuss the contract which has the largest impact of our lives, health and welfare and yet it is by far the most ambiguous and vague. It is the social contract. The social contract is a theory of the legitimacy of government power and it is the theory that was employed when this nation was founded. The theory of the social contract has its roots in thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  The ideology of the social contract theory is unmistakably apparent in the founding documents. In fact Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —“

 

Now here is the crux of my argument. When have any of us expressly agreed to be ruled by the government of the United Sates or of any individual state for that matter? Can you remember a date and time when you met with a representative of the government and approved of being a subject of the government? Do you have a copy of the social contract with your signature freely given in a lockbox or safe with all your other important documents? My guess is you don’t, and neither do I. We have never expressly given our consent to be governed by the United States. Our ”permission” is implied only. And since an implied agreement would never be acceptable in a deed, mortgage, lease or any other contract, I submit it is also not acceptable with the government as well and that their moral justification to rule over us is nonexistent. This idea may seem radical, but what it means on a practical level is that our government is illegitimate and we owe it no allegiance whatsoever.  

The idea that our government is illegitimate and has no moral justification is hardly a new one. It has had many proponents in history. Great thinkers like Herbert Spencer, Benjamin Tucker, and Henry David Thoreau. Perhaps the person who articulated this idea best was the nineteenth century American anarchist Lysander Spooner. In his essay No Treason, he explains that at best US Constitution is non binding on any individual except perhaps the people living in the generation when it was written; and even with them, its authority over them was tenuous at best.

Hopefully this brief article will serve to give people the courage to stand up to the illegitimate and overreaching power of the government and to contact their representatives in Congress and tell them: “Consent Withdrawn! I no longer consent to be governed by the United States government or the government of my state!”