Opting Out: Withdrawing Consent

[Caleb]

Ok, here's a rough draft. Tell me what you think:

I've been living here in Keene for a little over a year now?, and I've noticed a lot of police cars hanging around the area, which makes me think that you must be experiencing a lot of crime nowadays. This is a little odd to me, because I have found Keene to be remarkably crime free. But, it occurs to me that maybe your "government" and myself have different ideas as to what crime is.

Now, I'm not a particularly religious person. But I do believe in the Golden Rule, and I try to live my life that way. I try to treat other people the way that I want to be treated. And that's just about the only law I can view as valuable.

You guys have a lot of laws, so many in fact that I can't keep track of them all because I just don't have the time to read all your law books. Some of your laws I agree with. Like, "Do not murder." It seems to me that treating people the way I want to be treated means that I won't murder them, or rape them, or steal from them.

But it also seems to me that some of your laws are actually against the Golden Rule. For instance, the Golden Rule says to treat people the way you want to be treated. And yet, your tax laws plunder people. And I just can't go along with plunder. Hitler had laws, and Stalin had laws. Some of their laws were even good laws. Like, Hitler had a law on the books that said not to rape. That was a good law. But he also had a law that said to throw Jews in ovens. And that was a horrible law. How is a good person like myself to know the difference between good laws and bad laws?  The only way I know is to just ignore the laws, and try to live my life as a good person, following the Golden Rule. And that will have to be good enough for you.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I am a person who must decide for myself what I want to do, and I can't go along with evil, even if you guys do it. Like this war in Iraq. I can't pay for that shit. Murder is murder, even if some idiot oil baron from Texas calls himself a "President" and tells a bunch of Marines that it's actually okay to kill. No it's not! It's just that he thinks he is the boss. And he's not the boss of me. I am the boss of me, and I will live my life as a good person. But I'm not going to follow any "laws" except the moral law.  I guess I'm trying to tell you that I am the boss of me, and you aren't because you don't own me. And just because you have a bunch of guns doesn't mean that you have any right to tell me what to do, or hurt me if I don't obey you.

Sincerely,



Ian Bernard

[FTL_Ian]

It's good... perhaps I will use them both.

Who would you send it to?

[srqrebel]

...Like, Hitler had a law on the books that said not to rape. That was a good law. But he also had a law that said to throw Jews in ovens...

My understanding is that there was in fact no such law, which is the very reason his collaborators were able to be convicted of war crimes: They were operating outside the scope of their own laws.

If Germany actually had laws sanctioning those actions, the perpetrators would have gotten away clean.

I believe this is why the Bush administration is working so hard to legally sanction their beloved tool of torture, as well as why they snuck provisions into the Military Commissions Act retroactively clearing members of the administration of wrongdoing, once they realized that their unwarranted wiretapping and other activities may have been outside the scope of US law.

[David]

I'm not certain that is true Rebel.  The concept of 'crimes against humanity' was introduced at the nuremberg trials because they could not prosecute the war criminals based on german law.  They argued that all persons have a duty to mankind and that duty supercedes mans law. 
Richard Maybury calls it the last major triumph of common law. 
I like the idea Ian, but I agree with Caleb and Tackle, keep it simple and to the point.  Pack it full of moral reasoning.  I'll try to come up with my own, and post it.   

[d_goddard]

I don't know if referencing the NH Constitution would help or hinder your case, Ian, but some of the sentiment and wording is similar to what you have in the top post.

Personally, I think that if you're going down the "legal" route, it makes sense to put up as many "firewall" arguments as you can -- make the inevitable Government-Issue Prosecutor have to do as much work as possible if when they bring a case against you.

For example, you have:

Whereas all men are born equally free and independent, and,
Whereas all government of right originates from the people and is founded in consent, and,
Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,

How about:
"Whereas all men are born equally free and independent, and,
Whereas all government of right originates from the people and is founded in consent, and,
Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,
Whereas the above is enshrined in Part First, Article I of the New Hampshire Constitution, which states: 'All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.'"


If nothing else, I suggest pointing out Part I, Article 3. This is particularly relevant to what you are trying to say:
http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

One way to point out their failure is to note that though Part I, Article 31 clearly states that the first purpose of the legislature is "for the redress of public grievances", there is currently no process available for filing such grievance. As such, the State has failed to deliver on the most basic protections guaranteed in the very same Bill of Rights.

You can therefore declare not only that you are a Freeman-on-the-land (ie, YOU are opting out of THEIR gang),
in addition you can declare they THEY have failed to serve "such equivalent protection", and as such any past surrender you may have made unto them, express or implied, has been voided by their own action.






Just a suggestion. I am not a lawyer. I may be smoking weird dope.

[John Edward Mercier]

The Legislature will not understand it, but the Courts might.

[d_goddard]

The Legislature will not understand it

Some of them will
http://www.nhliberty.org/nh_constitution_class

[John Edward Mercier]

I tend to speak of the Legislature as a single body. As it is ruled by majority with the minority largely being subjugated. This clause assert the natural rights of the individual (minority).

[Russell Kanning]

The Legislature will not understand it

Some of them will
http://www.nhliberty.org/nh_constitution_class

and sometimes it us fun to confuse government folks