A reader – a “conservative” one – says the following regarding the “contract” I supposedly agreed to that binds me to obeisance as regards the authority of the federal government:
“You assented to one by living in the U.S. You pledged allegiance to the US in school. You accepted the preamble to the Constitution. You accepted the Declaration of Independence that gave rise to the United States. Everyday, you (hopefully) follow the laws of the US. You choose to vote for the changes you want and agree to accept the results of that vote.
The contract is not one of something of a paper you signed, but rather a choice you and your family made by choosing the US as the place to live.”
Oy vey!
This merited not just a response in the comments section of this site but a wider discussion, because it embodies the reverential-coercive mindset that many “conservatives” (loosely synonymous with Republicans) have toward government that – as I see it – accounts for why they have been so ineffective at making the case for less (let alone no) government.
Herewith my reply, with some additions:
That’s the sort of construction used by thugs. It is of a piece with “she consented to have sex because she willingly came into my apartment. She let me touch her there – and so she consented to be penetrated there.”
I consented to nothing. Whether you or any other person did is immaterial as regards myself.
The fact that I was born here does not amount to my assent to anything, either. The idea that – as a minor child under duress – I agreed to some kind of binding agreement (for life) with adults because I “pledged allegiance” is risible. (By the way, were you aware that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist? And what free man “pledges allegiance” to any government? Free men owe allegiance to no government; that is to say, a free man is not a servile man who “pledges allegiance” to other men- the ones who hold government office and enforce their will on others using the power of government.)
I know – Somalia right? Move there if I do not like it here. I have done this dance many times. Many conservatives suffer from false tautology of mind in that the regard the absence of government – “anarchy” is the usual word used – with an absence of rules. No, just government’s rule.
It is a rule in my house – which is private property – that smoking inside is not permitted. Government rules that people may not smoke within all restaurants, which are also private property. My rules are enforced non-coercively. Those who wish to smoke can smoke outside – or within their own homes. Or within the homes of those who do not have rules against smoking. Note the voluntary, non-coercive nature of the thing. As opposed to the coercive thing that is government’s rules.
Back to this contract business:
A contract – to be that – must be something very specific, in writing and freely agreed to by both parties that each have signed it absent duress. Ask a lawyer. So – please – stop using the word “contract” to describe the idea that anyone born here or who is here has agreed to abide by whatever the government decrees “because contract” – because it’s simply wrong as a factual and etymological matter and also vicious. It is of a piece with the equally risible and vicious idea that I have given “implied consent” to be subjected to probable cause-free inspections when I am out on the road in my car because I am effectively forced to obtain a government permission slip to use what were once understood to be the public’s right-of-way.
Many “conservatives” support such vicious nonsense, which is truly tragic. It is why “conservatives” are (as a class) unable to combat collectivism – because they are collectivists, too. Their collectivism is simply “less” of it – as they see it. And for different reasons – and different ends – than the collectivism they putatively object to, because it differs in its reasons and ends.
But not its fundamentals.
I do not mindlessly obey laws – much less respect them – merely because they are laws.
There were laws in Soviet Russia, too. Slavery was once “the law” here. A law is just that – a law. That is, an edict issued by the authority styled “government.” It is not by dint of being “the law” a moral standard that must be obeyed for that reason. As an example, I ignore seatbelt laws literally every time I drive. I “speed.” I ignore what I am told I may (and may not) do with my own body. Fuck such laws.
But I do not steal or rape or kill – and not because of “the law.” Rather, because such things are moral affronts.
I hope you will consider this.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here. We also accept crypto (see below).
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
The bitcoin code is: 3GAfymoqSUbaFvY8ztpSoDKJWCPLrkzAmi if you’re unable to scan the QR code above!
> Fraud vitiates contracts. There is no contract.
Speaking of which, the “Treaty” of Versailles was executed under duress, and was therefore null and void. The German Empire had every gun in the British Royal Navy pointed at them, and were told their people would starve if they did not sign the “Treaty.”
The British made the Germans “an offer they couldn’t refuse.” Royal Navy, meet Luca Brasi. You guys ought to get along just fine.
“You assented to one by living in the U.S…”
You could have stopped reading at that point. This person is very ignorant.
Driving to work this morning, I noticed one of the oncoming vehicles appeared to flash its high beams at me. I had my lights on because it was early morning and still a little dim outside, but not my brights. So I slowed down to just above the speed limit. Good that I did. Over the hill was a government thug pointing his radar gun at his human farm animals as they drove by.
I also did my duty of warning other drivers as I slid past without incident thanks to the courteous driver who warned me just seconds before. Hopefully, the asshole thug didn’t “catch” anyone speeding.
By the way, the cops love this road since a couple of years ago they changed the speed limit from 50 to 40 for no reason. Everyone still drives 50. At least.
Every government is evil by it’s very nature. It assumes authority to kill you if you disobey,
t
What a crock, none of us pick where we were born, and an infant certainly cannot “consent” to anything, implied or otherwise. Just more government BS to assert ownership of us serfs.
just one more point. do you know what the definition of a ”citizen ” is?
: a native or naturalized person who OWES ALLIGANCE to a government and is entitled to protection from it. or B. a member of a state (owned by) an inhabitant of a city or town
especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state Soldiers were sent to protect the citizens.
From the dictionary. notice how it defines a citizen as a person who OWES ALLIGIANCE to the government and is a SUBJECT OF IT.
citizen, subject, national mean a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state.
citizen is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people.
when are you allowed to ”share” power? oh yeah. only when you join the boys club. or are allowed to pay up of your hard work and earnings.
a subject : “person under control or dominion of another,” especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler; from Old French sogit, suget, subget “a subject person or thing”
what is the difference? there isn’t one! your under the control and dominion of another. a legalized slave! it is in the words! and in the mind as well.
freedom starts inside first! first free the mind. then free the body. it starts with the willingness to use the word NO!
All true, but one significant point is missed by the conservatives. How can you “obey the law”(even assuming you want to) in a god damned democracy?
Because everything is subject to change, on a vote. It isn’t even possible to know HOW MANY laws there are, much less WHAT they are. And they are inherently contradictory, gun control vs the absolute “shall not be infringed” of the second amendment in the bill of prohibitions.
So after a society fights for millennia against things like gun control or homosexual marriage or “hate speech” laws, and the communists win one vote and make those things legal, the spineless conservatives bend over and allow it and even SUPPORT it because it is now “the law”. And then they vote for more cops and prisons when more principled people refuse to obey.
the argument is one based on ‘divine rights’. claiming we consent because we are ”allowed” to be born and numbered at birth like cattle with a brand is the federal or state governments claiming OWNERSHIP over the people. no different then the divine right of kings. Same argument different words. convoluted brain washed argument. divine rights to have a contract signed ”for us” 200 years ago by men who know nothing about and had no say over at all! how does that work exactly?
being born means consent to slavery? and yes it is slavery. all around us and everyone in this country is a slave that is free range. like cattle. your numbered, tagged, licensed, restricted at ever turn, even their minds are enslaved!
claiming government owns the country and everyone consents to be ruled if they are born here and live here!? is that not insane? it isn’t their country! it isn’t their resources, it isn’t their land and no the people are not theirs either. what people work for and produce does not belong to the state at any level! they CLAIM OWNERSHIP RIGHTS but that doesn’t make it true!
the law of the land is name it and claim at the point of a gun! all laws have a gun under the paper pointed at the people they wish to subjugate and they get it done through wash washing just like that argument used for eric. the people don’t know what freedom is? not a bit! they claim OBEDIENCE AND SWEARING FEALTY through brain washed children means consent! they claim OBEDIENCE through a contact they had no say over means they consent. it is divine rights! all over…just in a different form
obey or leave! that is the argument. …do as the KING SAYS PEASANT OR ELSE!
notice who rules the rulers? no one. notice how often THE LAW OF THE LAND applies to them? oh, that’s right they are ABOVE the law. the law applies to those who can pay the right people to look the other way. laws are for the obedient slaves, peasants, subjects. not for those who impose the law .
an old TV show called ‘Firefly’ had a quote from a character that fits. ”the government is a body of men and women who are themselves, notably UNGOVERNED’.
can anyone argue and say laws are ”just” today? really? what a bunch of crap. the only time the laws apply to those who claim the right of ownership over the people….the government and its legions of order followers, is when they want to make an example of one or show that you don’t violate the rules of the club….as george carlins said…its a boys club and your not in it.
the bottom line is divine rights? if you believe yourself to be a subject or a citizen? you believe in divine rights to rule. if you worship government as most do. again you believe they are YOUR sovereign and god himself GAVE them the right to rule you and your lands…even if you claim the majority did it, you argue that wrongly because the true majority are those who said NONE OF THE ABOVE…WE DO NOT CONSENT TO BE RULED! and the numbers are greater then any one candidate received from those who gave them the scepter and the consent to rule. those who didn’t choose a ruler are in greater number then those who chose a whip wielder.
funny how that majority doesn’t seem to matter! the numbers matter ONLY if you do waht your told and pick one of the pre selected minion candidates.
those who claim a person consented at birth are claiming the state has ownership over that birth. period. and are claiming the government OWNS the land as well and we are here only at their suffrage!
for my part i choose freedom and the right to say OH HELL NO! I don’t have to leave the land that is mine. it doesn’t belong to you people! it doesn’t belong to the state to a federal or a state or a church. if anything…the land belongs TO GOD! not to men! period….never mind their claiming ownership through taxation it boils down to that point.
who owns you? and how long are you going to accept that argument of bs contracts? signed by men dead over 200 years? how do you make a contract for future generations without the future people’s knowledge and consent? how long do you accept other people’s stupidity as your own? would be nice if people would use the grey matter for something other then growing hair!
contract law: need consideration (eg: money), offer, and acceptance. The conservative reader refers to an adhesion contract: one-sided, usually in consumer contracts, take it or leave it, consumer has no realistic choice as to its terms.
Freaking bastards. Every last one of them.
https://www.thetaxadviser.com/news/2024/dec/boi-reporting-deadline-extension-proposed-in-house-draft-budget-bill.html
Something that would be zero cost to the American taxpayer, but would ice government for a year was not factored into the CR. Seriously? We are waiting on an appeal to be proposed by the Courts by December 27th at the urging of Yellen and her Yelping Yahoos to still enforce the January 1st 2025 deadline.
I hope every Congressman has a crappy Christmas. I swear they hate the people that they represent…nothing else makes sense.
They are stupid lawyers riding the gravy train in their system. Until forced to stop they will continue. This reporting is absolutely in the face of the 4th and 5th amendment. But what the heck, nobody thought the tyrants were going to stop with trashing the second and the first, right?
“ I swear they hate the people that they represent…nothing else makes sense.” – RG
You’re operating under the delusion that you and I are the people they “represent” when with very few exceptions (Thomas Massie for instance) they represent the elitist and billionaire class, and certain foreign governments. They don’t give a rat’s ass for any of their actual constituents unless they happen to fall into one of those categories.
Merry Christmas RG, have a drink and enjoy the holiday and don’t let the bastards get you down.
>You’re operating under the delusion that you and I are the people they “represent”
Exactly.
Hi Mike,
I was hoping that the wealthy and well connected would be the ones to step in. They are the ones with the homes in the LLCs. I can’t believe most fat cats don’t have their properties and businesses tied up in these small businesses. Do each of them want to report to an unconstitutional database uploading their personal information and driver’s license so some hacker can see the information and sell it to the highest bidder? I know Congress omitted themselves from reporting, but any and all LLCs, S corp, C corp, or partnerships that do not have at least 20 FT employees and make at least $5 million in annual sales are required to report so that includes Gates, Bezos, Trump, and any other Joe Blow with a small rental property or who just wants to keep their name out of the local county register.
RG,
Try New Mexico LLC.
It gets worse than that RG. When we showed up at our bank six months ago to get a checking account for a newer LLC, the branch manager, wanted to make copies of all the pages in the LLC. I told her no, she could see the top page, and thats it. When she insisted on taking the paper work back to her cubicle to ‘look it over’ I told her she had two choices, look it over in front of me and open the account with the info provided, or, her branch would suffer an immediate rug pull of liquidity testing the FDIC limits. They opened the account just looking at the first page, with the names of the principles redacted.
In the end it doesn’t matter. The info and data is all under their control. Still feels nice to refuse consent to anti-privacy overreach.
Hi RG,
It’s not that they hate us. Plantation owners don’t generally hate their slaves. They exploit them. That is our role vis-a-vis our putative massas.
Of course they hate us. Why else would they assume authority to kill us if we disobey?
Eric wrote, “It is of a piece with the equally risible and vicious idea that I have given “implied consent” to be subjected to probable cause-free inspections when I am out on the road in my car because I am effectively forced to obtain a government permission slip to use what were once understood to be the public’s right-of-way.”
What is the bottom line on such “thinking”? Essentially it means you are under House Arrest unless you submit to GovCo’s rules, regulations, discipline and deadly violence. And, if GovCo decides what you think is “your home” is better suited to be used by others, you’re gone…at gunpoint if necessary.
“What a country!” Yakov Smirnoff
The thing is, about consent, it is automatically revoked if one side fails to hold up their end of the contract. It is old law, which allows any contract to be vitiated for fraud. Our government, and our Vote, sad to say, is based entirely on fraud. Anyone who still believes otherwise is lying to themselves. Come on, when we went to bed on election night, the Rs had almost a thirty seat majority in the house. A month later after the counting ceased it was down to two or three.
Once you have no rule of law, you have no obligation to what passes for law. Of course we don’t murder rape or steal, because most of us will still adhere to a higher law. But beyond that, tptb can kiss my white ass. I am under no obligation to follow any dictates because where I chose to live. I always chuckle at the community association, and county commission meetings at the side eye daggers I get for not placing my hand on heart and pledging allegiance to the wall. Even MAGA types sometimes look at me like I’m an evil asshole. Sad, that cognitive dissonance is so alive and well in people who should know better.
Well put Eric. In regard to Somalia, during it’s period with no government most of the metrics on the standard of living went up.
Thanks, Dave!
I’m waiting for the juggernaut of “conservative” abuse to arrive…
A review of Somalia with and without government from George Mason University: https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Good stuff – from my alma mater!
That argument almost sounds like the “implied consent” claim many government schools use when children go there for the first time and the school has a list of “Required childhood vaccinations to attend”. IIRC, some schools even used that as an excuse for their health room giving children vaccines that neither the kid nor their parents asked for. Why, some schools probably even used the argument of “implied consent” to give children COVID vaccines without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
The thing about the United States is right from the start there were differences between the various colonies. The Jamestown colonists were basically mercantilists, hoping to earn a quick buck selling addictive substances like tobacco and refined sugar to Europe. Hardly a moral group. The Massachusetts colony was formed by religious extremists who were headed to the Jamestown colony but as luck would have it, ended up wildly off course. They practiced collectivism, Islam-style government driven by religious doctrine and had no qualms about expelling sinners (as defined by the leaders) even though they’d probably not survive the winter.
Contrast that to the Pennsylvania colony. William Penn set a precedent in that he allowed for religious tolerance (monotheistic only of course), trade with the natives and peaceful coexistence, and put limits on the governor. A lot of these ideas carried through to the US Constitution. It wasn’t a perfect place either, much of the regulatory complex has its seeds in Pennsylvania’s progressivism.
But the important point is that they were separate entities. What happened in Massachusetts stayed in Massachusetts. If they want to burn witches, it’s no skin off Virginia’s nose. Likewise if Pennsylvania trades firewater for beaver pelts, more power to ’em. If the Massholes decide that the natives need some of that “old time religion” beaten into them, Pennsylvania shouldn’t have to provide the troops. All three colonies had their basis of government in the British tradition, unlike the French and Spanish colonies that had no interest in actually staying around and acted like it.
> What happened in Massachusetts stayed in Massachusetts.
I love it.:)
Not such a bad place, in modern times, 🙂
Previous to the “War of Northern Aggression”, the federal government of the united States of America was an umbrella organization holed up in Washington DC and had very few enumerated powers. Coining money, establishing and running a post office and providing for the common defense were the federal government’s enumerated powers–nothing more.
A person residing within a particular state considered himself to be a citizen of that state, NOT an American citizen. Example: A person residing within the state of Virginia considered himself to be a “citizen of Virginia”, NOT a “citizen of the united States”. That all changed after the “War of Northern Aggression” was concluded. The federal government obtained powers not granted to it by the Constitution. It was all downhill from there.
We would be better off if “the several states” told the federal government to “take a hike” and restore the power that the states have always had, the federal government being subordinate to the states.
Of course, that idea is pretty much lost ever since the “War of Northern Aggression” was concluded and in today’s society as well.
Repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments would be a good start…
The problem with this “consent” argument is that what we are supposed to be consenting to — the Constitution and Declaration and Bill of Rights — were rendered null and void by the Federal government in 1865.
The Constitution was ratified by the several states to delegate limited and enumerated powers to the Federal government. The Federal government was to be the servant of the states and the people of the states.
Instead it subjugated the states by force of arms, and effectively re-wrote the to cement its position of authority Constitution with the 14th Amendment.
Whereas the First Amendment of 1791 reads “Congress shall make no law,” the 14th Amendment of 1868 reads “No state shall…”
That tells you who is calling the shots.
Excellent point.
Ape Lincoln breached the founding agreements, rendering them null and void. Then the illegally ratified Amendment XIV (the source of much future mischief) followed:
‘The process of adopting the Fourteenth Amendment was marred by repeated irregularities. President Andrew Johnson questioned the legitimacy of an amendment proposed by a Congress that represented only 25 of the 36 states. Three northern states that ratified the proposal later rescinded their votes.
‘All the southern states except Tennessee at first voted against the amendment, despite an implied threat that they would not be readmitted to the Union; they changed their stands only after the threat was made explicit.
‘And throughout the debates on the amendment, friends and foes alike disagreed as to whether approval of three-quarters of 25 states or of 36 would be necessary.’
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/was-the-fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted/
Today’s US fedgov is erected on a foundation of fraud. Fraud vitiates contracts. There is no contract.