MarcStevens.net Forum

Full Version: Declaration of Independence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

FormerlyBrainwashed

I very reluctantly post this here...

I began writting this several months ago merely as a counter to what I observe to be peoples 'dependence' on the Declaration of Independence of the US, and subsequently, the CoUS. I have no interest nor desire to publish anything for so-called "signing statements," or anything of the sort.

Some of the tone will sound familiar, as it was intended to be. I paused at "List of usurpations to follow…" because as I started to contemplate what to write in that section, I quickly realized how long a list that could be. It is for that reason that I post it here...

Perhaps others may wish to comment, make suggestions, or add to the thread whatever 'list of usurpations' one may wish to share...?

BTW - When I use the term "right(s)," I do so, in general agreement with the description given in the famous John Galt speech in the novel Atlas Shrugged.

"Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."

---------------------------

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for any individual person to dissolve the political bands which have involuntarily connected them with other individual persons or collective bodies of people who assume for themselves to lay claim on the lives and property of free persons; and to declare their individual state of autonomy as is the natural state of every human being, a declaration of independence may be used as a tool of communication for freedom loving people to openly express their status as free and independent human beings.

I hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. – That I am endowed by mere existence as a human being to claim certain unalienable rights. – That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. – That to secure these rights, I will reject any action of all persons which seek to impose their will on my own, and that any such action by those who seek to destroy my freedom is considered a threat upon my existence and will be met with whatever resistance is necessary to ensure self preservation insomuch as any such resistance does not infringe on the rights of others to likewise live a life free from tyranny, plunder, and death.

Through the centuries history has proven that whenever governments are instituted among men all such governments eventually, if not immediately, usurp the very liberties they were allegedly designed to protect. Every such government has proven to advance the will of some over the will of others. Every such government has assumed for itself justification in establishing perpetual power over countless millions of people who are at birth declared to be [subjects] of such governments and “The People” they allegedly “represent,” a declaration which is in and of itself antithetical to true liberty.

It was once stated:

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Such a statement is hereby declared to be morally bankrupt. Such a statement makes no attempt at identifying the natural state of liberty that all human beings are born with. Such a statement makes no attempt at recognizing that many people naturally exist on this continent that do not find it beneficial to trade in their own self determination for the whims of others, not even a majority of others. Such a statement assumes that government can only be replaced by government. Such a statement makes an attempt at establishing suffrage as a necessary state of existence which is again, contrary to the basic human instinct of self preservation. Such a statement attempts to establish that which some people may be “accustomed” to, as a lien on the lives of others who may wish to reject what others accept.

Even so, such a statement [rightly] describes an individual’s natural justification to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security; however, it fails to recognize that an individual has no MORAL justification to [impose] their method of guarding their future security on others. Agreements among a majority of people or even a tyrannical minority of so-called elected representatives do not equate to moral authority. No individual person or group of people has any inherent obligation nor justification in violating free individuals’ natural state of self determination.

It is prevalent today that people are all too willing to dispose their liberty and the liberty of those to which they have no natural authority to dispose of. People have been falsely led to believe that their claim of independence is [granted] to them by way of documents written by men hundreds of years ago; men who likewise held no moral authority nor inherent justification to impose their will on future generations. Indeed, it is a perversion of rationality to claim a status of independence while simultaneously claiming that such independence is dependent on the declaration itself. That is, the false proclamation that without such documents as declarations and constitutions, that individuals would somehow not be free to live and act according to their own will, independent of others.

Make no mistake; this declaration is not a proposal to institute new forms of government. This declaration serves to emphatically reject any such notion that “representative forms of government” (the collective) are capable of representing individuals better than individuals can represent themselves. Furthermore it is absurd to suggest that people that may be considered too incompetent to govern themselves, are somehow simultaneously competent enough to appoint (vote) for someone who can act on their behalf better than they can, yet still function as an agent (or extension) of themselves.

Let it be known that subjugation to an unwanted government and “The People” that it allegedly represents is no friend of true liberty. Neither is it possible for democratic processes to exist without trampling on freedom. The aim of this declaration is not to speak out against freedom; rather it is to speak out against those who wish to perpetuate the usurpation of the very freedoms Americans claim to cherish, yet fail to realize do not exist in America.

The history of the government of the United States of America is a history of hypocrisy, tyranny, plunder, deceit, imposition, coercion, bondage, imperialism, occupation, and murder. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

-----------

List of usurpations to follow…
FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:I very reluctantly post this here...
I hope not to abuse your trust with this commentary.

FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:BTW - When I use the term "right(s)," I do so, in general agreement with the description given in the famous John Galt speech in the novel Atlas Shrugged.

"Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."

---------------------------
Please note that I have not read what follows the above, I am only commenting on this particular quote as I find it pernicious.

Consider this. "If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment..." I suggest that the conceptual basis behind this thinking cannot be separated from that which a sociopath may use to justify anything he may care to do, including (to get ridiculous) eating small children.

I reject the idea of "rights" as merely "claims" which anyone may make but do not necessarily make them "right," where "right" is a concept which can only have meaning within the understanding of the empathic grasp that all life is related and deserves respect for it's own sake alone.

I would much prefer this idea, that man's life may require certain things, but that does not necessarily make them "right," only necessary. Going beyond this is narcissistic.

- NonE

FormerlyBrainwashed

Quote:I hope not to abuse your trust with this commentary.

Far from it!

As to the rest: I don't disagree with you conceptually. In fact, I have gone back and forth several times removing the word entirely and searching for other [more] appropriate words to use in its place, only to put it back again. One term that I have considered as a suitable substitute is "attribute(s)." I am reluctant to use that term because it seems to miss the emphasis on uniformity that I would like to convey.

Nevertheless, loosely held, I cannot disagree with your analysis and have thought the same myself at various times. My only disagreement is in identifying the specific usage of it in what I wrote (specifically) as "pernicious." Not because I am personally offended (because I am not). Rather, because reading the rest of what I wrote clearly condemns the sort of "eating of small children" or other acts of evil/force against others. That point is plainly clear in the rest of the text, therefore, incorrect application of it therein shouldn't be too hard for someone to avoid. That is unless in all circumstances words that are clearly misapplied by a reader, should somehow categorically be removed from use as a sort of [just in case] precautionary measure by the author...?

One thing is certain, I am no master of the pen, neither do I claim to be! ;D

In general - This sort of debate is why I started by saying I was reluctant to post it. When people publish statements such as that which I did, there is always going to be a dissecting of the words that takes place. This is healthy and welcomed; but for the writer, it can also be frustrating to be taken out of context if/when that happens and depending on how much time was put into the work being discussed.

Nevertheless, words are powerful and one should always communicate with caution and effectiveness. As I also stated... It is irrational to claim dependence on declarations of independence. I wrote it for my own pleasure, not as though I "needed" to.

If you were to humor me with an edited version of that section how would you write it differently, or, what word(s) would you use in place of the term "right(s)?"

I enjoy the dialogue and hope that my response makes sense... It is not intended to be viewed as defensive, it is merely a response.

--Cheers
It appears that you missed a critical part of my post. I stated that I HAD NOT READ your main message, and was only commenting on the quote you gave regarding "rights." So please forgive me for shortchanging you and maybe I'll get around to reading it later and give you further commentary.

But on a related topic, The Law of the Somalis is a fascinating read which totally changed my world view. From what I've seen of your thinking so far, I can imagine that you would kiss my feet for recommending it to you.

- NonE (no pedal affection required) :frobro:

FormerlyBrainwashed

No... I didn't miss the part about you not reading the rest. But I likewise couldn't possibly know if you still hadn't done so by the time I replied to your post. I added the context (that you haven't yet read) to my reply because it was relevent to the totality of what I initially posted. After all, this is a public post and not only a private discussion.

Thanks for the book reference... Don't hold your breath on any future foot kissing though! Wink

FormerlyBrainwashed

Quote:But on a related topic, The Law of the Somalis is a fascinating read which totally changed my world view. From what I've seen of your thinking so far, I can imagine that you would kiss my feet for recommending it to you.

No, this isn't the book cited above, and I won't go making any assumptions. Could you tell me though if the article I linked below is hitting in the same ball park or not (it IS the same author)?

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~jnarveso/T...%20law.pdf

At a glance, I cannot say that I'd be a proponent of collective punishment for acts of immorality on the part of individuals; but the rest of it fits right in line with the basic tenets of An-Cap.
FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:
Quote:But on a related topic, The Law of the Somalis is a fascinating read which totally changed my world view. From what I've seen of your thinking so far, I can imagine that you would kiss my feet for recommending it to you.

No, this isn't the book cited above, and I won't go making any assumptions. Could you tell me though if the article I linked below is hitting in the same ball park or not (it IS the same author)?

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~jnarveso/T...%20law.pdf

At a glance, I cannot say that I'd be a proponent of collective punishment for acts of immorality on the part of individuals; but the rest of it fits right in line with the basic tenets of An-Cap.

Here again, I DID NOT READ the entire article, I just quickly skimmed a few small parts - mainly because I've read most of van Notten's work (sadly he's dead) before and know the gist of it. That said, yes, that is the same guy and some of the same ideas. The book was his last work, and in fact was finished by another after his death, so it is perhaps a more nuanced view of these concepts.

I must say that these ideas are based upon a tribal society, and don't seem to easily translate into a diverse globalized swirl of human interaction. That said, I find the underlying concepts to be mind changing. These concepts, for me, are 1) voluntary interaction, on all things at all times, 2) (derived from one) there are no "rights" per se, but only relationships with others. You may enjoy something I wrote on this subject to help get my head around the idea of "ownership": Do We Own Ourselves? ... 3) all relationships are reciprocal, and absent such there are no obligations (goes back to the "rights" issue.)

I don't know that I'm being terribly coherent here, but these are some quick thoughts to try and answer your query.

- NonE
Here are some links from my bookmarks on Somalia. I don't know if they're all good or pertinent, but you may find some value there (probably WILL!):

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b042903.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b042903.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_05/maccallum-utopia.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_ ... topia.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/X/Som/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/X/Som/</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.somalithinktank.org/en/component/content/article/12-law-a-legal-issues/41-the-rule-of-law-without-the-state.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.somalithinktank.org/en/compo ... state.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer</a><!-- m -->

- NonE

FormerlyBrainwashed

I like this sentence!

"Newland is conceived as a purely private business venture, with no flags, anthems, or any of the ritual panoplies and paraphernalia associated with political nations."
FormerlyBrainwashed Wrote:At a glance, I cannot say that I'd be a proponent of collective punishment for acts of immorality on the part of individuals...
[Image: threadjacked.gif]To further abuse your [strike]right[/strike] desire Smile to have your DoI Redux critiqued (and be our usual rabbit trailing butties), would you expound upon this a bit? I'm not sure, but I'm thinking you're touching on something I've been grappling with in my mind.

====
*btw, on a couple of occasions, I thought of reduxing a DoI myself (the last I recall was prior to the detox of my other major delusion addiction, Christinsanity); it seems a usual introspection tool; it seems words too often got in the way for me tho; it's quite interesting, if not significant, to at least parallel the specifics of tyranny in the original with today's State v3.0 (v2.0 began after 1865) Sad
on the aspect of words getting in the way, i2 haven't actually read through the entirety of your's; maybe another day... :wishmeluck:
eye2i2hear Wrote:DoI Redux


W.T.F.???

- NonE
Addendedumdum:

Regarding "rights." I see in the Van Notten piece you pointed to, that there is significant discussion of "rights" which flies directly in the face of what I had said earlier about no rights. Let me attempt a brief explanation.

From what I understand from his book, all interactions are voluntary. So, for example, if there is a conflict of some sort, one method of resolution is to call for a judgment. This is done by each side choosing a judge (a man who works for free, and whose only authority is the fact that he is chosen by the litigants because he has a reputation for being a fair adjudicant), and those two will choose a third man of their choice. These will sit and hear testimony and then pass judgment. It is then up to the person who is judged guilty to abide by the judgment of the court. If he does not, no force is used to make him comply, rather the penalty he faces is that it will henceforth be known that he is not a trustworthy person and few will have anything to do with him. His family may disown him and he will be an "outlaw," subject to no justice from the community in the event that someone harms him. NOTE: He has made this choice on his own. No one forced him to do anything. He can choose to abide by the judgment and make restitution (even perhaps in the event that he disagrees with that judgment, he may choose social harmony over further contention) or he may choose to flip the community the proverbial bird.

I think that Van Notten got further away from the word "rights" in his book than he does in this PDF, but I'm not sure. It's been a while since I read it. But one point is clear, and that is that mostly the nature of all relationships is voluntary, even those which involve restitution for a judgment claim.

I find this idea to be as close as any I have come across so far as being moral and civilized. It is for this underlying reason, the concept of mutual respect and consideration as equals, that I stress the consideration of this method of social order.

- NonE

FormerlyBrainwashed

With all due candor, I am not hung up at all on the term “rights.” The inherent nature of man’s existence is one of equality in substance. While cultural/political influences no doubt play a part into how one functions within the proximity of others, if the onion is peeled away and the usurpations of tyrants are removed, no individual has natural ownership over another. Despite the circumstances that may limit ones ability to live in a truly autonomous state of existence, the nature of mankind as a race is universal.

Without further debating the validity (or possible lack thereof) of the term “rights,” I don’t know how else to put it so that the point I was making in the initial post is clearer. To that point, I am satisfied with my explanation and believe it to be very unambiguous.

Somali Law:

While I was unaware of the current utilization and particular method of employment by the Somali people, I was nonetheless, previously aware of the type of system of justice as described by Van Notten.

What I don’t agree with in their system (as presented by his article) is how they attribute the penalty, or, burden of restitution on the whole of the family. At one point he even mentions an example of their law allowing for the family of a murder victim taking the life of another male from the clan of the murderer, if the murderer flees from justice and other restitution is not already paid on the part of the murderer’s family.

Sorry but that dog don’t hunt! An example would be if my neighbor killed one of my children, then fled. Their law allows for me to kill one of the males of my neighbors “clan” [if] the judges didn’t already meetup and decide what other form of fair justice my neighbors clan was obligated to pay as restitution.

I’m perfectly okay with the underlying principles of the justice system in terms of a requirement for restitution; but I cannot embrace collective punishment as some sort of example of INDIVIDUAL accountability. Individuals ultimately make decisions on behalf of themselves and do not have a legitimate claim (there, I didn’t say “right”) on the lives and resources of others… Even if the “law” says otherwise. To do so is an attempt at negating the identity of individuals AS individuals.

As I said in the intro to this reply, the example given via Somali law is not the only summary/description of the [type] of system being discussed. The good news is- the version that I have studied prior to your intro of Somali law today, doesn’t attempt to impute the immoral acts of aggressors on their non-participatory family members, by default (as in the Somali version).

Rather than using social engineering to train the society to embrace collectivism as arbitrary accomplices in times of the wrongdoing of individuals; volitional choices on the part of individuals are dealt with in a just manner without transferring their guilt to others.

For a quick intro into what I am talking about read pages 75 through 79 of the following document (of course… If you are inclined to do so)

http://www.kopubco.com/pdf/An_Agorist_Pr...y_SEK3.pdf

--Cheers
I have no qualms with anything you've stated so far.

Perhaps it is more that the ideas of Somali Law that I've gleaned from Van Notten's book have opened up a way of thinking that to me was not yet apparent. I would most heartily agree that the forcing of restitution for a crime onto others is unacceptable. It is UNvoluntary, and it is the voluntary nature of what I've understood of Customary Law that is what I find so laudatory.

- NonE

FormerlyBrainwashed

One other point worth mentioning...

Even though I regard the system of justice described via Agorism/An-Cap as superior to that of the Somali's; one cannot escape the reality of their system as one that is currently in practice, and the other as yet a theory.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's