What The Declaration Should Have Declared

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I’ve long admired the beauty of the Declaration’s language; my only editorial issue with it is that property rights weren’t clearly articulated. Life and Liberty, certainly. The Pursuit of Happiness. All good. But the link between life and property was not adequately drawn. It wasn’t mentioned at all.

But how can one’s right to life and liberty be secure when one’s physical person is not?

If you own yourself – as I believe everyone self-evidently does – then it follows no one else does. And it follows from this that whatever property you create through your own efforts or which is freely acquired (whether as a simple gift or in exchange for some other thing) is entirely and exclusively yours by right as well. Which means no other person has any rightful claim to the smallest portion of it.

What follows from that principle, in practical terms, is equally self-evident:

No “taxes” – i.e., theft cloaked in euphemistic terms. Only fee for services, which services may be declined by those who do not wish to pay for them or withheld from those who do not pay for them by those who offer them.

Property ownership inviolable. If you have purchased a piece of land or a home it is exclusively the property of the owner, beholden to none and subject to no regulation or restriction whatsoever.

A free man has the absolute right to defend his person and property against those who would take it from him. This right shall not be infringed

A requirement in law – both tort and criminal – that an actual victim ( a human being) must be named as a prerequisite to any lawsuit, indictment or charge and that it must be established in court, via evidence, that an actual victim was materially harmed by the actions alleged.

No person shall be interfered with, regulated, fined or subject to any encroachment, punishment or fee except in restitution to his victim for any material harms actually caused and proved in civil or criminal proceeding.

No person shall restricted or punished a priori in any way whatsoever – including any requirement to indemnify against the possibility of harm – or on account of harms caused by others.

Every person shall be solely and exclusively responsible for whatever harms they actually cause. 

No person shall be bound by any contract to which he has not given his free assent. 

Freedom of association inviolable. No person shall be compelled to interact in either business or ordinary personal life with any other person for any reason other than his own reasons but shall be free to exercise his preferences to interact with those he wishes to interact with and be free to not interact with those he prefers to not associate with – solely at his discretion.

Jefferson ought to have worked that in – and had he done so, we might not have to deal with what we’re dealing with now.


  1. the states inviolable right to secession would have been nice. really the original articles of confederation would have been fine. no need for anything else.

  2. Actually the real answer is much simpler and is already practice throughout all of society, except by criminals fraudulently claiming to be government. The answer is: “government is prohibited from making laws applicable to anyone not on duty within government employment capacity” The DOI and Constitution was already written that way but failed to explicitly note this fact that is intrinsic ALL throughout society – if you don’t work for an entity then that entity cannot make any applicable laws to you. Isn’t this compketely obvious? If you don’t work for Walmart then does Walmarts board of directors or executives have any authority to make applicable law (rules) for you? NO! The answer is obvious. If you are employed by Walmart but are not on duty then does Walmart’s rules have any application to you? NO! This is obvious. The psycjotic c9ntrol freaks involved in making the Constitution used words, which definitions were already under attack of manipulation by BAR members back then. It is EASY to see once you actually comprehend law and the criminal strategy of the BAR. Her is what they did – DOI Men have unalienable rights and institute government(the DOI d9es nit have the word “person”We the People” “ordain and establish”. Given the fact from DOI that “men” “institute government” and “establish” and “institute” are synonymous this means that People=men and men have unalienable rights therefore people have unalienable rights. AFTER the people (men) establish the entity of Government in Constitution pre-amble. The rules (laws) are established for “persons” – those in the Constitutionally established capacity. “Persons” are those on duty, the employees, and the “People” are the owners/institutioners/creators of the government. Can employees of an entity make rules for the owners of the entity they work for? NO! Are the the employees of an entity an authority over the owners? NO! All of this is OBVIOUS and shows how STUPID everyone is. The owners FEAR their employees, the owners hide from their employees, the owners submit to authority of their employees. This is a violation of ALL natural order sources from the creator of order. If the people (owners) act like slaves to the authority of their employees then they have gone against the very order establushed in nature (by God) of ALL entities. The owners of an entity are the CREATOR of that entity and all law follows that RIGHTS ARE ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR. The people define BOUNDED DUTY upon the employees of any entity but then the employees claim they can twist reinterpret the definitions that make up words to evibce a design to reduce 5he owners to absolute subjegation under the employees fraudulent claims of ‘authority’. What is it when employees usurp the the rights of the creator? It is breach of duty, theft, a coup, mutiny, treason, an overthrow -crimes punishable up to death.

    God will condemn you (the owners) to tyranny for not uphold this natural order that is prevelant and observable ALL throughout society with contractually created entities but for some insane level of cognitive dissonance flies out the window with the Constitutionally bound entity.

    • Nope, government rules you regardless of whether or not you work for them.
      They make a rule, you break it, they punish. This has been going on for thousands of years.
      At no point in history can i find a legal system that follows your model. From Genghis Khan to Alexander the great, history is wrought with governments conquering territory and ruling non employees.

  3. There should be a limit to the size of property one can posses to what ones family can manage. Otherwise, one persons family can become powerful enough in a community to effectively rule it. Additionally, having one person or family owning thousands upon thousands of acres denies the ability of people to become small farmers at all. Ditto for mega corporations.
    But even these additional limits to power would be ineffective so long as am hierarchical system of forceful government is left in place. Nobody should have power over anyone else without his or her consent! Natural Law is the only legitimate law, therefore no legislatures are needed!

  4. I agree in spirit.
    Mechanically, the DOI served to cut ties with foreign guvs. That’s all, and it is still law today.

    These provisions beling in each state and federal constitution (along with a few others that would hold them secure).

    Placing these sorts of articles in each constitution would divest the lawmaker from harming us/ eliminate the legal authority to hurt us and provide legal means to defend ourselves.

    This is my mission beginning shortly.
    I lets start organizing and make these protections the supreme law.
    Reach out to me if you want to help

    • Hi Michael,

      “Placing these sorts of articles in each constitution would divest the lawmaker from harming us/ eliminate the legal authority to hurt us and provide legal means to defend ourselves”.

      How would placing more articles in a Constitution prevent politicians, judges, bureaucrats, etc… from just ignoring them or interpreting what they mean in their own favor, as they do now? There exists no special grouping of words on paper that can limit government. Legally limited government is a contradiction in terms.


      • First, divesting the law maker of their legal ability to harm us on paper establishes the scope of their authority.
        Second, establishing mechanisms of enforcement that remain in our hands will give us the authority to hold the line.
        Third, vigilantly educating and communicating our neighbors to both will keep them to their scope over time.

        How does this compare to now?
        Both state and federal governments have total authority to make, enforce, and interpret law. That’s total government.
        We’ve never established a limited government… we’ve never established any government. On the contrary, a totalitarian government has always had us. Claimed us as theirs.

        Will there always be a push by power hungry people to rule us? Probably. That’s why we must establish a legal system that allows each individual to say no and push back. Its a fight, not a ride at Disney.

        • Hi Mike,

          So, different words on paper will work this time? Do you imagine that some government will be formed by the people under your proposal? If so, do you accept the definition of government as that institution exercising a legal monopoly on the use of force within a certain geographical area? If so, you are advocating for Unicorns. Again, there is no magic grouping of words that can limit the power of such an institution, which exists, by definition, outside of and above the law.

          Now, if you mean a loose, decentralized system of governance institutions, then you are not talking about government at all. As long as most people believe in the legitimacy and necessity of political authority, we will be shackled with such governments as currently exist. Advocacy of the possibility of limited government is a big part of the problem because it concedes the fundamental political question (by what right does one man rule over another) and then begs for scraps.

          “Spooner didn’t understand civics. The Constitution absolutely created and authorized the government we suffer under. Working exactly as designed.
          And is not fit to exist”.

          So, understanding civics overrides logic, the simple meaning of words and rights? Spooner did not deny that the Constitution created and authorized a government. He denied that “we” owe any duty to obey that government and that the government had any legitimate authority over us. Spooner was correct.

          Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to just be advocating for another coercive, monopoly institution, just with a better rule book this time. Spooner’s critique of the Constitution would apply to any possible future constitution. All of the claimed justifications for political authority fall apart under mild scrutiny. The social contract is an abstract fiction, designed to legitimize political authority, it cannot impose a duty to obey upon the individual. Nobody can rightfully be compelled to accept, and pay for, “representation”, and the “representative” cannot be granted just authority because some people voted for him. Also, one cannot delegate an authority that one does not possess. Now, the essence of government, the “right” to exclude others from providing governance services, and compel people to accept, and pay for its own, is a “right” that no individual can possess. Therefore, the “legitimacy” of even the minarchist fantasy of a “night watchman” State, is false.

          Finally, there exists no theoretical framework to limit a government solely to the provision of services that “we” happen to like. If it is legitimate for the government to use force to compel us to accept and pay for its “justice” and “defense” services, what principle could prevent it from compelling us to accept and pay for its education, product safety, environmental protection, licensing, etc… services? One answer is that “we” specifically prohibit it from doing so, but there are two glaring problems. First, this does not work. Most of what the federal government does unambiguously violates a “strict prohibition” in the Constitution, they don’t care. Second, the group pushing for government to do more will always vastly exceed the group trying to limit its power. “Education” will not, and cannot, override self interest.


          • Jeremy,
            …i am willing to participate if you’re willing to discuss with a mind to learn.

            Pick one item at a time, stay on point, and we can walk it through together.

            I believe you will be pleasantly surprised with the power having law based on property rights can be.

            (FYI, I am intimately familiar with the anarchist political philosophy)

            Lastly your definition of government is not the definition of government, so no, i don’t accept it and there do exist theoretical models to limit size, scope, and violence government can wreak. I intend on sharing one if you can stay on point in btgen maybe you can help build a solution with me

            • Hi Michael,

              I’m always willing to discuss with a mind to learn.

              Pick any of these observations that you’d like to discuss.

              It is widely accepted by political theorists across the entire range of ideologies, from libertarians to communists, that a legal monopoly on violence is a necessary condition for an institution to be a government. This is what distinguishes institutions of governance from the institution of government. If you are talking about institutions of governance that lack a legal monopoly on force, you are not talking about “government”.

              – I don’t see how anything I have written indicates that I am unaware of the “power of having law based on property rights”. I believe that property rights are inherent in the nature of man (stemming from self ownership) and, logically extended, preclude the possibility of “legitimate government”.

              Please share one of the theoretical models you describe. If you wish to discuss one issue at a time, that is fine with me. You made no such request before. Everything I have written to you has been on-point, not necessarily correct, but in direct response to statements you made, thus on-point.


              • I’ll choose 2.
                First the problem with your definition of government, but whether you agree or not, I am concerned with the substance of liberty not the labels of anarchists (or anyone). But i wish to address it because it propogates an enlarged sense of power exercised by the government and diminishes our own.

                Government = “Legal Monopoly on force”
                under our current system, the individual has the lawful authority, antecedent the government, to violently defend oneself, property, and community…with arms even… from government even. And one’s judgement in the use of that violence is subject to ones peers. No government involvement required.
                We even have the ability to organize an armed resistance with our neighbors if needed.
                Also, one retains the right to restrict government from punitive violence without our peers authorizing such punishment.
                Self defense, grand and petite juries are two examples that contradict the monopoly on violence definition/necessary characteristic.

                I will say a single characteristic that distinguishes american government from private society is that government claims the authority to initiate direct and proximate nonconsensual harm. This is the evil that has plagued mankind. Is not allowed in private society. And must be removed from our lives.

                Onto a model
                Freedom is ones ability to exist according to ones will without interference from others.

                Correct, Words on paper mean nothing without Individual human action. The goal would be to create an infrastructure our peers would be willing to fight for.

                Colorado constitutionally restricted its lawmaker by giving instructions on how it was to treat marijuana. Texas just constitutionally restricted its lawmaker by prohibiting an income tax.

                Ideas to defang the beast, constitutionally:

                Assign specific areas of authority to the government and eliminate every other area

                Divest them of their ability to initiate direct and proximate nonconsensual harm in all cases, and disarm them.
                (includes taxation, occupational licensing, non commercial drivers licenses, limited liability protections, marriage licenses,et al)

                Divest them of all property ownership, convert government owned property to commonly owned property

                Divest them of their ability to borrow money

                Constitutionally include the criminal code.

                Creating the framework for spontaneous citizens oversite paneld whos job it is to hear official misconduct cases and impeach bad actors.

                Require a majority of all registered voters to make new law, not just a majority of all who show up. A non vote is a no vote.

                Put sunset provisions in all lawmaker created statutes.

                Require a law maker to cite the area of authority and type of person being regulated

                Require juries to be educated about jury nullification

                Ongoing civics education that teach how the system works and each individuals power.

                Establish fees at a nonprofit rate, which include covering the cost of providing for indigent.

                Any of these, all of these, you’ve probably got better ones, we should be brain storming this out putting together our case and making it law.

                All like minded people may contact me at absoluterights@gmail.com

                  • Also Jeremy, did you ever frequent a website called thedailypaul.com?

                    Or have you read larken Rose’s the most dangerous superstition?

                    Maybe Stephen m’s work?

                    I am intimately familiar with all if the anarchist arguments you’ve put forth.

                    Yes, if you don’t have an apple you can’t give someone an apple. If a thousand don’t have an apple, they can’t give an apple either.
                    Likewise if one or more dont have rightful authority, they cant give it either. All true.

                    But our rulers don’t claim authority from the people, they claim it from the charter. Not one court case has ever been settled by citing the will of the people.

                    Courts look at the founding documents. All lawmaking authority flows from the constitution.

                    The problems you see with fed law making stems from 2 sources.
                    One, congress is not intending laws for the people of the several states but for its own subjects in its possessions (american Samoa, Guam, etc…)
                    Two, the courts have been interpreting the interstate commerce clause broadly to include just about every conceivable act they could justify.

                    Those two little known misunderstandings of jurisdiction are responsible for much of the angst and rhetoric we see federally

                    • Hi Michael,

                      Yes, as many libertarians, I was excited by the 2008 Ron Paul campaign and visited the daily Paul regularly at the time. I am very familiar with Larken Rose and his argument about the “most dangerous superstition”, though I have not read the book. I have read Stephen M, but he does not resonate with me. I find him remarkably malleable for such a “principled” guy. Also, the Defoo stuff seems psychotic and cultish.

                      I realize that much of what I have written to you comes across, to someone versed in the theory, as anarchist argumentation, but it is not. Yes, philosophically, I am an anarchist, but my response to you is not predicated on anarchist theory being correct. It is an examination of whether legally limited government, which you seem to promote, is a theoretical possibility. I claim that it is not, based on logic and the meaning of words, not any specific charter.

                      “But our rulers don’t claim authority from the people, they claim it from the charter. Not one court case has ever been settled by citing the will of the people”.

                      Perhaps this is not your intent, but this implies that the claimed authority would be legitimate if it were based, in law not rhetoric, on the “will of the people”. This cannot be right, there is no such thing as the “will of the people”. It is a self serving abstraction, designed to justify the actions of those claiming to represent this “will”. It is of a piece with the “general will”, the “common good” and the “social contract”. All are fictions, impossible to define, mere arrogant assertions made by those consumed with the lust to rule.

                      “The problems you see with fed law making stems from 2 sources”.

                      Not really, my problem is the idea that Congress can legitimately make, and have enforced, ANY law. I don’t know what you mean by, “…but for its own subjects in its possessions (american Samoa, Guam, etc…)”, but I agree with this claim, “the courts have been interpreting the interstate commerce clause broadly to include just about every conceivable act they could justify”. Of course they have! Whatever the intention, the actual function of SCOTUS is to legitimize political authority. It occasionally thwarts the more egregious attempted usurpations, probably due more to personal animus than principle but, even in these rare cases, it often suggests helpful tips to reword the law so that the obviously unconstitutional desires of the lawmakers may be declared legitimate in the future.


                • Hi Michael,

                  I agree with all you’ve written – but suggest a definition; or rather, a dissection. We make a mistake when we let pass “government” without being clear about what exactly that means. Who it means. What is this thing called “government,” exactly? Is it flesh ad blood? Does it exist, in the same way that you or I exist? Does it have any existence at all?

                  What is “styled” government is just other people. A small minority of people vs. the population, who have acquired titles and offices and – most of all – power. But what gives these people the right to power?

                  They are, after all, just other people – and no person has more or superior rights by dint of titles or offices. They may have power, but that is merely a matter of force – not right.

                  By calling out the fact that “government” is just other people, you rip away the legitimacy of the force exercised by those other people.

                • Hi Michael,

                  Thanks. I’d like you to define what you mean by government, and what distinguishes it from institutions of governance; that would help me understand your points. But, I want to address what you’ve written so far.

                  “First the problem with your definition of government”.

                  Claiming and exercising a legal monopoly on violence is not “my” definition of government, it is accepted in political theory as the defining characteristic of government. In other words, it is what distinguishes government from institutions of governance. This distinction is essential to any discussion of liberty.

                  “But i wish to address it because it propagates an enlarged sense of power exercised by the government and diminishes our own”.

                  I see your point but disagree. Properly recognizing what government is says nothing about the limits of government power, nor the amount of power retained by “us”. I, for instance, believe that government cannot legitimately exercise any power, as government cannot be formed without the violation of rights. You have a different, but still very limited, view of the proper exercise of government power. John Rawls allows for a much greater level of power than either of. But none of this is relevant to what defines a government.

                  You write powerfully about what lawful authority exists in the individual, antecedent to government; I agree with all of this. But, individuals exercising their rights are killed or harmed by government’s all the time, because governments don’t recognize these rights. This is the fundamental issue that I have with your prescription. The idea that a government can be compelled to respect the sovereignty of the individual and the “legal” limits placed on its own power by adding more or better provisions to a constitution is false. Such is impossible in theory and has been demonstrated so in practice.

                  “Self defense, grand and petite juries are two examples that contradict the monopoly on violence definition/necessary characteristic”.

                  The existence of private violence and defense doesn’t contradict the well accepted condition I describe. All governments claim the ultimate authority to determine what private violence it will tolerate. In other words, it determines what violence is legal, and what is not, It exercises a monopoly in this area. Please note, I am not claiming that government has any legitimate right to this authority, nor that the individual does not have the legitimate right to resist as you describe. But, none of this matters to the person killed or imprisoned for exercising his rights.

                  You then list a number of constitutional provisions that could be enacted to “defang the beast”, I agree with most of them. I think I’m beginning to understand the issue you have with what I have written. I’m guessing that you have interpreted it as either nihilistic or a repudiation of trying to enact specific articles to defang the beast, it is not. I’m on board and see value in your plans. However, it remains true that government can simply decide to ignore these provisions or interpret them out of existence. The law cannot limit government.

                  So, what can? All governments ultimately depend on the practical, not legal, consent of the governed. This practical consent may be demonstrated by grudging toleration, indifference or active support. It is vitally important to government to maintain the fiction that it is legitimate. This is done through a pervasive propaganda campaign that permeates economics, political philosophy and ethics. It works very hard to convince most people that it is necessary and good; a few cannot be convinced that it is good, but are still convinced that it is necessary. I suggest that unless the default attitude toward government is that it is neither necessary or good, we will continue to be saddled with authoritarian, expansive governments, pretending to be limited by law.

                  Legitimacy is the currency of government power. It may be that man will be forever cursed with the State, but recognizing this does not mean that we must posit that the institution is legitimate. So, here’s the main thing I’m trying to express, anything that supports the idea that the State is legitimate is counter productive and inimical to liberty. Anything that helps expose the State as a criminal gang, with no more legitimate authority than the mafia, is conducive to liberty.

                  Paraphrasing William Lloyd Garrison, “minarchy in theory is totalitarianism in practice”. The point is that, just like Garrison’s strategic belief that advocating gradualism as “best” undercuts the abolitionist argument and guarantees perpetuity, advocating the idea that government is legitimate, or even worse, “good”, guarantees the continued expansion of government power and eliminates the possibility of minarchy. Counter intuitively, those who genuinely believe that minarchy is preferable to anarchy, should still hold that a purely voluntary society is the ideal. The type of limited government that you desire will never be achieved until most people regard government as a dangerous, criminal gang.

                  I will discuss your specific points and offer some of my own ideas, but this is enough for now.


                  • Fine…im hooked
                    let’s wrap our arms around this concept of government.

                    Two critical elements then its potential powers.

                    First element: government is an organization of individuals/An entity/ A group of individuals coordinating efforts to perform a function or achieve an objective.
                    Second element: government governs/enforces rules/inflicts violence.
                    So government is an organization of individuals that enforce rules/inflicts violence.
                    Legal Monopoly is not necessary to the definition.
                    Its scope of power are those it seizes for itself or those granted/ relinqueshed/ authorized.
                    True, most governments claim monopoly is necessary and seizes ultimate authority. However, american governments do not.
                    A grand jury cannot be legally stopped by government.
                    A jury cannot be legally overridden government. Both are not government. And both are recognized by government as having the supreme decision making authority over conflict. Both are violent and both are totally beyond government.

                    Overcome these with your next reply. Teach me where im wrong. Because just these three examples contradict your definition.

                    Monopoly could be a tendency or inclination (i agree), it may even be the condition in other countries, but it is not essential, therefore not definitional.
                    Also, you keep saying “provisions on paper” ignoring all else I’ve written, Why?
                    Again, we agree. Just writing something down doesn’t mean jack. Action is what holds the bully back.

                    About this, we agree totally…
                    Regarless of the source, ultimately, these people are limited in their violence by their ability and willingness to inflict and our ability and willingness to inflict back.

                    It is possible, wise, and prudent for us to take away their legal authority to harm us, arm ourselves, and establish or use existing legal infrastructure that allows us to not only defend ourselves from them but also hold them accountable for the injury they cause.
                    Call it what you wish. Invent a name. But it is absolutely possible to have rules, to set a scope of enforcement for those rules, to form an organization to administer those rules, and to hold dummies accountable when they go rogue.
                    As far as it not working, again, there is a history of Americans altering their charter. All states rewrote their constitutions to broaden the legislatures authority(much to our detriment), and our people can divest them just the same. Colorado and Texas just pulled it off.
                    Writing it down establishes high ground for conflict. Who should prevail in this conflict. Thats all law is.
                    So that when government says jump and we say f***U…We win.

                    When and in what manner is violence acceptable? As, libertarians and keepers of anglo saxon common law, our answer is the same as mr. Miagi, “Karate for defense only.”


                    • The jury system existed before government and those who formed american government had to acknowledge the system in order for them to have the power they took.
                      So, american government is either not government per your definition as it doesn’t have a monopoly on violence or it is an example of limiting government power.

                      Either way, Lets rally our generation to our cause and make the philosophy Jefferson espoused actual, factual, supreme law.

                    • Hi Michael,

                      The government has a legal monopoly on the use of violence; there is no meaningful limit on the exercise of this monopoly, either. The government decides the extent of its own powers in practice, rhetoric – and “the law” – notwithstanding.

                      I reject government as illegitimate in principle because no matter how it is constructed, it always amounts to the surrender without consent of the individual’s sovereignty. I grant this is an absolutist point of view but then I have an absolutist view of individual rights. I cede not an iota of my sovereignty to anyone – at least, not without freely agreeing and that agreement not general but specific and limited to clearly defined things and applicable only to myself. The same principle applying to others. We are each of us free to contract services, indebt ourselves, etc. But we are not free to force others to pay for services we desire nor to indebt them – and so on.

                    • Hi Michael,

                      I appreciate the response. I’ll point out again that it’s not my definition, its accepted in political theory, used by Rothbard, Hayek, Hoppe, Hobbes, Weber, Oppenheimer, etc… I say this not to argue from authority but to emphasize that there must be something that legally distinguishes an institution of governance from government. If it is not
                      the claimed legal monopoly on violence, what is it?.

                      You write,

                      “First element: government is an organization of individuals/An entity/ A group of individuals coordinating efforts to perform a function or achieve an objective.
                      Second element: government governs/enforces rules/inflicts violence.
                      So government is an organization of individuals that enforce rules/inflicts violence.”

                      This applies just as well to the mafia as to government. What legally distinguishes government from the mafia?

                      “Also, you keep saying “provisions on paper” ignoring all else I’ve written, Why?”

                      I haven’t ignored what you’ve written, I’m on board, as I said before. Go for it. I bring up the “words on paper” argument because you seem to think some proper wording will render government authority legitimate. It will not. Still, I agree that words that formally describe the “legal” limits of government authority are a good idea.

                      “True, most governments claim monopoly is necessary and seizes ultimate authority. However, american governments do not.
                      A grand jury cannot be legally stopped by government.
                      A jury cannot be legally overridden government. Both are not government. And both are recognized by government as having the supreme decision making authority over conflict. Both are violent and both are totally beyond government”.

                      I’m kind of baffled here. Every American government claims supremacy in it’s own jurisdiction. Can a grand jury convene itself? Can a group of private citizens just get together and issue an indictment against a government official that is legally binding? Or, is a grand jury called forth by government? A jury can be overridden by government. Formally, as in a directed verdict, foundationally by jury selection and practically by jury instructions.

                      “So, american government is either not government per your definition as it doesn’t have a monopoly on violence…”

                      No government has a monopoly on violence, that is not the defining characteristic. It is the claim to a legal monopoly on violence. Do you get the distinction? All governments claim the right to determine what violence is legal. This claim is the “legal monopoly on violence” that distinguishes government from other institutions that govern or use force.

                      Finally, so it is clear. I do not object to your plans, I support them. Sure, write better law, make it clear, give us the high ground for conflict, I’m on board. But, none of this changes what government is or compels it to follow the law. Government is an illegitimate, criminal organization that exists, by definition, outside of and above the law. If this is not recognized, there is no hope of defanging it.


                    • Hi Michael,

                      The true revolution, if it ever comes, will happen when people’s minds are revolutionized. When they recoil from the idea of forcibly imposing themselves and their views upon others, whether directly or indirectly (via “government”) in the same way that most people recoil from striking an old person. Only more so.

                      But until then, those of us who already have this attitude are stuck among two-legged hyenas who do not share our attitude.

                      I play the game of one at a time. I do what I can to spread the word – or rather to (hopefully) get the conversation going such that a light may go off in a brain somewhere . . . and then there’s one more.

                      None of us reading this may live to see the revolution and it is possible it may never come. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth striving for.

                  • …”It is the claim to a legal monopoly on violence…”
                    Precisely, and american government makes make no such claim.
                    That’s why the definition is innacurate, and why i take exception to it.
                    (Btw now you’re playing both sides, clever boy. Last post you attacked my legality of monopoly, opting for practicality. Now going back to legality…”claim”. Don’t worry I will unravel both.

                    Our court, jury, and arms provisions are not government grants of power to society (as i imagine they are in other countries)
                    The are constitutionally acknowledged and protected powers our people took and kept for themselves that governments are legally obligated to coexist with.

                    They not only dont claim a legal monopoly on violence, even when they have overwhelming force, resources…even evidence, and it would serve their agenda, one lone 80year old Grandma can stop the most powerful government in history of man dead in their tracks by just whispering not guilty.
                    Moreover, american guv has never made a claim it had a monopoly on violence. In fact, statutes and regs, are littered with their limitations. Even art3 courts have said so in plain english.

                    This is civics. Not politics. This is the origin and mechanics of american law, put to work.

                    Keep in mind, Its the defendent who calls his peers to his aid if he is put upon by the beast. And its his peers, not the government that authorizes the use of force.

                    Another example, remove guv entirely for a moment.
                    You hire me to do something then decide to not pay me.
                    I don’t need gov in any way to come take your stuff.
                    I file court action
                    You call your peers to help
                    I convince your peers
                    Your peers authorize me to take your stuff.
                    I dont even need to invoke a guv statute.

                    These are real powers antecedent the guv. Not hypothetical internet whining.

                    Mechanically, in America, law works like this:
                    Sovereignty (the ultimate power to make and enforce rules) is in the hands of the people. (Right or wrong, aggressive or defensive)

                    The people, through constitution, form an organization and delegate those rule making powers they want outsourced. And the manner they want them made, and the manner they want them enforced.

                    That organization then goes about making and enforcing those rules.

                    I acknowledge the erosion of liberties, the self inflated expansions of power. And again, for all who read this…i agree, just writing words on paper alone, regardless the title of the document, is worthless.

                    However, This is the legal mechanism of governing the government.This is where we can, like Jefferson did, begin to make our philosophy law.
                    And i don’t believe we can wait any longer. 50 years of Misinformation, disinformation, and scope creep are choking out liberty.
                    None of us can build this house alone, but i can lay one brick.

                    Lets start organizing

                    In addit

                    • Hi Michael,

                      Our government certainly does claim a legal monopoly on violence, as do all governments. Try telling it that you are not subject to its authority and see whether it recognizes your claim.

                      I have not played both sides. I have been consistent in describing government as that entity which possesses a legal monopoly of violence in a given geographical area. Using the word claim, does not change that.

                      The “people” you speak of does not exist, it is an abstraction. Some people presumed to speak for others and created a government that other people, who had no say in the process, are compelled to obey.

                      Providing examples of adjudication outside of government is not relevant. Of course this happens. There is also violence that occurs outside of government, also irrelevant. Government defines what private violence and adjudication is legal.

                      I agree with you that rights are antecedent to government which is why I reject what you write here.

                      “The people, through constitution, form an organization and delegate those rule making powers they want outsourced. And the manner they want them made, and the manner they want them enforced. That organization then goes about making and enforcing those rules”.

                      Who are these people and how did they acquire the right to create an organization that can enforce rules against other people who want no part of the organization? How can any person delegate a right he does not possess? You see, no one has the right to compel another person to join this organization. Yet, that’s one of the rules that is enforced by this magic institution.


      • Jeremy,
        The board will only allow me to reply to some of your posts. So pardon the skipping around. Id prefer an email thread, so this will be my last post on this topic. But i sm willing to email.

        Concrete mechanisms of American law have been provided as counter examples to your unsubstantiated legal monopoly of force definition for government…without substantive refutation.

        Your opinion that a well established mechanism of law is “not relevant” is not a substantive refutation.

        Here, I’ll help:
        cite a statute, reg, court decision, court dicta, explain a mechanic of law, a maxim of law, a courts general rule, even an overzealous legal argument made by government, something other than “i say so”, anything of substance. Shake me to my foundation with a critical insight that im overlooking. Email it to me. If you nail it, ill come back here and wave a white flag.
        I’ll repent my ignorance. Seriously, if ive got this wrong, i need to know.
        But nada substantial so far. Just a naked assertion that i would agree probably applies to other countries.

        Its hard to jail break a mind. I’ll give it one more go.

        “Try telling it that you are not subject to its authority and see whether it recognizes your claim”
        Slavery and prohibition were both curtailed by people doing exactly that! People still do all the time!…because It doesn’t matter what claims your legal adversary recognizes, they’re not the authority. They don’t have the final say, they dont have a monopoly on violence. They don’t even claim they do.

        “… Within their jurisdiction…”
        Jurisdiction is exactly why monopoly on violence definition is innacurate.
        Ive refrained from using legalease, but since you invoked the magic word…

        Every american government has limited legislative jurisdiction whose meets and bounds are found in its operating charter.
        Condensing law school into a sentence…
        Government is constitutionally granted jurisdiction over certain subjects/topics (subject matter jurisdiction) within its borderes (territorial jurisdiction.) All of which can be altered through amendments to its constitution.

        They are legally obligated to recognize, coexist, and even compete with society’s court, jury, and arms institutions.

        If an office holder acts outside those boundaries, it ceases to be governmental, loses qualified immunity, and is subject to punishment.
        Id love to discuss other topics you raised. Legitimacy of force being one.
        Group Abstraction being another.
        A communities ability to empanel Grand juries, Appoint special prosecutors,Conduct investigations, Subpoena, Conduct trials, arrest felons, and defend themselves all without government approval

        Good luck Jeremy

        Challenges can be emailed to
        I will be starting a libertarian oriented blog soon, focussed on American civics and what it will take to make our pholosophy the law.

        • Hi Michael,

          Thanks for the response. We’re speaking at cross purposes. I don’t deny that concrete mechanisms of American law exist. What I deny is that these compel the government to follow them, that’s why you pointing out that they exist is not relevant.

          As I’ve mentioned many times before, the legal monopoly of force distinction is not my definition, it is understood in political theory to be the characteristic that distinguishes “government” from other institutions of governance (charitable organizations, churches, families, private adjudication, etc…), and other institutions that rule by force (organized crime, gangs, etc…).

          I think I’ve done a poor job of distinguishing between a legal monopoly, and an actual monopoly, of force. Of course, no government has an actual monopoly on force. The point is that it defines who is legally allowed to use force, and what social institutions it will recognize and allow to compete with it. You are correct that people stand up to government and win. They do so by exercising force or resistance that the government largely considers illegal. In these cases, it eventually recognizes the claims of the protestors, not because it is legally bound to do so, but because it risks being considered illegitimate due to changing public opinions.

          You see, all governments are limited, by material resources and, much more importantly, by the willingness of most of the people to accept its authority as legitimate. That is why it is so important to maintain the fictions that underlie the legitimacy of the State. Chief among these fictions are the claims that the “people” created the government and delegated to it just authority, and that it legitimately rules by the “consent of the governed”. The “people” did not create the government, some people did and then told others, “congratulations, you’re now a member of our club, with all of the rights and responsibilities therein”. Those who object are told that “you” created it and thus granted it your consent. Nonsense!

          Any person may delegate authority to an agent, but he cannot delegate an authority that he does not possess. No person has the authority to bind others to the rules and enforcement mechanisms of an institution that other people created. Thus, all governments are formed illegitimately. No laws, statutes or judicial interpretations can alter this fact.

          I am not arguing for anarchy (that is a separate discussion), I am arguing against the mythology that underlies the perceived legitimacy of political authority. Conservatives and libertarians often argue that if government is limited to the protection of liberty, it is legitimate and good. Liberals and progressives often argue that if government promotes the “common good” and protects the people, it is legitimate and good. Both sides accept that if government is properly ordered it is legitimate and good; they just disagree about what properly ordered means.

          It may be that we will be forever saddled with government and I agree that a strictly limited government along “our” philosophical lines, is preferable to what we have now. It is even possible that such an institution would be preferable to anarchy. The question is how can such an institution be limited. I believe that the only hope is if the majority of people view government as “at best, a necessary evil”. Ultimately, it is up to individuals and groups to limit government power; I posit that this is only possible if most people reject the idea that, with the proper formulation, government can be legitimate and good, such thinking guarantees a perpetually metastasizing State. It has also allowed political philosophers to dismiss, for the most part, the problem of scale, which is arguably the single greatest hurdle to achieving the limited government you desire. It is simply not true that a “proper foundation” renders scale irrelevant.

          Consider that “our” experiment in limited government barely made it a decade before the first major assault on our liberties took place.

          Kind Regards and good luck with your blog,


          • In United States v Williams Scalia discusses the power and independence of the grand jury:
            “[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “´is a constitutional fixture in its own right.´” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977)…In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm´s length. Judges´ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] ”
            In America, Its not the government that puts you in jail or takes your stuff. Its your peers. Read this again and again. Notice where we the sovereigns sit on the food chain. Civics here in this discussion is lacking. It presumes sovereignty held in the hands of government and therefor has a legal or lawful “monopoly on violence”. Yet every document, court decision, and actual mechanics of our governance demonstrates otherwise. Your peers put you in jail, not the big bad guv. All American government can do is investigate, document, and tattle to your peers. Chisolm v georgia will give you a good start. But it does nothing more than reiterate the DOI. In fact, all matters of American civics come back to the DOI. I can go through it line by line if you wish. It is a dense legal document that remains our first organic law. Government was instituted among men, not above, not below…it stands as your equal, not your servant, and not your master. It can only move against you just like your neighbor could. If you are utilizing one of its privileges, it has a ton of power. Just like your neighbor. If you aren’t, its gotta put up a lot more to win. Just like your neighbor. We need a civics revival here peter. And quick. You’ve got an audience, teach them their rightful power. I can get you up to speed fast. like a corvette.
            I will stipulate that in other countries, probably the case. But not here. Natural, common, organic, and statutory law and rubber meets the road mechanics all dispute the claim.

            • Atticus,

              Theory and practice are different. You write about what government can’t do, yet it, or more accurately those wield the power of the State, do things to us all the time. Perhaps the family of Daniel Shaver should be consoled by believing that it was his peers, not an armed government thug, who killed him. The “mechanics” of government demonstrates that it is an institution that exists outside of, and above the law. It does not bind itself to “every document and court decision”.


              • Rogue criminal behavior is not the same as mechanical…And I could throw a hundred more examples of uniform wearing trash bags acting unlawfully and illegally. And a hundred more of people utilizing the mechanics of American Jurisprudence to hold them accountable.
                Have you ever filed an action? Defended yourself
                against law breaking gubbers. Do you know how? Have you taken up the banner of this guy, collected evidence, gone to the grand jury, as is your right, as is available to you through the mechanics of our system? Filed a criminal complaint? Destroyed their qualified immunity? Taken their dough, put them in jail? Do it!

                Correct, they don’t bind themselves…to anything. That’s your job: Here’s some instruction from SCOTUS
                “It is not the function of our Government to keep citizens from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” Communicators Association v. Douds 339 U.S. 382, 442
                It would be great for criminals to lock themselves up. But criminals are rarely self regulating.

                When dummies trespass, who’s responsibility is it to claim your rights and defend yourself.

                Pick up your tools and get to work.

                • Further, to turn this into a civics lesson for anyone who happens to read this…

                  Where in our organic law can we find a basis for such a statement from SCOTUS?

                  First the DOI…Governments are instituted among (not above, or below) men…it is their right, it is their duty to alter or abolish it.

                  Second, we move to the preamble for the bill of rights:
                  …in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers…
                  Then we have a list of things that individuals are able to do…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of governmental powers. Including organizing, arming up for defense, denying access, forming grand juries with presentment powers to investigate governmental corruption, petite juries to protect, et al…
                  Not a list of things government can do to prevent itself from doing bad stuff. Us. Its our job. Always has been.
                  We made this thing, and its our job to regulate it.

                  All of this flys in the face of well meaning “monopoly on violence” theory.

                  look, a guy breaks into my house. I shoot him.
                  Government, family, etc… investigate and decide to prosecute.
                  Its not them that makes the decision of guilt or not guilty. Its my peers.
                  If they had a monopoly, they could just do whatever. like they do in countries where gov has a monopoly. But here, any one of my peers on the jury can say nope and they disappear.
                  All by itself it eviscerates the monopoly claim. Its not applicable to our system.

                  • (and its a list of retained sovereign powers, not a grant of powers)

                    I can’t figure out how to edit my posts so just plug in

                    “a list of retained sovereign powers individuals may do to prevent the abuse of governmental powers”

                  • Atticus,

                    I have never claimed that the government has an actual monopoly on violence, but that it claims a legal monopoly on violence. This is the characteristic that distinguishes a government from other forms of governance and criminal organizations. This fact is obvious, and exemplified, not negated, by your examples.

                    In your first example, it is the government that ultimately dictates what forms of resistance it will allow. An entity that determines when it is lawful for you to commit violence, is exercising its’ legal monopoly on violence. In your second example, it is the government that decides whether to arrest and prosecute you, it claims a monopoly on this power. Had a group of your neighbors, friends or family attempted to claim jurisdiction here, found you innocent and told the AGW’s to pound sand when they came to arrest you, the government would not recognize that claim.


                • Atticus,

                  If it’s our job to control the government, perhaps we’d be better off without it. At the least, it would be easier to control the government it it were correctly perceived as an institution that acts outside of, and above the law. It should be perceived, as Thomas Paine noted, “at best a necessary evil”.

                  Bad government actors are occasionally held accountable, but more often not. Philip Brailsford, for instance, is receiving lifetime disability for the trauma he experienced at murdering a helpless man. You are correct that his “peers” acquitted him of murder, which is the norm, not the exception.

                  Whatever documents and court decisions say, most people act as if the government is above us; they have been conditioned to do so by State actors who clearly believe that they are above us. Is it even conceivable that Philip Brailsford would have been acquitted were he not accorded conditioned deference, due to his position as an AGW, in the minds of the jurors?


                  • We are in total agreement.
                    I suggest not perpetuating the well intentioned myths I see floating around these libertarian boards.

                    I mean, libertarians should understand that their NAP philosophy is pretty much the law already. And to start acting accordingly.

                    Nature makes law. Man makes rules. The aim of american jurisprudence is to ensure that all man made rules are in accord with the natural law.

                    Natural law: Cause and effect without contradiction. In regards to human relations.
                    Trespass causes harm. (thats the NAP)

                    Common law: Those actions which avoid, defend against, and remedy trespass. (NAP)

                    Organic law: The written documents that establish organizations which are charged with securing the natural and common law (DOI, art of conf, nw ordinance, fed and state constitutions) All of which are on the books at…The United States Code Annotated under the heading “Organic laws”

                    I gotta get back to things. Ripped these out pretty quick. Good talk. Glad we found some common ground. Peace friend.

                • Atticus,

                  His rogue criminal behavior is not the “mechanics”, I was referring to. His predictable acquittal, is certainly an example of those mechanics. Other “mechanics” include perpetual and illegal wars, and the current totalitarian lockdown policies afflicting us now. Begging the tyrants to alter course, on their turf, using their rules, will not work unless accompanied by large scale civil disobedience.


    • “Mechanically, the DOI served to cut ties with foreign guvs. That’s all, and it is still law today.”

      Just like the BAR criminal conspirators conclude. It says, “mechanically” as you say:1)where rights come from and some of what is right, 2)who institutes government, 3)the scope and purpose of lawful government, 4)intrisic duty of men when government becomes tyrannical towards the rights of men, 5)identifiable attributes of tyranny, 6)cuts ties with foreign gov for the aforementioned mechanics, 7)acknowledges that divine law (providence) is the ultimate decider (supreme judge of the world) of the freedom from existing gov.

      Also, one HUGE glaring failure that your claim that it tyrants claim that “Mechanically, the DOI served to cut ties with foreign guvs” is the final conclusion of the legal tender cases that used foreign precedent to justify an ONGOING breach by US gov that paper fiat money was allowed- foreign precedent was used for tender but foreign AND US precedent dictated that debasing currency is death penalty offense.

      Your entire position FAILS upon intellectually scrutiny.

      • Lots of fury. Misaimed at an ally unfortunately.

        I agree with you that the legal tender cases were contrived to further their agenda. However, the entire whole of US history interprets the DOI in the same way, including Jefferson himself, as it contains only one operable command.

        The DOI begins with statements of political philosophy (that we both hold dear), then lists transgressions made by the king against that philosophy, and concludes with the declaration of independence, that they are now free to act independently as other governments do:
        “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do”

        If they wanted to make those political philosophies law, they needed to include them in each governments charter. But they didn’t.
        Since they didn’t, We should, and you can help. You obviously have a fire in your belly for liberty. Help make Jefferson’s philosophy the supreme law and lets make individual liberty real!

  5. When you bother to read the powers of the IRS, you’ll find that one thing they’re prevented from doing is collecting taxes and wages……That should be mandatory reading the the literate(declining quickly) of this country. And that’s just one “taxing entity”.

    If Americans had that big wage tax dildo pulled out of their collective ass everyone would be thinking “what was that?”. No telling how many would wonder what was wrong.

    I’m reminded of the old joke about the guy who had a sewer plate in the street by his house that didn’t fit correctly. Every time a car passed by, the plate rang out. After several years the street was repaved and the plate was replaced and the new one made no noise when a vehicle drove over it. The first night after this repair, he was sound asleep and a car drove by. He jumped up and said “What was that?”.

  6. No “taxes” – i.e., theft cloaked in euphemistic terms. Only fee for services, which services may be declined by those who do not wish to pay for them or withheld from those who do not pay for them by those who offer them.

    You have snuck in a voluntary society Eric. Identical in all respects to that demonized word “Anarchy”
    I am on board. You can’t get much worse than what we have now. It is what the Declaration promised us….

      • The only problem with anarchy is that, at some point, a stronger group or gov’t will come in and overpower you. Think of the Somali warlords. They have no functional gov’t, but there are men wielding power, i.e. the warlords. Nature ABHORS a vacuum, and something will FILL said vacuum. Like socialism, it sounds great in theory, but sucks in practice. That’s the only problem with anarchy…

        • Or you are simply a scared lawless pussy who needs to justify your own lawless gov.

          Anarchy=without rulers

          What does GOD say about rulers?

          “”Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

          I think pretty sums up God’s (the law’s) position on rulers (anarchy). To be with rulers is against God. To be without (against) rulers is with God. Who is your God? The rulers? Or the God who commanded against rulers?

          • You forgot an important detail: humans are not Godly creatures; they don’t think like God, nor do they ACT like God. Humans are also imperfect. Can we not at least agree on that? Therefore, even if you have a perfect system, once humans are part of it, it’ll cease to be perfect.

            You also forgot Romans 13, which talks about Earthly authorities.

            Having said all that, we live in an imperfect, Godless world. In that world, vacuums will be filled. If the federal gov’t were all of a sudden to disappear tomorrow, something would rise up in its place. Even if it didn’t; even if we didn’t have someone providing leadership and direction; then we’re going to have problems the moment a conqueror shows up on our doorstep.

            The closest we’ve been to a libertarian ideal would be the old American Indians, and even they had chiefs. Even so, their way of living didn’t allow them to have sufficient strength to stop the conquering white man; they were subdued. Again, anarchy, like socialism, sounds GREAT on paper! When it’s tried in the real world, we run in to problems.

            Our COTUS would work if it were followed. James Madison, the father of the COTUS, said that it was suitable only for a moral and religious people. One can say many things about the modern USA and its society, but moral and religious don’t come to mind. That is the HEART of the problem right there. No matter what system we have, it’ll break down and become authoritarian because we’re not a moral and religious people anymore.

            • There is some truth in what you say. Although I say anarchy is “rules, no rulers”, it seems it’s easily lost to evil men.

              Maybe when the SHTF in a global and especially the US, the survivors will have learned what our forefathers knew.

              I’d say the odds on the worse the war, the better the odds morality will make a resurgence. If it doesn’t, I don’t look to see the war end till mankind is virtually wiped out.

              I’d bet the “House” as they say in Las Vegas, would bet on something along those lines.

              • Hi Handler,

                I disagree with you on monarchism – or rather, your statement that it’s “The only system that’s most compatible with human nature.”

                Not my nature! And I suspect not yours, either!

                I don’t accept that anyone is entitled to rule – nor that anyone is bound to obey. We are each sovereign – but only over ourselves. That is a form of monarchy, perhaps – and the only one I’ll bend knee to!

                Are some people incompetents? Fools? Knaves? Certainly. But even if most of them are, it doesn’t vitiate the rights of those who aren’t any of those things to be treated as though they are incompetents, fools and knaves. This latter is the essence of what I style Cloverism, i.e., busybodyism, least-common-denominator collectivism and – inevitably – suffocating authoritarianism, of which monarchism is one of many varieties but fundamentally the same as the rest.

                I would not want to be part of a monarchy even if I were elevated to the peerage. Though I admit that adding Freiherr or Graf to my name might be fun!

                • The only way a stateless society could ever successfully exist is if the whole world was full of intelligent, like-minded people.

                  The egalitarian democratic state is clearly far more destructive than any bad monarchical state in history. I highly recommend reading Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s brilliant work if you haven’t already.

                  • Hi Handler,

                    Essentially anarchistic societies have existed, successfully and with stability. The two most cited are ancient Iceland and the American West.


                    High intelligence is not required. Self interest, a natural aversion to violence and the risk of harm, and the lack of a legally recognized predatory institution (the State), may be sufficient. It is interesting to note that the American West was remarkably non violent and relations with American Indians were mostly peaceful until the Federal government became so powerful that the settlers could reap the rewards of violence without taking on the risk (Federal soldiers did the dirty work on their behalf).

                    In any case, I find these absolutist proclamations to be bizarre. None of us know how society could, or would, be ordered absent the State. It is possible that the State is inevitable but not certain. It is possible that robber gangs would always achieve dominance, but far from certain and, in my opinion, unlikely.

                    In addition, whatever the official political arrangement happens to be, the overwhelming majority of human interaction is anarchic in nature. Every voluntary transaction, association, charitable act, etc… is anarchic. Anarchy is so pervasive most people cannot see it. Anarchy is the default condition of most of human life, if it were not, none of us would be here.

                    I also find it curious that many insist that anarchy is impossible, utopian, a fantasy, etc… while while arguing for minarchy! There has never been an example of a stable, successful, legally limited government in all of human history. Successful examples of formal anarchy exist, evidence that informal anarchy pervades our social existence, are all around us.

                    As for the unique evil of Democracy and the relative superiority of Monarchy, I completely agree. Hoppe’s Democracy: The God that failed is pretty compelling, I’ll check out the book that you recommend.


                  • It doesn’t seem to matter how many atrocities the state commits; people continue to worship it. That’s what’s so disheartening.

                    The book is called Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Times.

    • Furthermore: “The unique American version of “nationalism” was invented at the time of the founding by a group of conniving, Machiavellian politicians who sought to overthrow the results of the American Revolution – the casting off of the centralized, oppressive, mercantilist/crony capitalist British empire – and adopt the very same system in America – the British empire without the British. There is nothing wrong with a corrupt, tyrannical, mercantilist empire that uses the coercive powers of the state to enrich the ruling class at the expense of the working class, these men said, confident that they would naturally assume the position of the ruling class.
      These men were led by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, and other “Federalists,” many of who were “defectors” to the cause of liberty – the cause of the American Revolution” ~ From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/thomas-dilorenzo/deceived-in-liberty-the-curse-of-american-nationalism/

    • Slavery has been accepted by every people of the world at one time or another. Slavery is still ongoing today, just better disguised. Exactly why the US has been singled out is a mystery, especially as it was the only country to fight a war over it,,, as some historians suggest.
      The People that accepted it have been dead for years. Your attempt in trying to make a society guilty for something that happened centuries ago is illustrative of the sickness that has perverted our culture and destroying the nation. People need to look to the future, not just the past. There is no future if your busy living the past. I am not saying to forget it,,, rather learn from it and carry on.

    • Not to be snarky, but what’s inherently wrong with slavery? If someone murders your son does he not owe his life as restitution?

      It’s the idea of being born into bondage, or born into nobility which is the problem. Slavery is unfortunately a part of the human character, never completely eradicated. The modern system of debt peonage/wage slavery is arguably worse than one where the plantation master had an economic interest in caring for his property.

      I reject that my country is uniquely evil because it grappled with chattel slavery centuries ago, which as an evil and stupid institution was dying out due to economic inefficiency before crusading idiots destroyed the republic by using slavery as an excuse to usurp and consolidate power.

  7. Don’t know of even one instance in history where a constitution or any legalese prevented a government going to the dark side. Maybe someone can help here…
    Once a government has a monopoly on force it will disregard its founding papers and ignore the wants of the People. The first administration ignored the very paper it helped to write. Waging war on its People and creating a central bank.
    The War between the States changed ‘These united States’ to ‘The United States’ ending any sovereignty of the States or the Person. The elimination of the Militia. Then the Federal Reserve and the 16th and 17th amendments, both improperly ratified finished off any resistance to the Feds from the States.
    Within three years of the Federal Reserve the US entered WWI,,, a war that was on the verge of ending, the US entrance allowed it to go on another year and a half. The result was an armistice that eventually started WWII. Both wars were entered by administrations that were voted in by the People to stay neutral and out of the war. Both Administrations done everything they could to lead us into war. But at least both wars had a declaration of war as the constitution required. Afterwards the US Presidents started the wars with no declaration and still are. Then came the slow usurpation of the Bill of Government Restraints. Today, all but the 3rd amendment are no longer a restraint to the out of control government. And then you have half of the population wanting to eliminate it altogether because a couple of the founders had slaves. Unfortunately these people don’t realize they too are slaves.
    So they destroyed property rights (taxes, environment) , destroyed the money (inflation, ending the gold standard, deficits), destroyed the markets (interference), destroyed the economy that gave people a decent life, (offshoring, H1B, H2B, massive illegal immigration), destroyed our freedom of movement (TSA, Passports), destroyed our culture (LGBT, massive immigration, color and sex infighting), destroyed our unity (1/2 the population calling the the other half Nazi or Commie), destroyed our language (Gender reassignments, #MeToo), destroyed our borders (corpgov refusing to control them), worse of all they destroyed our reputation. We are now considered the Evil Empire by the world.
    So in closing, no piece of paper can prevent this. Only a people united and forceful, a situation that hasn’t presented itself for 160 years.

    • Australia has followed the exact same path as the US. Our Constitution is blatantly ignored by the government. The government now ignores the people. The 3 major political parties had different philosophies 10 years ago. Now there is no difference between the 3 majors, that I call the Major Unitary Party (MUPpets). Only a few independents, who in the past all voted in line with the Labor government. Constant involvement in other wars that do not affect Australia at all, like world wars, Vietnam, Afghan, Iraq, the Boer War. Hate and race laws which only serve to divide the people. There is more but there is not enough computer space or time to list the violations of tyrannical government here in the land down under.

      • Australia is a sad case. You guys had a chance to be an independent nation and instead youre out bitches and a slave to the new world order. You had one chance in 1975 and the CIA took the guy down.

  8. Declaration of Independence of the United States 2020

    The unanimous Declaration of We the People of the United States of America. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with government, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of the world requires that they should declare the abuses that lead them to separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Self Defense, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the people. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and Responsibility of Free 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, to most positively affect their Safety and Happiness.

    Prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. Accordingly, all experience has shown, that people are more disposed to suffer because life is sufferance, than to right themselves by abolishing the tyranny to which they are accustomed, while risking Life. When a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing the goal to reduce the Constitutional Republic into absolute Despotism, it is the people’s right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Liberty and Freedom.

    Such has been the patient sufferance of these States and people; and now it is necessary to alter the Guards of Government. The history of the present government corporation of the District of Columbia, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation, all having the goal of the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and people. To prove this, we submit Facts to a candid world.

    The Government Corporation has refused compliance to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good and equal justice, by declaring itself a corporate person, separate from the United States.

    The Government Corporation has forbidden passage of Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till government corporation approval should be obtained; and when so suspended, utterly neglects responsibility and accountability.

    The Government Corporation has passed Laws for the accommodation of more control over the people, while forcing the relinquishment of rights and liberties. Rights and liberties priceless to the people and a weapon of control to tyrants.

    The Government Corporation has called together policy makers at unusual places, distant from the people, with armed security preventing access, for the sole purpose of wearing down the people into compliance with their measures.

    The Government Corporation has dissolved militias repeatedly, for opposing government infringements on the rights of the people, when the US constitution requires government to provide for militias.

    The Government Corporation has caused proxies to be placed in power; whereby the Legislative powers have returned to the government corporation for their control; the State remaining in the mean-time exposed to all the dangers of regulatory government agents not interested in justice, public safety, or public service.

    The Government Corporation has obstructed equal Justice, by refusing compliance to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers with integrity and by refusing to prosecute government corporate agents.

    The Government Corporation has made Judges dependent on government corporate desires, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    The Government Corporation has erected a multitude of buildings, and sent hither swarms of agents to harass the people, and eat out their substance, all while claiming to be peace officers that have taken an oath to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    The Government Corporation has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. Armies they threaten to turn upon the people that might otherwise fight for their rights and liberties.

    The Government Corporation has by passive consent rendered the Military and Government Agents independent of, and superior to, the Civil power and not subject to equal justice.

    The Government Corporation has combined with other nation’s intelligence agencies to subject the people to jurisdictions foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving government corporation approval of their Acts of oppression and tyranny:

    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops and agents among us:

    For protecting government agents, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit upon the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Free Trade through government corporation approval of corporate monopolies and unconstitutional regulatory law, using them for censorship of expression and tyrannical attacks upon individual liberties:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent, while handing money over to nations foreign to American values of freedom and liberty, while arranging the sale of arms to contrive foreign entanglements:

    For depriving us the benefits of Trial by Jury and due process:

    For forced rendition of us into international waters to be tried for pretend offences and held in black site prisons:

    For abolishing the free System of common constitutional law and restoration, establishing therein a shadow government and deep state, and enlarging government corporate Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute tyranny into the States, as a monarch or dictator:

    For violation of the oath to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Government away from the principals of our Constitutional Republic:

    For usurping our Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    The Government Corporation has relinquished their representative power, by declaring the people out of their Protection and waging War against the people.

    The Government Corporation has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns and homes, and destroyed the lives of our people, all in the name of “government help, security and environmental protection”.

    The Government Corporation is at this time transporting agents and Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and treachery scarcely paralleled in the most violent ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a Constitutional Republic.

    The Government Corporation has constrained our fellow Citizens by taking volunteers on the high Seas to bear Arms against the government corporation’s arbitrary enemies, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands, in the name of a New World Order that is antithetical to our Constitutional Republic’s existence.

    The Government Corporation has executed domestic insurrections among the people, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, government sponsored terror and the merciless government agents, whose known rule of geopolitical warfare, is a destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these abuses We have Petitioned for Redress in the humblest terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the government of a free people.We have warned the government corporation from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the people. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration, settlement here and the year 1776. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have pleaded for the people that they disavow the usurpation, which would inevitably interrupt our relations and communication. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and the people. We must, therefore, tell those that denounce our Separation, we hold them, as we hold the rest of the world. Enemies in War. Friends in Peace.

    We the people, of the united States of America, in General Assembly, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Government Corporation, and that all political connection between them and the people, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States have a right to do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    • You beat me to it.

      All that’s needed to fix the Declaration is substituting “federal government” for “King George.”

      And adding several thousand new abuses and usurpations to the dreary list.

  9. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was based on John Locke’s formulation “life, liberty and property” in his Second Treatise of Government. As JWK noted in a comment on another of your articles, Jefferson did not want to say “property” in the Declaration because that would suggest an affirmation of slavery.

  10. That Rubicon was crossed long ago with no hope of return. Since then, the biggest year in American history was 1913. That year greased the skids for runaway socialism. Two Constitutional amendments were ratified; the direct election of senators rather than being appointed by the state’s legislatures and direct taxation of income. And also the creation of the Federeal Reserve System that put monetary policy in control of private banks. It’s been downhill to hell ever since.

  11. “and had he done so, we might not have to deal with what we’re dealing with now.”

    Nah, I don’t thinks so. TPTB would just have started “reinterpreting” and ignoring it much earlier.

    “A government is a body of people, usually, notably ungoverned.” Shepherd Derrial Book (Firefly)

    Those with the power, laws and guns will never be held to account, even by the laws they create. Laws are for controlling the masses, not the masters. This is obvious.

    • I’ve always thought that a major failure of the Constitution was that it prescribed no penalties for government employees who violated it. That little oversight has led us directly to the judicial notion of “absolute immunity” and “qualified immunity,” which mean that government officials can basically do pretty much anything and not be held personally responsible (all you can do is make an agency pay a fine, which means that a chunk of the money WE paid in taxes is moved from one place in the government to another, which provides no justice for anybody).

      Now — Institute for Justice just won a suit for abrogation of civil rights against DEA/TSA for robbing a traveler of a large sum of cash (life savings to be deposited in a bank in the destination state) for no legitimate reason whatsoever. What they haven’t announced widely is that now they intend to file a damage suit directly against the DEA official who authorized the seizure.

      A lot more of THAT action, and we may see some improvement.

      • Hi Henry,

        “I’ve always thought that a major failure of the Constitution was that it prescribed no penalties for government employees who violated it”.

        How would that have changed anything? Government has a legal monopoly on judging whether it violated the Constitution. Government employees are rarely punished for transgressions, not because there are almost no prescribed punishments in the Constitution but because government has no interest in limiting its own power. Why would they? You see, it doesn’t matter if “we” think that they have violated the Constitution because “they” get to decide. The very few times that employees are punished you can be certain that it has nothing to do with the stated transgression, but rather that the employee committed a political offense that angered someone higher up (see Rod Blagojevich), or that a sacrificial lamb is needed to advance the fiction that the State can hold itself accountable. Notice that neither the DEA/TSA, nor any of their employees, will be punished or held accountable for robbing a traveler of his life savings. Sure, this case is a victory, but the beast rolls on undeterred.

        The major flaw is not the Constitution, or anything it could have said. The fatal flaw is the belief that legally limited government is possible, it is not. The definition of government, that institution which exercises a legal monopoly on the use of force within a certain geographical area, precludes the possibility of legally limited government. You see, part of that monopoly of force is a monopoly on judging its own actions relative to the law. Such an institution exists, by definition, outside of and above the law.

        Kind Regards,

  12. The Declaration should never have happened. What few restrictions on the government the declaration has such as the commerce clause have been completely ignored. It created the rampaging monster we have today. Getting rid of the articles of confederation and later lincolns war destroyed whatever freedoms we had. Good list though.

    • Might you be confusing the Declaration and the Constitution? The Declaration has no commerce clause. It only has reasons why a people could unite to throw off their government and a list of abuses that they used to justify in doing just that.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here