If you haven’t heard, the FDA is trying very hard to limit your access to vitamins, herbs and natural health products. Fortunately, thanks to your efforts we have delayed their assault on your freedom to choose your own methods for taking care of your health. Unfortunately, this rogue government agency has renewed it’s efforts in the past couple of weeks. In fact, as the linked article points out, the authors of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), Senators Harkin and Hatch have tried to explain the intent of this law to the FDA, yet the FDA has decided to ignore the very authors of the law and continue their efforts to redefine it’s authority to pre-approve all natural products before they will be allowed to be sold in America.
Please read the short article and take actions steps to let Congress know you are watching this developing problem and insist they reign in this rogue agency.
Even before many of the details were confirmed surrounding yesterday’s tragic events in Austin, political operatives were callously exploiting the incident to advance their agenda in demonizing opponents of big government as terrorists who crash planes into buildings – unfortunately for them it has since emerged that Joe Stack was not a “fringe extremist” and he was not a member of any Tea Party organization.
New York Magazine jumped on the bandwagon, writing that Stack’s rhetoric “could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally,” again overwhelmingly implying that anti-tax groups and small government advocates should be silenced because they are dangerous extremists.
“After months of threats on the United States government, and government institutions, the Anti-Government forces known as the teabaggers have struck with their first 911 (sic) inspired terrorist attack,” read the post.
Of course, blaming random acts of violence on the liberty movement has become par for the course for those who wish to crush the free speech of their political adversaries. The University of Alabama-Huntsville murders were also blamed on the Tea Party movement until it turned out that the killer was an Obama-worshipper.
Unfortunately for those who like to exploit tragedies to further their own anti-free speech talking points, it turns out that Stack was not a “teabagger,” he was not a “terrorist,” and he was no Timothy McVeigh, he was a guy pushed to the edge, a sad figure in the mould of Michael Douglas’ character in the movie Falling Down.
Austin Tea Party director Greg Holloway told Newsmax that Stack was not a member of the Austin Tea Party.
“His name does not appear on any of their contact lists, Holloway says. He does not know of any tea party leader who ever met him,” writes David A. Patten.
Asked his reaction to media reports linking the tea party movement to the tragedy, Holloway told Newsmax, “I think it’s just the whole notion of a few people in politics, and I’ll include some of the media, that everything is about political process rather than about people. Here you’ve got a terrible tragedy involving so many people, and the first thought is: ‘How do I use this to forward my own agenda and to try to attack someone else’s?’
National tea party leader Everett Wilkinson also poured cold water on any links to Tea Party groups. “As far as I know, Joseph Andrew Stack was not a member of the tea party movement,” he said. “The movement is not involved in protesting the IRS, but rather government spending. Our best wishes go out to the families and people involved.”
In addition, despite efforts to portray Stack as a political extremist, friends told CBS News that Stack “talked politics like everyone but didn’t show any obsession.”
People who knew Stack said he was an easy going guy, a view backed by Infowars producer Rob Dew, who knew Stack from the Austin music scene and said he was a reserved, soft-spoken, well-dressed man. Dew expressed his shock that Stack could have been capable of flying a plane into a building.
The picture that emerges from all this is not of a violent terrorist hell-bent on destruction to further his paranoid political agenda, as many in the media have attempted to portray, but a man driven to the edge of sanity as a result of his personal disputes with the IRS.
That didn’t stop controlled shill Glenn Beck comparing Stack to Osama Bin Laden and fitting him in to his fairytale delusion about terrorists being within Obama’s inner circle ready to kill the President. Beck even threw the people he claims to represent – Tea Party members – under the bus by saying Stack could be a “radical constitutionalist,” which is how a lot of Tea Party members would describe themselves.
To characterize yesterday’s tragedy as a deadly portend of the “domestic terror” waiting to be unleashed on U.S. cities by disgruntled Americans is not only completely irresponsible, it’s a revelatory insight into how desperate the establishment is – both fake left and right – to neutralize growing peaceful political opposition to the big government agenda across the country.
it is like the false left vs. right paradigm. the deflationary gold scam was solved with the inflationary fed scam. now, there is a move to go back to the old scam. you’re given perpetually false solutions by transitioning back and forth between each polar extreme while being continually scammed, just in different ways.
well said, solve the debt induced inflation from Federal Reserve Illegal Fiat with ferocious deflation from gold convertibility that lead to the Panic of 1837, the Crime of 73′ and farmers committing suicide.
How can a fiat be neutral? Value of various property compared to each other will always fluctuate. Fiat is a faith based system that has nothing backing it up. I would love to read more about alternate solutions to the fractional reserve banking scam we have been living with. Why should one class of people have the right to counterfeit, and the rest of us cannot?
I am suggesting money be spent debt free into the economy via infrastructure spending as opposed to debt induced lending or borrowing thus making it a permanent part of the monetary supply and representation of monetized wealth.
To avoid inflation merely set a 8-9% expansion cap per year and to avoid deflation by a measure that requires the per capita supply of money never falls (thus guarding against depression-inducing contractions)
you manage the amount of paper in supply and not attach it to debt. you determine how much to remove and add to supply using very broad price indexes if economic conditions result in broad inflation or deflation. you remove and add by adjusting state revenue/expediture. you can make it transparent and most evenly distributed with a citizen dividend.
yes, you convert existing fed notes for a public note. then, you add and remove on state expenditure. you spend less, you remove. you spend more, you add. a tax system that favors production, labor, investment, savings, and loans, and reduces the cost of living and poverty, like a land value tax, combined with a citizen dividend, is the most even…See More
yes, darrell, not only transparent but with the rules transparent and rigid. make congress make changes to the rules by the requirement of a constitutional amendment or super majority vote for more fluid issues, such as deficit spending funded with bonds or inflation or changes to price indexes. you just issue tokens, converting existing notes 1 for 1, and you manage the tokens with transparent policy rather than the current system of managing credit supply with interest attached to it.
super majority like a constitutional amendment, perhaps even with agreement from governors, with full terms of the deficit spending. that should help keep a balanced budget except for real emergencies where it could be justified.
The major flaw with our current monetary system is that money is created via commercial bank lending the principle thus that amount is reduced from the monetary supply once it is paid back (money is destroyed) adding to the overall indebtedness of the entire society on a massive scale.
The system is naturally deflationary which forces businesses to absorb the higher costs of borrowing money via raising prices and consumers to borrow more money to afford those prices thus creating monetary inflation.
Some insist a business will conveniently lower the price of their goods during a contraction however, reality proves otherwise since the business must meed a break-even point or go bankrupt.
These same people also ignore that employment opportunities are also drastically lower during these contractions while merely looking at the value of the currency in question to do the slow-down in the velocity of money.
you could do caps the same way… giving the federal government some flexibility in over-spending, but not on the scale of trillions, but a few billion. and if you tie it to a citizen dividend too, the people are going to want the government to underspend rather than overspend if it influences how much they get from the government. the citizen dividend would encourage the end of all state social services. the less state social services, the bigger the dividend for private social services, with the most critical being able to afford your own land and land value taxes or the equivalent for private social services, if you should be disabled. if you’re disabled, family members will be more likely to give you room and board if you have a check coming in.
I think I am following, please allow me some points of clarification. How is new wealth be brought into the equation? Say I use my issued tokens and buy raw material then use my talents to change it into something very desirable and therefor more valuable. When I attempt to sell it, where is the extra credits coming from for someone to afford my improved product? What about amassing wealth through savings? Since the credits in circulation are monitored, what if everyone decided to save their credits instead of spend them, could the relative value of the credits as a circulating commodity go up simply because of this activity?
“How is new wealth be brought into the equation?”
You would capture part of the money that already exists in the monetary supply – new wealth would be a natural expansion of the monetary supply since generally it only expands when wealth is monetized (for example a mag-lev rail system).
“? What about amassing wealth through savings? ”
The Wealth has to be there first before you can save it because the money reflects the wealth.
So each year, the old money would stay in circulation and the government would introduce new money according to their spending projects and a per capita distribution? How would the government take money back out of circulation? If I did not spend my yearly tokens could accumulate them for my children when I die? I am trying to work this through and appreciate your patiences with me on this.
“How would the government take money back out of circulation?”
They don’t because each dollar represents physical labor and monetized wealth as opposed to “Promises of future labor”
The government of course would tax, but those taxes would obviously be used to cover whatever expenses and debts the federal government had. “If I did not spend my yearly tokens could accumulate them for my children when I die?”
Of course they are merely going to be dollars like you have now but as opposed to being a usurious debt based system each dollar is a permanent part of the monetary supply.
Bare with me here, so each year an amount of tokens is added to the economy equal to or greater than the year before? How many years would it take to completely flood the economy with these tokens making their relative value compared to finite commodities like real estate go down? Why wouldn’t supply and demand economics make the value of the growing number of nonparishable tokens diminish? I am asking these questions because like you, I think we can devise a better way to interact with the free market than gold or debt based dollars.
How many years would it take to completely flood the economy with these tokens making their relative value compared to finite commodities like real estate go down? Why wouldn’t supply and demand economics make the value of the growing number of nonparishable tokens diminish?
Population and economy expands, tokens expand.
“The gold standard and the inflation argument that was used to justify it were based on the classical “quantity theory of money.” The foundation of classical monetary theory, it held that inflation is caused by “too much money chasing too few goods.” When “demand” (the money available to buy goods) increases faster than “supply” (goods and services), prices are forced up. If the government were allowed to simply issue all the Greenback dollars it needed, the money supply would increase faster than goods and services, and price inflation would result. If paper money were tied to gold, a commodity in limited and fixed supply, the money supply would remain stable and price inflation would be avoided.
A corollary to that theory was the classical maxim that the government should balance its budget at all costs. If it ran short of money, it was supposed to borrow from the bankers rather than print the money it needed, in order to keep from inflating the money supply. The argument was a “straw man” argument — one easily knocked down because it contained a logical fallacy — but the fallacy was not immediately obvious, because the bankers were concealing their hand. The fallacy lay in the assumption that the money the government borrowed from the banks already existed and was merely being recycled. If the bankers themselves were creating the money they lent, the argument collapsed in a heap of straw. The money supply would obviously increase just as much from bank-created money as from government-created money. In either case, it was money pulled out of an empty hat. Money created by the government had the advantage that it would not plunge the taxpayers into debt; and it provided a permanent money supply, one not dependent on higher and higher levels of borrowing to stay afloat.
The quantity theory of money contained another logical fallacy, which was pointed out later by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Adding money (“demand”) to the economy would drive up prices only if the “supply” side of the equation remained fixed. If new Greenbacks were issued to create new goods and services, supply would increase along with demand, and prices would remain stable. When a shoe salesmen with many unsold shoes on his shelves suddenly got more customers, he did not raise his prices. He sold more shoes. If he ran out of shoes, he ordered more from the factory, which produced more. If he were to raise his prices, his customers would go to the shop down the street, where shoes were still being sold at the lower price. Adding more money to the economy would inflate prices only when the producers ran out of the labor and materials needed to make more goods. Before that, supply and demand would increase together, leaving prices as they were before.”
you only add if there is economic deflation. it isn’t every year. and it should be managed on a monthly or quarterly basis. more difficult to do such management with a gold standard since you’re having to buy or sell gold.
not sure the ellen brown argument holds. if supply inreases or demand falls, the pressure would be deflationary, thus, you’d add tokens. if supply falls or demand increases, the pressure is inflationary, which you remove tokens. the changing supply and demand can be from numerous reasons, including population changes, employment, commodity cycles,new technology, etc. the trend would be deflationary largely from growing employment and productivity increases. growing employment can result from increased population though growing population can induce inflationary effects if suppy doesn’t keep up with demand. however, there is a lag in inflationary and deflationary pressures as ellen brown suggested, so simply adding or removing tokens should be done with caution. i’m not sure of the details of issues involved though the fed already does monitor and try to address such issues indirectly with setting the prime rate so i’m sure the science is well understood.
The Ellen Brown argument merely points out the fallacy of the quantitative theory of money by highlighting that merely printing money is not inflationary so long as the aggregate production output keeps pace with the monetary supply.
for example, you can’t correct the problem of an oil shortage causing an inflationary situation in the economy. however, you can correct problems from the other factors causing an inflationary or deflationary influence on the currency, such as population, bank runs, or productivity. it tends to be complex, and you can’t completely do away with inflation and deflation because they serve a purpose to correct markets. however, you can correct broad inflation and deflation caused by other factors.
meaning, add tokens if there are more people chasing more supply, or remove tokens if there are less people chasing less supply. prices will still increase and decrease and cascade from changing markets. you can’t address that nor do you want to try to address that.
I am not so sure it’s necessary to remove currency from the system but rather set a cap on the monetary expansion rate depending on the inflation level (if there is inflation)… initially 8 or 9% but if there is indeed an inflationary phase set the cap lower.
Under the advocated system a high inflation rate is very unlikely at a 8 or 9% annual expansion cap thus I’d find it hard to imagine any broad inflation in the first place. I suppose making it a possibility wouldn’t hurt but i don’t see it actually occurring in the first place.
you’re right. if deflation is the overall trend, you would be adding to supply. if inflation is created, the corrective action would be to reduce expansion rather than reverse it, since the overall trend would correct it.
wow, thanks for hangin with me here. I completely agree it is the government’s job to print the fiat, NOT private interests.
I still have a couple questions if you don’t mind.
1. In 1920s the global population was expanding rapidly. In 2010 the opposite is occurring. How does this model work in a contracting population?
2. As a trained physician I trade my finite time for a means to support my family. It is much cheaper for me to negotiate direct trades without using a third party token. What would entice me to use one government token over another?
3. In a system described above the government gets to print and bring the money into the economy right? As a business man, it doesn’t take long to figure out the best way to get to the new credits is a government contract. How does this system promote innovation and individual empowerment?
I am forwarding this for your consideration. Please be responsible with your own life as we work through the nightmare that has been handed down to us. I always print hard copies of this type of information in case I need it later.
The court cases that I include below fortify the fact that U.S. citizens are “resident aliens” within their states of the Union that compose the Republic. I am also convinced that a foreign U.S. citizen of D.C. accepts citizenship in the corporate structure that operates within his state of the Union such as the 1857 “State of Iowa” that operates within the borders of the 1846 state called Iowa.
To lawfully achieve total freedom under common law, U.S. citizens have to wake up to the fact that they are citizens of “a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations” such as Red China and they are definitely not Citizens in the Republic consisting of the United States meaning “the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution”. Under English common law you are a citizen of the country in which you were born for life (in my case Iowa) and you can never ever expatriate from your country in which you were born and you have no choice in the matter. Under the government’s Roman Civil law you can freely expatriate from your country of Michigan and voluntarily choose to become a citizen of any foreign jurisdiction if that jurisdiction will accept you as its citizen. The common law exists in the states while the Supreme Court has stated in Erie Railroad v. Thompkins that there is no federal general common law. The Supreme Court has also opined as follows:
The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) ; and
“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; . . . . . The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. ” U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542
This means the U.S. citizen has “voluntarily submitted himself” into being a foreign U.S. citizen and “subject” to two governments under Roman civil law. The Declaration of Independence says “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” U.S. citizens born in the states voluntarily provide consent for their just powers and don’t even realize their subject status by their citizenship in D.C.
There are two of nearly everything and this really confuses people. The Iowa Supreme Court has stated that there are no common law crimes within “The State of Iowa”. The courts of the corporate “State of Iowa” will give the common law no standing, all while the Iowa Supreme Court has also opined respecting Iowa, to wit:
We have previously acknowledged that although not expressly declared by our statutes or constitution to be part of Iowa law, “the common law has always been . . . in force in Iowa.” Iowa Civil Liberties Union v. Critelli, 244 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 1976) In the Supreme Court of Iowa No. 125 / 05-0485 (Certified Question of Law)
This opinion was a certified question of law presented to the Iowa Supreme Court by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
All of this is why I have formally declared allegiance to my country of Iowa (not the corporate State of Iowa) and I have renounced my U.S. citizenship in the foreign jurisdiction where there are no rights but only privileges the same as if one voluntarily joins the Army.
George Gordon explains that if a person is feeling depressed and goes to the insane asylum and tells the nice lady at the desk about it and checks himself into the institution, and after a couple of weeks on Prozac he’s feeling better, he cannot check himself out without the institution’s permission. Under federal law, the only way a U.S. citizen can remove himself from the insane asylum after checking himself in is by expatriation in accordance with its codified rules and regulations. You can expatriate from the jurisdiction of United States by declaring allegiance to a foreign country. The United States is a foreign corporation with respect to Iowa and Michigan. My formal declaration of allegiance to the country of Iowa, with explicit declaration of expatriation from the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, falls smack under United States Code Section 1481 (a) (2), as the jurisdiction of the United States is foreign to the common law jurisdiction of Iowa. We were born to U.S. citizens and a birth certificate was obtained for us and we were registered as U.S. citizens. We were then the State’s child and we could be removed from our parents at any time under equitable proceedings for the best interest of the child. We were never taught by State certified teachers that if we wanted to be free as our ancestors we needed to take appropriate action to achieve the status as free men under common law in the Republic when we reached 21 and now 18 years of age. If we had taken appropriate action we would be “non-taxpayers” as Citizens of the state of the Union in which we were born and we would be capital [C] Citizens of the (several) United States as designated in the Constitution and not small [c] citizens.
Fifty dollar bills are legal tender in the jurisdiction of the United States and in its 1857 sub-corporation named “The State of Iowa” with its capitol in Des Moines. Fifty dollar gold coins are lawful money under Article I, Section 10 of the federal Constitution within the common law jurisdiction of the 1846 state called Iowa whose capitol is in Iowa City. The capitol in Iowa City sits empty because basically all the free people in the Republic have expatriated to the jurisdiction of the United States and under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of its sub division “State of Iowa” and subject to the jurisdiction of its statutes. As subjects most people elect representatives to pass such things as seat belt laws and driver license statutes for their insurance companies that insure them. Free men practice strict liability under the common law, and don’t affect any public interest whatsoever. When a free man of the Republic is drug into court it will be presumed that he is a subject with a social security number thereby affecting a public interest and needs to be regulated under public policy. This presumption needs to be properly destroyed if we want to be free. I believe that the “state of Iowa” was created with its 1846 Constitution and is the Republic while the 1857 “State of Iowa” is a federal State for passing law on U.S. citizens like Puerto Rico is the proper name of a part of the United States. I’m sure a U.S. citizen and a resident of the “State of Iowa” under the Fourteenth Amendment could just move to Puerto Rico and become a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of Puerto Rico with the same U.S. privileges there, and have the same form 1040 tax obligations there, or vice versa.
U.S. citizens that are residents of the State of Iowa are subject to statutes that are in derogation of the common law while free men in the Republic are not. Statutes in derogation of the common law law are advisory with respect to free men. Iowa Code Section 4.2 states: “The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code. Its provisions and all proceedings under it shall be liberally construed with a view to promote its objects and assist the parties in obtaining justice.” This means that an Iowa statute must bend when dealing with a free man if the free man knows how not to consent to be prosecuted under one of these statutes.
There is definitely a dual system between the states united under the Constitution and the United States that is analogous to a mini-United Nations and headquartered in D.C. The U.S. income tax system is a voluntary system and it is voluntary because it is predicated upon “citizenship”.
“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws.” Stewart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 168 F.2d 709, 712.
Again, you can see the dual system. U.S. citizens residing in the State of Michigan or State of Iowa are taxpayers. This is why in an interview Harry Reid stated that he did not understand the phraseology when talking about the voluntary income tax system and was then asked if he meant that “taxpayers” don’t have to pay their income taxes. To most ignorant people Harry Reid looked like a blubbering idiot when he did not come right out and specifically let the cat out of the bag. The Supreme Court has opined that the 16th Amendment added no new taxing powers, but I contend that the Fourteenth Amendment did add new taxing powers for those people within the states and wishing to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” so they can receive U.S. socialized security or food stamps or “free?” State education for their children.
Being completely free and residing in the Creator who endows men with certain unalienable rights, and not residing in the State for security, is a very scary thing for most people! It wasn’t always so scary when neighbors took care of neighbors in need, but with U.S. citizenship everyone thinks the government should pick up the task. And the problem is you can’t be partially free in the Democracy that the founding fathers never had a good word for, nor put Democracy in the Constitution. Being partially free is like a woman being partially pregnant. Old Ben Franklyn indicated, “He who would give up liberty for a little security deserves neither.
Because people look back at the freedom our ancestors had while still enjoying constitutionally secured rights in their state, and want to also live in freedom but are now “voluntarily” subject to the jurisdiction that was foreign respecting our ancestors, the United States now has 5 1/2 times the prison rate compared to the next closest sovereignty in the family of nations, The Peoples Republic of China.
A foreign U.S. citizen doing any business within a state is deemed to be in interstate commerce and thereby subject to the commerce clause in the Constitution.
I am convinced that to be free we need to first achieve our status as sovereigns in our states, abstain from interstate commerce over which the United States has delegated authority, and then as free men we have to appropriately break that foreign jurisdiction in its court system that is operating here in lieu of exercising jurisdiction at law. This foreign jurisdiction is the antithesis of the common law of the states. Even if we have the status of free men, judges and magistrates will continue to operate upon presumption that we are subject to their statutory law. The judges operate under this law, to wit: “Whenever the Code creates a “presumption” with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is “presumed,” the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence.”
I believe that we, as sovereign free people, need to vey timely and properly challenge the jurisdiction of these courts without ever pleading into their foreign jurisdiction with a “not guilty” plea, nor ever allowing the judge to plead us into his foreign jurisdiction as if we are his subjects, and we need to properly submit evidence to the trier of fact that shows our status as free men to break the presumption that we are subject to his statutes within the jurisdiction under which he operates.
Howard Freeman used to pose the following question to the judges while equity has no cognizance of criminal matters, “This court has two criminal jurisdictions. One is a common law jurisdiction and the other is a condition of contract under the criminal aspects of an admiraly jurisdiction. Under which jurisdiction is this court planning to try this case?”
A soldier in the Army is in admiralty jurisdiction by his enlistment contract and if he doesn’t peel potatoes when the sarg say so, it is criminal.
The Bible says: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” I always tell the grandkids, “Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever.” And boy have I overcome a bunch of ignorance in about the last 10 months after spending some time in jail and putting information from George Gordon, Bill Thorton, and others together in my head.
Revised – November 14, 2009, in memory of the author: Dan Meador
This work documents elements of a scheme known as “Cooperative Federalism” that for the last half century has placed the American people under edict of private courts and has compromised virtually all State and Federal enforcement authority. Sections of the work demonstrate proper application of Federal drug and tax laws.
As I have been watching this thing unfold, my opinion on having a public options is changing. Let me explain.
As a health care provider and a STRONG advocate of personal responsibility you would think I would be an aponent of a government run health insurance right?
Over the past 20 years, I have witnessed first hand the problems with the currrent disease care system.
Depending on a third party payor system always increases costs to the consumer without adding to the quality of goods, all in the name of being prepared in case “something bad” happens.
Since human beings are like water in that they will predictably flow towards the path of least resistence. Providing safety nets allow for, and indeed encourage, irresponsible management of the one thing of true value in this life, namely your fleshy body.
Maintaining the well being of your fleshy body is a full time job, that frankly most Americans are too busy trying to pay the bills to keep up. This is a problem with priorities.
But, if you do not spend some of your time and talent maintaining your fleshy body it will get sick, and you will be needing expensive intervention at some point. Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease are very good demonstrations of this phenomena.
So when you apply the above knowledge of human behavior to the situation created by eliminating the unneccesary health insurance middle man and increasing the required effort to obtain help from the “system” you will see a behavioral adjustment towards the easier route of just taking care of yourself.
This will drastically reduce the cost of health care in this county allowing more of the wealth generated on the backs of the good people of this land to be channeled directly to the bankers.
We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it. We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone. All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity. We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.
To The Governments of Earth:
You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives. We are on every continent. This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life. For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems. If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us. – From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do. You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.
To The People of Earth:
We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you. All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children. We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life. We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it. We wish you peace.
To Those Who Will Condemn Us:
We will ignore you. We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing? We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet. Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human. You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you. Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.
What We Believe
#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.
#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.
#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.
#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.
#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.
#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.
#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.
#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.
#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.
#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.
#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others – either directly or through intermediaries – and those who have no such desires.
#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.
We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging. Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing. We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice. We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm – ours and the old realm – although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds. We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first. We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.
Restore proper hierarchy – God then man then gov then corp
This is what happens when this gets reversed to:
corp control gov
gov control man
man dismiss god
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition page 697 –
Government de facto. A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.
There are several degrees of what is called “de facto government.” Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and, under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored. Such a government might be more aptly denominated a “government of paramount force,” being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 1, 19 L.Ed. 361.