A direct challenge to the authority of the State

[bogbeagle]

I like the cut of your jib, FS.

Something akin to the Declaration of Independence, perhaps?

Now, then, if such a letter was penned, it could then be signed (by proxy, or even electronically ...could that be done?) by thousands of we free-spirited types. That would obviate the need for loads of people to actually do something!

There has to be a very clear distinction between this and a petition, mind ... spits on floor in disgust.

Hmm! Got me thinking.

[bogbeagle]

You know, I've been in the habit of writing short essays (to myself, mostly ... how sad is that?) and I just resurrected this one, which I penned about 18 months' back.

I put it here for no particular reason ...








A Declaration of Independence

How many times have I listened to people complain about Government? Countless times.

Each complaint is usually delivered with a resigned air and a big sigh. Typically, the complainant may say, “It’s a waste of time voting … the government always gets in.”

Or, he may tell me that “nothing ever changes” or that it’s “business as usual” or “what difference can I make”.

Lately, the complainants have changed tack a little. More often, now, I hear of the injustice of speed cameras, Fixed-Penalty Notices and a rigid system which seems to be deliberately designed so as to create “offences” … which can then be punished by fines. Is it conceivable that a Government might deliberately institute legislation for the purpose of raising revenue?

The fact is that the average worker contributes just about 50% of his earnings to government coffers. Think about that. One hour out of every two is worked for the benefit of the “public’ purse”. Which is fine and dandy if you feel that you get the full benefit of your labours. You do feel that, don’t you?

Whatever the actual form of the complaint, there is one common factor … DESPAIR.

And that despair is born of feelings of frustration and powerlessness. I feel it, too. I guess that most of us do.

Recently, I’ve been investigating a fairly radical concept … that of declaring myself a Freeman. That is of declaring ,myself beyond Parliamentary governance.

As I understand it, the rationale is this.

I am a Free man, not a slave. I am governed by CONSENT. That is, I delegate other men to make decisions on my behalf and I agree to abide by those decisions. So, each of those elected MPs carries in his pocket the consents of thousands of Free men . In other words, each Free man has “lent” his authority to his MP, so that decisions may be made on his behalf. Without exception, those decisions involve the Public Purse. Central Government does nothing but decide how best to spend Public money…our money.

If I am a Free man and disapprove of the actions of my elected representatives, I surely have the authority (actually, it’s called sovereignty) to WITHDRAW my consent from those elected representatives … ie, Parliament.

In effect I have the authority to declare my Independence from the governance of men.

If you, reader, are thinking, “No, you must consent to the governance of Parliament” then you are telling me that I am not a Free Man. To contend that I MUST be governed and that I must abide by the rules of other men, is to make me a slave.


So, how do I become a Free Man?

As I understand things, I must sever my contract with Government. That is, I must formally withdraw my consent from government.

This is done by a lawful proclamation called an Affadavit.

An affadavit is simply a personal statement that is written and witnessed. Anyone can write an affadavit.



What are the implications?

Becoming a Free man liberates you from the rule of men. That is, it removes at a stroke, the power of Statute. It does not remove the power of Common Law.

But the Common Law is very liberal. In essence Common Law may be stated as “Do no harm and cause no loss”. It’s a condensation of the Ten Commandments.

Within those bounds, you are free to live your life.

Now, withdrawing your consent from Government also means that you lose your access to the Public Purse. In other words, no Welfare State. But, on the plus side, you get to keep what you earn. You take full responsibility for yourself … and are not compelled to work on behalf of others – paying taxes to keep other men on Benefits, for instance.

For many of us, the reality of Freeman status would mean loss of income. You would cease to exist in the official world. No National Insurance number, for instance. It would be impossible to work for any government agency. I’m sure that many enterprises in the Private Sector would be unsympathetic, too. So, I expect that few people will take the somewhat-drastic step of demanding their liberty … preferring the relative security of their domestic situations.

However, to cite Thomas Paine , “Time makes more converts than reason.” When the Government bears down hard enough, more of us will consider the option.





This Freeman concept particularly appeals to me because the British political system has failed. The system no longer has relevance to me. I’m unable to influence its direction. My vote has no value. Government has become monstrous. It serves itself and its inner circle. Worst of all, it demands that I feed it.

As an individual, I cannot hope to change the course of British politics. But, I can change the way in which British politics impinges upon ME. And I can do this by declaring myself Independent. I am, in effect, declaring myself to be a Republic.

Really, there’s nothing new in this. The Freeman movement is re-tracing the steps of Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers. Those men of the nascent American Republic who gazed upon British rule and determined that it should bear no relevance to their lives.

[Freeman Stephen]

im half way through penning up a doi type thing with just a preamble regarding slavery public servants and consensual governance, and then the order itself.

im calling it the outstanding order of the free people of britain. outstanding in that as yet it is an order that the public servants have not obeyed, but the word outstanding also gives it a bit of punch.

i was kind of thinking petition to be signed on the streets around the uk, making it clear that noone is to sign the order twice. thus several signed copies of the same order will exist which when collated will eventually have a sizeable portion of the populace subscribing and aware.

we might also consider the use of consent to be governed forms for those who do not wish to sign and thus anyone who signs neither can be counted as "dont care either way" - the ptb would likely try to claim these people as consentors.

the electronic subscription might be a convenient way to sign the order but unless there are people on the streets requesting people sign, the majority of the public will be lucky to know that the outstanding order exists.

i reckon the moto should be "declare the mechanism" (or declare us your slaves).

[Geronimo]

OK, nev and geronimo.

I understand your concerns and fears ... that a Stateless society would be uncaring. It's natural that you feel that way, having been conditioned to the Welfare State from birth. So have I, of course. Like you, I am apprehensive about how I would cope without a government' safety-net. Can i just stop you there, what i was more concerned about was the notion that people receiving benefits could not be classed as 'peace campaigners' and thus wouldn't be considered part of what that entails...thats is what you seem to be stating which in my opinion would cause much tiering of society...for instance what if a guy was a 'peace campaigner and then went on benefits..would he have to denounce his membership as it were..

I will not be tempted to suggest solutions to the myriad problems that you raise; because I don't have all the answers and because I do not have the strength to pursue fruitless arguments with the many people who hold opposing views. i would suggest that stating people cant be free or part of any freedom movement because they are on benefits will get many questions thrown your way and then adding those who are on benefits are in cohoots with tptb to enslave those who arent on benefits will get many more flung at you..

I do know that people are adaptable and, in the absence of regulation, they spontaneously form those structures and alliances which serve them best.




Just for a moment, let's refer to my original argument. Do you, nev and geronimo, concede that you are my equal and nothing more? Do you concede that you have no authority to command me? I answer for myself but yes of course

If you concede those things, then you surely agree that you and I are Free Men, by any logical argument. And so, I have to say to you that it doesn't matter whether you agree with the other tenets that have been proposed. You have no authority or ability to influence the actions of other Free men ... short of violence. agreed

If your community has a problem ... and your solution is to take by force, the property of other men ... then you are a Statist and an Authoritarian. There is no getting around that. There is nothing that may be said in mitigation. depending on the problem

I'll draw a brutal analogy for you... " I need some money to buy lunch. I see a man who has just been paid, so I stick a gun in his face and take his money. So, what? I was hungry, so I was perfectly justified in doing this." That is analogous to the Welfare State. Sure, you don't do the actual mugging; but you do appeal to others (politicians) to do the mugging on your behalf. no that isn't the case..it would need to be clarified that any money taken in tax is in fact used for benefit payments...you would need to show that is the case, other than inferring it is you havent made that case...but also if what you say is true then we are all guilty of such robbery...if a individual is taxed less than another while earning the same money then he too is guilty of this...ie self employed people...

Would any one of us instruct our children to behave so? Would we tell them to steal the lunch-box of other children, if they happened to have lost their own? How old were you when you decided that those childhood' ethics suddenly needed to be up-turned?




Geronimo raised the point that "I've paid in, I should be able to claim". There is substance in that claim. But, the facts are these ... you didn't pay in nearly enough ... the State spent what you paid in, so you've already "taken" those benefits.

There isn't any huge fund put aside for your/my retirement. The State spent it all and you already received the "benefits" of that spending. So, if you think that you are "entitled" to a pension, because of your contributions, you are wrong. Yes, you have been de-frauded, because you gave over that money in good faith. But, no, that isn't excuse to force other people to make up your shortfall. then it is everyman for himself..which would seem there is no point in people coming together to act as anything, for at the end of the day unless its a tax free society everyone is on their own



Do you see the dichotomy? You are telling me that we must have a State, else the "sky will fall in". And yet, that self-same State has perpetrated the greatest con-trick of all time. It's taken your money and you'll get little in return. But, you did it voluntarily, I guess, since you support the functions of the State ... so there's no-one else to blame. you make far to many assumptions, and so far all wrong


Me, I didn't do it voluntarily. I was forced to hand over my pay, month after month. I was forced to pay for health-provision, schools, councils and pensions that I didn't want. So, if anyone has a legitimate cause for complaint, it's me. Not you.

i too pay tax, the difference is i dont look for a scapegoat when deciding why! the government take it not the vulnerable people on benefits..and as you seem now to be stating that unless you are paying tax you do not have a legitimate right to complain, then i think enough have been said on this, im sure many wouldn't want to belong to the 'freedom' you are espousing.....benefit people have no less a right than you to complain or expect to be free or be instrumental in getting that freedom.. regardless of whether they have or havent paid tax

[Freeman Stephen]

benefits claimants are a very small part of a very huge issue. no one is suggesting that those on benefits cant be free if you look at what is actually being said. in fact theres only a suggestion that there is such a suggestion! ive been on the dole and i recognise it as charity. i find it abhorant that such charity is only afforded by the threat of force used on others more fortunate. that same force is used to fund all manner of things from country estates for the super rich to nuclear weapons and anti civilian mines and cluster bombs. even the threat of force to extract tax is nut a very small issue compared to what is being proposed here. when you consider that 95% of the wealth is in the hands of only 3% of the people and how forcoble extraction of tax is making this situation worse, if the question being posed cannot be satisfactorily answered, the paltry "entitlements" keeping the unfortunate on the breadline will be a thing of the past. rather than argue over problems which may arise, lets work toward solutions to those problems before they can occur. as i said before ger, your concern is about benefits when there is no mechanism to extract the funding for it by force: what would you suggest as an alternative to fund this?

many hands make light work and benefits are a small part of a monumental task we have ahead of us.

[Freeman Stephen]

my draft order awaits the commimities approval here :-

tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33247

[nev]

I think with all due respect some people here need a reality check. All this talk of people signing on the street, electronically and by proxy is pie in the sky!. Are you going to tell them they can never claim free health care or benefits again? If you do how many people do you think are going to sign? get real!.

[Geronimo]

benefits claimants are a very small part of a very huge issue. no one is suggesting that those on benefits cant be free if you look at what is actually being said. in fact theres only a suggestion that there is such a suggestion! ive been on the dole and i recognise it as charity. i find it abhorant that such charity is only afforded by the threat of force used on others more fortunate. that same force is used to fund all manner of things from country estates for the super rich to nuclear weapons and anti civilian mines and cluster bombs. even the threat of force to extract tax is nut a very small issue compared to what is being proposed here. when you consider that 95% of the wealth is in the hands of only 3% of the people and how forcoble extraction of tax is making this situation worse, if the question being posed cannot be satisfactorily answered, the paltry "entitlements" keeping the unfortunate on the breadline will be a thing of the past. rather than argue over problems which may arise, lets work toward solutions to those problems before they can occur. as i said before ger, your concern is about benefits when there is no mechanism to extract the funding for it by force: what would you suggest as an alternative to fund this?

many hands make light work and benefits are a small part of a monumental task we have ahead of us.

FS this quote taking from the 1st post by the op i feel is quite clear in what is being stated...This to my mind is stating clearly if you are claiming benefits you are not only part of the problem but cant be part of any movement to rectify the problem...that seems to be the initial criteria everything else after that is how things could or should or can be...most of which i agree with..but the scapegoating for benefit claimants imo cannot be a basics for building a movement on..makes any such movement akin to a tory movement

I'd suggest that you've no business in labelling yourself "peace campaigner" whilst encouraging the State to extort money from others, on your behalf.

[Freeman Stephen]

i didnt read that to mean all benefit claimants as you have. i took that to mean everyone benefitting from the forcible extraction of taxes who actually supported the forcible extraction of taxes. benefits such as roads and refuse collection as much as welfare. most people in my experience do not support the forced exploitation that is the tax system though they benefit in some small way because of it. there are those who benefit from forced labour but rather than abhor the practice they feel they can do nothing about, actually support the forced labour of others which supports their way of life. i believe this is what the op is referring to, not everyone who just happens to benefit a little from a very corrupt system.

[Geronimo]

i didnt read that to mean all benefit claimants as you have. i took that to mean everyone benefitting from the forcible extraction of taxes who actually supported the forcible extraction of taxes. benefits such as roads and refuse collection as much as welfare. most people in my experience do not support the forced exploitation that is the tax system though they benefit in some small way because of it. there are those who benefit from forced labour but rather than abhor the practice they feel they can do nothing about, actually support the forced labour of others which supports their way of life. i believe this is what the op is referring to, not everyone who just happens to benefit a little from a very corrupt system.

It would be interesting to see just what the op means..if that is what he is stating then it wouldn't make sense for someone who is favour of taxes being forceable taken being in a movement that feels they shouldn't...im quite sure the vast % of people on benefits would rather not be..but many do not have a choice and to ostracize them, if thats whats being said, is wrong but also counter productive, for there go many people although on benefits who would support such a movement...i think what the op is stating needs to be clarified so people know just what it is he is stating...because at the moment it smells bad..