A direct challenge to the authority of the State

[bogbeagle]

Hi chaps. Haven't posted here for some time, but I'd like to introduce to you a new "strategy" which has potential ... well, I think so.

It's a pretty long post, but I'd ask you to persevere and tell me whether you think the logic of my argument is sound. And, is my proposal sound?


Let me precis ... I propose that we can demand, of government, the answer to an "impossible" question. That, if asked publicly, this question is sufficient to undermine the "assumed authority" of government.









A refutal of Government' authority

I've always been told that I am "governed and taxed by consent".

And, when you think about it, this must be true.

It stems, of course, from the Christian' idea that we are each born free and of equal worth. Now, if two people are equals, it follows that one may not direct the other, nor impose his will upon that other, except with the consent of both parties. When no such consent is present, it must be the case that one 'man' is imposing his will by force, or the threat of force. In effect, that would mean that one 'man' has enslaved the other to his bidding.

So, to avoid that accusation, Western governments have invented the idea of "consensual governance" ... wherein each of the governed agrees to abide by the rules, sanctions and taxes which are laid down by "Government".

There is little doubt that this relationship serves many people adequately. It's also true that few people ever question its validity; that's why we are known as "sheeple", I guess.


Logically, if I am "governed and taxed by my consent", there absolutely must be a mechanism by which that consent may be withdrawn. If no such mechanism exists, then the concept of "consensual governance" is clearly untrue; I would be governed without my consent and thus be a slave to the will of other men. There are parallels with the slave-owning society of the C18th, if you'll just ponder awhile.


A strategy
My strategy has two prongs:

1 ... A concerted and public demand that the "Government" inform me of the mechanism by which I may withdraw my consent to its governance. If no such mechanism exists, then said "Government" should state that I am, in fact, its slave. I would, in effect, be challeinging the Government's "lawful authority" to govern.


2 ... An attempt to unify the disparate campaigning and lobbying groups, each of which is hindered by the same, fundamental, deficit. That is, each group is suffering a deficit in Liberty. If the members of the "stop-the-war" group can be shown that their cause is the SAME as that of the "I-want-to-smoke-weed" group, then the number of those who would live as Free people, will swell; and at some point, their mass will become critical.





OK, the first prong involves a direct challenge to government itself. Traditionally, those who would be Freemen, have sent off their affidavits and been thoroughly ignored ... am I right? Well, that's the treatment that I received, anyway.

This time, we must act in concert and very publicly. But, this will not involve travel or mass demonstrations, or confrontation. No, I suggest that we use the Royal Mail and the Internet (our best friend).

I propose that, en masse, we flood the PM and our MPs with demands (recorded delivery) that they tell us how we withdraw our consent to governance. Of course, they cannot truthfully reply, since their reply must either tell us that we are enslaved OR furnish us with the freedom to opt out of the State. I've thought about this for quite some time now, and I'm confident that any and all answers, which they might construct, ultimately lead to the same truths ... we are enslaved. The thing is, we have to force them to admit it or else retire embarrassed and blustering. The facts of this strategy should motivate thousands more people to question their status within the community. Now, I do expect that 90% of the public could not give a toss, but if just one percent sit up and take notice ... well, that's 650,000 people.

Running in tandem with this mass "interrogation", would be our internet campaign to promote the concept. This will be largely via the alternative media (we all know the value of the MSM, by now). I'm thinking of numerous campaigning websites, Zerohedge, Max Keiser, Adam vs the Man, Freedomain Radio, Alex Jones ... you get the idea. We have to put the PM and our MPs in a position such that a refusal to comply with our demands is simply untenable ... they will then be forced to bullshit. They've no other option, because they DARE NOT speak the truth of the matter. We, of course, anticipating the bullshit answers, will have raised and dismissed them, publicly, before the politicians have even uttered them.





As to the unification of campaigning groups. Let me give you an exemplar. I'm sure that it's obvious to you that a Free man of good conscience would not support an unjust war. But, that's exactly what we are forced to do, via taxation. And, "forced" is the right word to use.

It serves the ends of the peace campaigner to withdraw his consent to taxation, when the money is being used for evil ends.

So, too, with the campaigner who wants to smoke his weed (or whatever). As a Free man, it is clear that the State has no business in defining what substances he may ingest. And yet, the State assumes de facto ownership over his body by compelling him to ingest only that which the State deems acceptable.

Each of these two campaigners is suffering from a common deficit .. a Liberty deficit.

I don't know whether it's possible to make that case to them. I don't know whether their other concerns will over-ride my arguments. It could be that the peace campaigner also wants to have the State extort money from other people and give it to him in the form of benefits. If that's the case, then it's a clear example of "having your cake and eating it", since it is impossible to have your own Liberty whilst denying it to others ... except by the use of force. Well, that's a moral dilemma for them to ponder. 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. But that's just me!






In passing, I feel that it's important to avoid confrontation with the executive arm of the State. Our campaign should be one of ideas. The State is well prepared to fight a campaign of riots and bottles, but woefully unable to challenge logic. How can it challenge the Truth?




Now, I don't know where this might lead. It could be another dead-end. But, I think that the logic is unassailable. What is your opinion?

[-tony-]

hi bogbeagle

Nice post after reading i would say give it a go, We only find out if something works when trying it. You got any letters made up yet?
This sounds like it could go a lot further, lets see and good hunting.

peace

tony

[bogbeagle]

Thanks for the encouragement.

I don't have a draft letter, but tbh, that'll take just a few minutes. Anyways, someone might well come up with a better medium than the Royal Mail. I'd be surprised that I've hit on the right formula, first time!

I feel that I need to develop a consensus within the more free-thinking web community ... a consensus that the logic of my argument is correct and that it's worth pursuing. You gotta understand, I'm just one bloke, sitting at my PC, blurting out my thoughts.

Right now, I aim to peddle this concept to some of those who have an established "web presence"; for instance, Adam vs the Man. If they can see some merit in this idea, they would be invaluable in promoting the concept. After all, if the logic holds true, then it holds true across all States and Countries.


All offers of assistance greatfully accepted. Not looking for money, of course, just willing hands.

[losecontrol]

Very well written post, and you've brought an innovative concept to the table too.

The problem at the moment as i see it, is that all the disparate parties of our movement, have yet to wield their power by actually joining up, and following through en masse on a physical plan of action.
The one time this did happen (@ birkenhead court) was seemingly effective (government requested removal of video of event from you tube)

The retraction of consent ploy, is yet another clever stratagem. The powers that be are working on the basis of that old Eagles song....You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave - I believe the Mafiosa had a similar diktat.

[ForestNymph]

Absolutely spot on post and i agree with every bit of logic, as i see it, that you have posted! thanks for taking the step in posting it up here,it makes absolute sense and is something i have felt for a long time.
Peace
CC

[newmannewy]

Write up a letter.. I may amend it for my own use but I will send it!

[bodge]

I agree with everything you said but I have to point out a "glitch":

Now, I do expect that 90% of the public could not give a toss, but if just one percent sit up and take notice ... well, that's 650,000 people.

More than 700,000 people lobbied government to take an interest (not a demand) in child trafficking (a reasonable claim) but that has been largely ignored.

Hence I suggest you go for the millions and not the hundreds of thousands to respond Or we will be ignored.

[Geronimo]

The only thing i would query is not including benefit applicants in the scheme...which is what is virtually/nearly said or would be the result of what was suggested.. benefit receivers too want to be free but at the same time many need the pitiable allowance given to them...this allowance shouldn't be a barrier to freedom from the slavery mentioned...unless its suggested that in our march for freedom we leave behind our poor and vulnerable..after all this country gives much more in foreign aid to countries that are probably better off than this...they deny the poor in one country, Britain, to, supposedly, give to the poor in another...would people who are on benefits for genuine reasons strive to get free from a system that at least gives them something to survive on for one that leaves them with nothing...i would willingly have my income tax sectioned off to pay for benefit's rather than bombs..or deduct money for MPs wages or higher taxes for the super rich, higher taxes for the massive companies/orgs avoiding taxes...lots of different ways to pay for the benefit bill rather than taking from those barely better off...lets not have a another two tier system of freedom...we have already got that...

[losecontrol]

Logically, if I am "governed and taxed by my consent", there absolutely must be a mechanism by which that consent may be withdrawn. If no such mechanism exists, then the concept of "consensual governance" is clearly untrue;

It is an implied consent, they make a presumption, on your behalf, that by your silence, you must have given them tacit agreement to govern you. They have recognised that this alone will not hold water, so they have constructed the voting system, as a way of giving credence to their governance of us. The fact that you merely have to mark an 'X' (how difficult is that?) at the polling station, without having to have any understanding behind it, means you are ratifying their governance.

If you hold an affidavit of your truth, stating your withdrawal of consent, this should hold some gravitas.

[Geronimo]

Im surprised there isn't intelligence checks on people who vote! If there was and if your IQ is above 70 they couldn't really expect you to vote, they would know for sure you'd be intelligent enough to know what your vote is for..and it isn't freedom or democracy...