Law and Authority

[Hatha Sunahara]

Are they the same thing?



Hatha

[palani]

If they were why would two words be necessary?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Authority is necessary for people who do not voluntarily obey the 'law'. While the laws of nature have intrinsic authority because you cannot violate them, the laws of man need external authority because people can disobey them. Authority can exist without 'law'. I doubt that any man made law can exist without authority.


Hatha

[dys]

Absolutely NOT the same thing, but the bad guys love to conflate the two.

dys

[palani]

http://adask.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/consent/


If “this state” is a real governmental structure that exists as an alternative to The State, it appears that we may only be subject to the laws of “this state” based on some manifestation of our consent to submit to “this state”.

[palani]

If you understand that government is corporate in nature and can follow the Latin reason behind this maxim ...

Si quid universitate debetur singulis non debetur, nec quod debet, universitas singuli debent. If anything is due to a corporation, it is not due to the individual members of it, nor do the members individually owe what the corporation owes.

...then you will understand why the government needs your consent more than you might otherwise think.

[dys]

If you understand that government is corporate in nature and can follow the Latin reason behind this maxim ...

Si quid universitate debetur singulis non debetur, nec quod debet, universitas singuli debent. If anything is due to a corporation, it is not due to the individual members of it, nor do the members individually owe what the corporation owes.

...then you will understand why the government needs your consent more than you might otherwise think.

WRONG. And I'll even give you a simple English explanation:

The people who operate under the cover of government authority are dangerous, they have guns, and they are willing to use them.

dys

[Santa]

How bout wolves and bitches. Are they the same thing?

[woodman]

Yes and no. Authority can break the law, yet if it is autoritative enough it will become the author of the law, meaning it can and will create whatever law it desires for it's own end. So what it comes down to is a battle between 'authorities'. The one with the most backing in violence will end up trumping the law of the other.

The laws of the universe were created by a higher authority. Therefore they cannot be broken nor tinkered with by the mundane authorities we are enslaved by.

[palani]

The people who operate under the cover of government authority are dangerous, they have guns, and they are willing to use them.

dys


The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend
them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another,
and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie,
and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves
and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength
upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their
Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will: which is as much as to say,
to appoint one man, or Assembly of men, to beare their Person;
and every one to owne, and acknowledge himselfe to be Author of
whatsoever he that so beareth their Person, shall Act, or cause
to be Acted, in those things which concerne the Common Peace
and Safetie; and therein to submit their Wills, every one to his Will,
and their Judgements, to his Judgment. This is more than Consent,
or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person,
made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner,
as if every man should say to every man, "I Authorise and give up
my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men,
on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise
all his Actions in like manner." This done, the Multitude so united
in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS.
This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more
reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God,
our peace and defence. For by this Authoritie, given him by every
particular man in the Common-Wealth, he hath the use of so much
Power and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof,
he is inabled to forme the wills of them all, to Peace at home,
and mutuall ayd against their enemies abroad.

From Hobbes Leviathan

[Hatha Sunahara]

Makes perfect sense, Palani.



Si quid universitate debetur singulis non debetur, nec quod debet, universitas singuli debent. If anything is due to a corporation, it is not due to the individual members of it, nor do the members individually owe what the corporation owes

And this frees the corporation to do whatever it wishes without regard to the harm it causes--because it has limited liability. And lately, all large corporations are too big to fail--including the government.

What originally started as a 'social contract' whereby people agree to having a government in exchange for protection of their natural rights, has turned into a corporatist plutocracy where the only justification for having a government at all is because it is so well armed and lets its people know that they can always be replaced by better slaves. Does a government that does not protect the natural rights of the people have any legitimacy? No one here would deny that our president and his predecessor has shredded the constitution, and now claims the right to shred the people as well.

Even ancient dictators in Rome and elsewhere understood that government is a protection racket. Even the Mafia understands that. We'll leave you alone if you pay us a tribute. If you don't we'll come and take it, and kill some people, so if you want protection, (i.e. you don't want us to kill you) better pay up, and go along to get along. The social contract and all the other justifications for this protection racket serve to legitimize this nasty sort of coexistence between productive people and the criminals who 'protect' them. Natural rights must be protected because if they are not, the slaves will no longer be productive, and there will be far less loot to steal from them. The practitioners of the law are supposed to maintain this balance so that people don't have to suffer too much abuse from the criminals who 'protect' them. But their goal today is to be absolved of the duty to protect peoples' natural rights by tricking them into waiving those rights. First by passing laws that turn them all into criminals, then by prosecuting them selectively. Then the government claims they are protecting us from criminals or terrorists. And in order to catch these enemies of the state, we have to give up our natural rights.

Perhaps the dominant philosophy of government has changed. The current thinking is that whoever has the guns gets to make the laws. And whatever they use those guns for is for the 'protection' of the people, even if they have to kill all the people to protect them. Your only contact with the law will be with men who wear costumes and either carry guns or order others to shoot them, and have vast resources to imprison you. These men will claim to be enforcing the law. What they are doing is asserting the rights of corporations to extract wealth from productive people. And because they have guns, they have authority. The law comes out of the barrel of a gun. In practice, there really is no difference between law and authority. You are forced to obey both. And you are protected by neither.

Hatha

[palani]

A corporation is required to be represented. Not having vocal cords it cannot speak. Not having a body it cannot possess. It can however be "represented". Consider this definition from Bouvier of the concept of "municipality".


MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.

The District of Columbia is a municipality. Those appointed to manage it's affairs have a name: CONGRESS. They exercise the legislative division. The SUPREME COURT manages the judicial division. BARACK H. OBAMA manages the EXECUTIVE division.

The District of Columbia has dictatorial control over territories attached to them (aka federal zones). Congress has little control over what happens within the several States. Each man, woman and child gets to decide for himself which authority controls their actions: federal or State are the two choices. Man cannot serve two masters so you don't get to straddle the fence on this issue. You are either under the complete control of one or the other.

Choosing State over federal is not an issue that ought to result in complete destruction or even threats. It is a choice that is consciously made by each individual who has a right to make the choice. The choice is protected by the oaths of each and every employee of the federal government. These lines between federal and State have been blurred to such an extent that State employees think they are enforcing federal policy. The opportunities to educate these state employees is where the danger lies as by their oath they believe everyone ought to be controlled by the same authority as they have voluntarily accepted.

[Kruger]

Hatha, I agree 100%. That post rocked dude. (my forum format is stuck on the mobile setting and I have problems quoting the newest posts and giving thanks)

[messianicdruid]

"Each man, woman and child gets to decide for himself which authority controls their actions: federal or State are the two choices. Man cannot serve two masters so you don't get to straddle the fence on this issue. You are either under the complete control of one or the other."

The two masters are God and Mammon. Those are your choices.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Does anybody here believe that an 'oath of office' means anything to the people who hold those offices? Bush and Obama swore an oath to 'uphold the constitution of the United States'. Or was that the charter of the UNITED STATES? The people, especially those who vote, believe that the document that includes the Bill of Rights is what is being upheld by the office holders. The office holders seem to believe that they are not bound by the Bill of Rights. What then are they bound by? Are they bound by whatever they believe will keep them in their jobs? In Germany, everyone in the military swore an oath to obey Adolf Hitler. In the United States, is the real oath of office to obey some nameless dictator, or group of them? No one swears they will obey Obama, but if they don't, no more job for them. No one holds Obama accountable for deviating from the law in the constitution. No one holds Obama accountable for violating peoples' inalienable rights. Did anyone stand up for Awlaki when Obama sent a drone to kill him without any due process whatsoever?

We have an authority structure which incorporates a 'chain of obedience'. Obedience to what? To the Law--i. e. the constitution, or to some unaccountable bureaucrat? There is a great YT video about the Chain of Obedience here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk

This is what authority creates. Authority is only accountable to law if the people who have that authority accept that accountability. But authority is only dangerous if there are people who obey it.

I think some of the 450 million point 40 shredder bullets are intended for bureaucrats who obey a different authority than the one ordering them to do what they are told.


Hatha

[Santa]

"The Chain Of Obedience." Yep. I see it every day. The slavish acceptance of authority and the dismissal of anything said by those without
perceived authority.

[dys]

"The Chain Of Obedience." Yep. I see it every day. The slavish acceptance of authority and the dismissal of anything said by those without
perceived authority.

Yes, sir. An evil system indeed, conceived to exploit all of the natural weaknesses of human nature. I submit as exhibit A that there is a war going in the heavens, something bigger than you, me, GSUS, countries, governments, et al. It's the only system we know, and most can't even imagine doing it a different way.
We do not need these life sucking parasites, and we NEVER did: usury, compound interest, limited liabilities of any kind, licensing, banks as they are currently constituted, courts, immunities and exemptions, taxes...(not an exhaustive list)

All we ever needed was Jesus Christ.

dys

[Hatha Sunahara]

If you understand that government is corporate in nature and can follow the Latin reason behind this maxim ...

Si quid universitate debetur singulis non debetur, nec quod debet, universitas singuli debent. If anything is due to a corporation, it is not due to the individual members of it, nor do the members individually owe what the corporation owes.

...then you will understand why the government needs your consent more than you might otherwise think.


I think your are ascribing a more subtle importance to this than I had previously grasped.

Are you implying that the government needs our consent because we are the members of the corporation, and we do not individually have liability for its debts under the laws unless we consent to pay those debts? Is that what the IRS means when they tell us that the Income tax is voluntary? And then they threaten us with a world of hurt if we don't voluntarily consent to pay a share of what they owe?

Perhaps the income tax really is voluntary, and the act of having money withheld from our pay, and filing a return is a ritual not required by law? And perhaps if we dropped out of Social Security, had no money withheld by our employers, and did not file a return, they would have to leave us alone? Just don't participate in their scam? If you don't volunteer, you're not required to pay?

So, if I kill my strawman, can I file a last return, mark it deceased, and file no more?

I'm serious about this. It is a real illustration where authority exists, but no law exists to back it up. And we are mostly all fooled by this false bravado of the IRS?


Hatha

[Book]

All we ever needed was Jesus Christ.

dys

::)




The slavish acceptance of authority...

[palani]

Just don't participate in their scam? If you don't volunteer, you're not required to pay?
Hatha

Just stop personating. No words. No actions. No representation.

Your appearance is required to fill the shoes of the imaginary person you have created.

De non apparentibus et non existntibus eadem est ratio. The reason is the same respecting things which do not appear, and those which do not exist.

[iOWNme]

Does anybody here believe that an 'oath of office' means anything to the people who hold those offices?

Do you think an oath is a contract? Who is the contract with?

Common Law has been replaced with Contract Law. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins

"Where there is no contract, there is no case"


Have you ever accepted an 'oath of office' as a contract when dealing with Government? Why do you think they are liable to uphold this contract, if you have not accepted it?

Offer > Acceptance = Consideration

What makes you think a Judge or an Attorney who has sworn an oath is inclined to abide by that oath, if you have not accepted his oath as a firm and binding bi-lateral contract where he/she agrees to uphold the Constitution up to and including the Bill of Rights.? You can simply write the Judge and explain to them that you are accepting their oath as a contract, and if they disagree, they will need to rebut all stated here. Let them know you will be filing their response into the public record.

And since Article I, Sec X states:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."


Recusals are quite common, if you know how this game works.

[palani]

Have you ever accepted an 'oath of office' as a contract when dealing with Government? Why do you think they are liable to uphold this contract, if you have not accepted it?

I know of a fellow who routinely goes around accepting the oath of office of judges, sheriffs, legislators, etc. He gets slammed more than any five other people.

In a Republic if you see a job that needs doing you step in and do that job. Years back I recognized a need that was not being filled. All these government employees were offering oaths but nobody was there to accept them. I figured that this was an office I could fill on my own. I ran 4 weeks of offer in the legal section requesting anyone who desired to be a part of my government (a charitable trust) to send me their oaths and bonds. I got not a single response. So the lack of response was recorded and I carry a copy of the filing with me just in case any charlatan wants to accost me on the basis of his uniform only. [By the way, this is not an argument one gets involved in on the street ... much safer in a courtroom ]

[iOWNme]

I know of a fellow who routinely goes around accepting the oath of office of judges, sheriffs, legislators, etc. He gets slammed more than any five other people.

In a Republic if you see a job that needs doing you step in and do that job. Years back I recognized a need that was not being filled. All these government employees were taking oaths but nobody was there to accept them so I figured that this was an office I could fill on my own. I ran 4 weeks of offer in the legal section requesting anyone who desired to be a part of my government (a charitable trust) to send me their oaths and bonds. I got not a single response. So the lack of response was recorded and I carry a copy of the filing with me just in case any charlatan wants to accost me on the basis of his uniform only. [By the way, this is not an argument one gets involved in on the street ... much safer in a courtroom ]

I know of a similar fellow. :)

Cops DO NOT like to have their oath accepted (to their face) as it turn around their power trip, instantly. I have actually witnessed a Cop give a ticket, had his oath accepted verbally (With a superior there), and then seemingly 'forgot' to turn in the ticket within the 7-10 days allowable by State Law. After making a couple calls, the ticket was never administered to the court.

[palani]

On a charge once of harassing a public official I told the judge I would like to have a copy of the oath and bond of several county attorneys. The judge so ordered. One never bothered to send it. The other sent the oath only, not subscribed, yet it was still notarized. I sent a copy off to the Secretary of State and asked if this was standard procedure and if the notary had operated properly. The notary was given a free book on how notaries do their job and nothing else ever came of it [ except perhaps for the writ of quo warranto I sent to the sheriff to produce these "county attorneys" in order to make them prove their office. The sheriff must have agreed that the job was impossible because even he did not bother to respond ... not an option in his own job description.]