And when you get through with defining (aka proving the existence of) "rights" (for both NonE & i2), perhaps you could show me (f)actually where your "natural laws in existence" are so that I can put my hands on them...Funny things, these religious ideals... peculiar things.

--1who's been there, done that, sent the postcard2
(and likely still am there --in some other state of mind)

It’s not that we have rights; we have a claim that we have a right.

This is what Marc himself has also touched upon and I do agree with this philosophy.

Much of this information about freedom to travel has been much talked about by Robert Arthur Menard, mainly on the magnificent deception and also with lawful excuse, when you start to listen to this logic it makes perfect sense at least to it does to me.

Also Robert talks a lot about serving notices of a claim of right this is on the same level of thinking in not believing you have a right but you can have the believe you have the claim to this or any other right within the framework of Common law.

Duty is also another aspect to these arguments because you can claim it is your duty to exercise these as rights, by doing so you’re protecting and preserving these rights for future generations.

In simple terms under Common Law it is your duty to exercise and claim these rights for your children to enjoy and maintain a level of natural freedom.

Take your eye of the ball, get apathetic and you will lose them.

You "have" a claim, or you make a claim?

And this is somehow different from my statement that a "right" is simply a unilateral claim ... how?

And this duty, this obligation, was created ... how?

This kinda sorta reminds me of the axiom that "possession is nine tenths of the law." In other words, it's only yours if you are strong enough to hold onto it.

For me, I'd much rather live in a relationship of peace and respect with my neighbors than intimidation. Everyone has to sleep sometime.


- NonE

Can you put your hand on the law of gravity? It is rather a description of the essential composition, behavior, and causal structure of matter. These natural laws don't claim anything about physicality, but about the essential characteristic that a human has, especially in relation to a social structure. Natural laws are those principles that when practices do or ought lead to peace between man and man.

Point 1. it is an individual claim on the basis we all share the same rights,when enough people all make the same claim then becomes common knowledge and ingrained Common law, it’s up to the people in the authorities to prove this right does not exist. And who is anyone to say you have no rights or a claim to rights, they are only human the same as you, remember were all equal. So I don’t see it as a one sided claim because it’s for the benefit of all people.

Point 2. the duty was created because; under common law you have the capacity to choose to exercise rights and duties. a duty can be what you choose it to be whether you see it as an obligation to others or yourself you are the watchmen of your freedom and that of others should you choose.

If I’m correct Black’s law dictionary says a person is a human being that has rights and duties ascribed to them, this means someone else giving you your rights and saying you have to perform certain duties like pay your person’s taxes e.t.c. my reply to this is now sorry I will not accept these rights and therefore have no duty to pay and perform I claim to have the right to this choice and keep all my inalienable rights I was born with this is my duty.

Point 3. I would agree with you on that, this is how the majority of people wish to live, but unfortunately there will always be some who think they have a right to dominate others and impose there beliefs on the rest of us. That includes telling us what our rights are in other words awarding us statutary rights and deceiving us into discarding our Common Law Rights. Common Law is very simple to live by it is not complicated.

you can only sleep when you know you are certain the children are safe and they have a future to wake up to.

If you go to court and argue that a cop has not done something right or lacks knowledge of the facts, there reply may be I was only doing my duty as a police officer and upholding the Law, a judge will always take there side.

If you also claim to be doing your duty on the grounds you to are upholding the law, and this duty is so that others can also enjoy and maintain these freedoms, when a judge who is sitting in front of an audience, they will have to tread very carefully, who do you think might win.

Because we are human it is already hard wired in our brains to comprehend what we call Law, and what we believe are our rights and obligations it's all about Love, law is a code of conduct we must all live by to ensure our survival, look at the lengths these people have had to go to suppress this natural sense of being. It’s not that were all stupid; it’s a testament to our incredible abilities and intelligence.

A quotation I find inspiring: There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.

To make a unilateral claim is not peace, it is force, or the threat of force.

Please note that I am not saying that there are not times where force may be a reasonable action, especially in a defensive posture. I'm only saying that the statement of a unilateral claim against all others is vastly different from a request from consideration as an equal in this path called life. It has a dramatically different tone, and if you will look into a few of the ideas in the "Gift Economies" thread you may see that the difference is greater than zero.

Another way it can be said is as a friend of mine puts it: There are actions, and consequences.

When you make a unilateral claim I think you will likely get different consequences from when you state a position and make a request.

{added later: Please note this, I will regard you with more benevolence if you approach me with respect than if you approach me with demands and claims. Isn't this obvious? I may fear you if you walk around with a big stick, but it's unlikely that I will feel inclined to assist you or contribute to your wellbeing.}

- NonE

Duty: An act or a course of action that is required.

As my favorite T-shirt says, "What part of NO don't you understand?"

- NonE

Neither the STATE nor the public "own" the highway. The highway is an easement that EVERYONE has the right of way to use. We all have the right of quiet enjoyment of it's usage and to be free of nuisances that impinge on that right.
This is from corpus juris Index of Corpus Juris


this is from Corpus Juris volume 29


There are a few treatise and legal texts on the Law of Highways on google books. A little deciphering and you will see that
the STATE has a nice little system of legal fiction presumptions that it chains together to prima facie "protect the public safety".
No license = rebuttable presumption of unfit driver
Unfit driver = rebuttable presumption of dangerous operation.
Dangerous operation = conclusive presumption of common law nuisance affecting the organized public's quiet enjoyment of the highway.
No registration = rebuttable presumption of a trespasser
Mandatory insurance = rebuttable presumption of hazardous operation.
This list is not all encompassing. I assume there are more presumptions.

The statutes the STATE enacts are notice to the world that it will assume and presume certain acts and omissions as prima facie evidence of an injury and damages and will act accordingly.

Ooooo COOL! Another piece of paper!

Law: An opinion backed up by a gun. - Marc Stevens

- NonE

Ya I know, it's just a body of words. The caveat is knowledge is power.
That being said, backed up by a gun or not the law regarding the highway is a long standing custom and usage.
You can't pick and choose the law you like.
Marc quote's the law quite frequently so I would say your selective quote is disingenuous at best.

I don't like the limited liability revenue extortion scheme the STATE has concocted either, but bitching "It ain't fair" to a criminal enterprise is not effective.

With respect to your words I would say that using the using the Notice of understanding and intent and claim of right, your are not bringing force to bear or making demands, instead you are offering a peaceful meeting of minds and negotiations.

By serving these notices I believe you are firstly letting these government agency’s know that your not a lawyer or member of the law society, and that you have come to an understanding of law and it’s definitions including your rights, these rights you were born with be it god given or otherwise, and now you wish to make a claim that if left unchallenged in a logical, honest and non deceitful manner, can now be deemed by everyone as a right. All this can be done respectfully and peacefully.

The consequences of these notices are not to create conflict but to take steps to avoid it, when these are ignored and dismissed as ridicules, this only goes to prove and expose the people under the delusion, they have the right to do as they like without ever making such a claim or asking consent , even though under the definition of a statute it clearly says “with the consent of the governed” in good old blighty this appears to mean anyone who has registered to vote therefore admitting being a “Citizen”, creating liability for council tax e.t.c.

Marc quotes the law for the purposes of enabling his readers to understand how to use "their" own laws to tie them in knots from which they cannot escape, at least not with "face." This is vastly different from supporting those laws as valid means of personal interaction and conflict resolution.

Laws don't help with conflict resolution. They make one person wrong and the other right. This may or may not be the case, and frequently is not.

But you may pray to any god you care to, reason, humanity and humility be damned.

- NonE

Of course not; how silly i'd be to say I could. But it is precisely the wrong question (misdirection?*).

The distinction between it and this notion of rights and/or notion of Natural Law as such, is that there's zero personal, individual subjectivity with gravity*. Mother Nature is the only 'person' with any "hand" on such.

You, me, any one drops an apple (or Johnny Appleseed), the apple (and Johnny) obeys the law of gravity. No individual or collective can violate said 'law' and not have the consequences apply.

You, me, any one 'flies' against ("violates") these "natural laws" ("rights") and the consequences are purely subject to the beliefs of 'you', 'me', any 'one' (or more or less). No individual or collective can violate said 'law' and-- the consequences? Well, it all depends on the other individuals/collectives what may or may not result*, right no? [hence, why the "Natural Law" has to be/can only be argued while the law of gravity is independently, universally consequential]

I'll leave it you to try to demonstrate how your Natural Law (e.g. "rights") is equally, factually objective?
I counter that this is but more notioning. It's the bit of Humpty Dumpty on The Wall with his word "glory" (hint: it means what he says it means, so that rather than a state of nature, it's a state of mind aka belief/opinion).ditto The Wall sitting again.
First, laws don't "claim anything", people do. That might be an indication of fuzzy thinking?
True, factual laws have consistent, non-opinionated consequences.
I counter that there is no "law" to such a notion of "rights" (or "right" or "wrong" for that matter). Rather such is merely a proposition, an idea, an offer made for either agreement or rejection as individually valued.

I'm finding much more valuable is the approach that regards human nature --in general, as to for all intents and purposes is universal. Appeal to empirical-focused and based logic, reasoning, and rationale and you'll find the optimal potential for what you value. Continuing to seek to bludgeon others with spooks and notions labeled "laws" akin to gravity and other natural laws*, seeking to give place to enforcing such violently, is but more religion, more Statist belief/posturing/justifying/etc.

I'll close with offering that a better valued proposition is for you and I to ask: Is it voluntary; is it volitionally, mutually beneifical? And if we disagree what are you willing to do about it?

* it reminds me of the "argument" the equally misguided approach preacher Billy Graham made about 'God' where he appealed to the wind as a parallel; one can't see the wind, but it's there, ditto God; the problem of course being God, factually, is but another word for Nature (or the Universe/Cosmos; analogies can easily be anal-retentive ).

*not to be confused with other laws that temporarily circumvent said gravity e.g. aerodynamics, propulsion, etc

*mathematics/physics/etc as (invisible) laws are equally bound within nature ie the factuality of their nature

* it seems significant to me that tho it's the exception to any majority, it's estimated by specialists that as high as 15% of the population is clinically sociopathic/psychopathic; thus when "rights" viz "the natural laws" are violated either by them or to their awareness, by analogy they float; 'gravity' ('the law') is not a law, aka nothing happens, emotionally or physically, no inherent consequences.

*btw, I marvel in near bewilderment when I think of the likes of Lysander Spooner making similar appeals; yet how different is that from the likes of Thomas "all men are created equal" Jefferson in his racial slavery position? Peace, as the mind-set that manifests it, is often a process requisite of the thought of those before you.

So why do some people insist that evolution is not true? Error or the potential for error is not the same as being subjective.

The law of gravity in that respect is perfectly obvious. In it's essential characteristic it describes something about nature of a things with mass.

In this case it does not mean everyone who steals will be struck with lightning of otherwise suffer misfortune. In the most basic and certain iteration It means that not killing, stealing, and breaking contracts to a significant degree are prerequisite considerations for any society. And this is borne time and again that most people are at peace with most others most of the time. We also see a positive correlation of prosperity as any of these mosts increase in quantity, and negative as they are decreased.

The particular one I have mentioned are rules about interspersion and thus necessarily social phenomena. It described consequences to a society or particular social cooperation as the result of violation or adherence. It extends to and impresses onto individuals as they understand themselves as part of the social cooperation.

It outlines a particular fact about man's nature. Killing and stealing impede him from participating in a social cooperation.

So far as it is the language of a claim or description it is within standard grammar, thought that language is metaphorical rather than literal. E.g. This book describes the motion of the planets. His thesis claimed post-modern philosophy has lead to a degradation of women and increase in the acceptance of prostitution.

I agree with the non-opinionated part, but if what is described is extremely complex such as humans, it is not always well understood enough to be consistent as you would like. The law of supply and demand consistently effects price, but not always in a consistent manner. Natural laws may have varying degrees of accuracy and certainly if the thing described is complex.

But you've contradicted yourself. You say it's just about the individually valued, and then go on to state logic, reason, voluntary action and mutual respect are valuable.

That human nature is universal reinforces the idea of natural law. Not being species in ourselves it at least becomes a possibility that we are able to state what is valuable rather than merely valued.



Any science or study is heavily reliant upon previous work and improvements of understanding relating thereof. Such a fact does not make such studies non-objective.

I happened across this and found it valuable: And noting that the natural law of gravity, is a universal --ok, more succinctly, a global observation. And on the "when was the last time you were forced by another person, we can include asking: when was the last time you had to be convinced of gravity being natural by another person?

So-called "natural" laws (like "rights") are not "natural" in any sense other than that humans are natural (as much a part of nature/reality as anything is); just as opinions are then equally natural (a part of human "naturing"). And so is killing, taking, claiming, pushing, shoving, biting, coercing, superstition, enforcement, cowardice, etc --at any given moment; or not. Thank doG, genuine natural laws don't work like that. And thank doG that using and appealing to logic, reason, rationale, as evaluation resulting in values, are human natural as well.