Do you own yourself?

[Dale Eastman]

Do you own yourself?

http://www.wtfpl.net/
Copyright 2008
Dale R. Eastman

This treatise is extremely disturbing to some people. The logic is unassailable, the conclusions are inevitable. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Do you own yourself?  ---  By the facial expressions observed in those I have queried, I may as well have asked, “Do you breathe?”  I think I may safely generalize that most people believe they own themselves.

If you believe you own yourself, then you are most likely in the majority that holds a second belief that contradicts your belief in your self ownership.  Rare is the person who owns their self who has divested their contradictory beliefs.  And how could they if they have never had their contradictory beliefs brought to their attention.  If you are a person who believes you own yourself, and you don’t know what I am writing about, then it is you I have written about in this paragraph.

It is self-evident; If you own yourself, it must logically follow that no other person can own you.   And it is just as self-evident: If no other person owns you, then no other person has the right to order you about like a slave.

If I can’t own you and I don’t own you, then it must logically follow that I do not have the right to order you about like a slave.  If my brother can’t own you and my brother doesn’t own you, then it must logically follow that my brother does not have the right to order you about like a slave.  If a third (or fourth, or Nth) person can’t own you and a third (or fourth, or Nth) person does not own you, then it must logically follow that a third (or fourth, or Nth) person does not have the right to order you about like a slave. 

If I, my brother, a third, a fourth, or an Nth person does not own you, then giving us some official title concurrent with some position of alleged authority does not transfer ownership of you to any of us.

If I, my brother, a third, a fourth, or an Nth person does not have the right to order you about like a slave, then giving us some official title concurrent with some position of alleged authority does not confer a right upon us to order you about like a slave.

Giving Joe Blow the title of Policeman, Alderman, Councilman, Mayor, Governor, Congressman, Senator, Representative, Judge, President of the United States or any other fancy title does NOT transfer the ownership of yourself to such tyrants holding such fancy titles.  Nor does it grant any such tyrants holding such fancy titles the right to order you about like a slave.

Regardless of what fancy title any of us may hold, fancy titles do NOT change this simple fact: No person can order you about like a slave, unless you are in fact a slave. 

If I do not own you, then I can not transfer ownership of you to my brother. If my brother does not own you, then my brother can not transfer ownership of you to a third person.  If a third person does not own you, then the third person can not transfer ownership of you to a fourth person, and so on.

If I do not have the right to order you about like a slave, then I can not transfer the right to order you about like a slave to my brother.  If my brother does not have the right to order you about like a slave, then my brother can not transfer the right to order you about like a slave to a third person, and so on. 

That which does not exist can not be transferred, whether it is ownership of any human being or the right to order any human being about like a slave.

If I do not own you, then I can not transfer my nonexistent ownership of you to any collective group of persons.  If my brother does not own you, then my brother can not transfer his nonexistent ownership of you to any collective group of persons. If an Nth person does not own you, then an Nth person can not transfer his nonexistent ownership of you to any collective group of persons, and so on.

If I do not have the right to order you about like a slave, then I can not transfer that nonexistent right to order you about like a slave to any collective group of persons.  If my brother does not have the right to order you about like a slave, then my brother can not transfer that nonexistent right to order you about like a slave to any collective group of persons, and so on.

That which does not exist can not be transferred, conferred, or delegated.  It does not matter how many persons are in the collective; A group of individual persons who can not order you about like a slave can NOT endow a collective group with a right to order you about like a slave. 

It does not matter if the collective is called Congress; The State; The People; or The Government: No collective can be conferred rights that do not exist. Changing the name or label of a collective does not endow it with the right to order you about like a slave. 

The converse is just as true.  No collective can transfer your ownership to an individual if the collective does not own you.  No collective can transfer the right to order you about like a slave to any individual if the collective does not have the right to order you about like a slave.  If the collective does not have the right to order you about like a slave, then the collective can NOT give the right to order you about like a slave to the Policeman, Alderman, Councilman, Mayor, Governor, Congressman, Senator, Representative, Judge, or President of the United States.

I deliberately used the specific phrase “order you about like a slave”.  I did NOT use the phrase “order you about” on purpose.  I want you to clearly understand the logic presented before your contradictory beliefs confuse you and cause you to stop reading this treatise.

Slavery is an immoral, abominable, evil thing.  Nevertheless, we must briefly examine what slavery is so that we may understand what being ordered about like a slave means. 

Let us first examine what a slave is.  Slaves in America were used for picking cotton.  That first step in textile production in that day and age is still done today.  That means we can make some comparisons between the early cotton picking machine, (the slave), and its modern equivalent, (the mechanical cotton picking combine).  In reference to the slave of yesteryear, I deliberately used the word “its” modern equivalent instead of “their” modern equivalent.  Slavery is a dehumanizing evil and I want that to be understood.

A slave does not own itself, and neither does a mechanical cotton picking combine.  A slave does not own the fruits of its labor, and neither does a mechanical cotton picking combine.  A slave requires food, a machine requires fuel.  A slave requires clothing, a machine requires paint.  A slave requires shoes, a machine requires tires.  A slave requires a doctor, a machine requires a mechanic.  A slave must go where its owner commands, a machine must go where its owner commands.

A machine does not have free will, a slave is not allowed to exercise free will.  To be ordered about like a slave means the slave must do what it is told to do even when such commands violate its free will or such commands are not in the slave’s best interest.  In other words, the slave has no choice in any matter pertaining to the slave.

What is the difference between being “ordered about like a slave” and being “ordered about”? 

Not very much. 

If I don’t have the right to order you about like a slave in my personal capacity, then I do not have the right to order you about like a slave because I hold a fancy title concurrent with some position of alleged authority.  Likewise, If I don’t have the right to order you about, then I don’t have the right to order you about just because I hold a fancy title concurrent with some position of alleged authority. 

If a Policeman, Alderman, Councilman, Mayor, Governor, Congressman, Senator, Representative, Judge, or the President of the United States doesn’t have the right to order you about like a slave in their personal capacity, then they don’t have the right to order you about like a slave just because they hold a fancy title concurrent with some position of alleged authority. 

Likewise, If a Policeman, Alderman, Councilman, Mayor, Governor, Congressman, Senator, Representative, Judge, or the President of the United States does not have the right to order you about in their personal capacity, then they do not have the right to order you about just because they hold a fancy title concurrent with some position of alleged authority. 

Wait for it… W-a-i-t…

What you feel is called Cognitive Dissonance.  While there are many definitions and descriptions on the internet, I prefer to use mine:

Cognitive Dissonance is that very uncomfortable feeling one gets when shown one's beliefs are not supported by fact.  Cognitive dissonance is literally the disharmony between two conflicting thoughts.  The more intensely held the belief and the more unassailable the conflicting fact presented, the greater the anxiety.  Cognitive dissonance is also the illogical nonsense that follows from one trying to alleviate their discomfort and at the same time not give up their sacred belief.

You believe that ‘government’ has the right to order you about --- At any time, for any reason, on any subject, in order to protect you from chaos, criminals, and things that go thump in the night. 

Belief in ‘government’ is the belief you hold that contradicts your belief in your self ownership. 

Expecting the ‘government’ to protect you from chaos, criminals, and things that go thump in the night is the same as expecting ‘Santa Clause’ to come down the chimney and leave presents under the Christmas tree for you.  The only difference is that somebody told you the truth about ‘Santa Clause’. 

If a Policeman, Alderman, Councilman, Mayor, Governor, Congressman, Senator, Representative, Judge, or the President of the United States does not have the right to order you about just because they hold a fancy title concurrent with some position of alleged authority, then the entire concept of ‘government’ falls because it is based upon ordering you about (like a slave).

“Positions of alleged authority” become positions of real authority only under a very, very narrow set of circumstances.  That authority will be examined in a subsequent treatise.

[Dale Eastman]

‘Government’ Authority

http://www.wtfpl.net/
Copyright 2008
Dale R. Eastman

This treatise is about the alleged “authority” that is presumed to permeate ‘government’.  Before we look at some of the specifics of authority in ‘government’, we need to have an understanding of exactly what “authority” is.

Authority may be manifest in a variety of symbolic or tangible ways.  Its fundamental character is “permission to act” and its metaphor is the key.

Just as one who holds a key is granted access to things beyond a locked door, the holder of authority is allegedly granted access to exceptional actions beyond the common and mundane actions that are the birth rights of every flesh and blood person.

To be given access beyond a locked door, one must be given a key.  One can not be given a key by another who holds no keys.

Likewise, to allegedly be given access to exceptional actions, one must be given authority.  Such authority can not be given by another who holds no such authority.

To give authority to another requires the original authority holder to concurrently hold two authorities.  The first is the authority to be delegated.  The second is the authority to delegate the first authority.

Delegated authority must be delegated from an existing source of authority.  Delegated authority can not be spontaneously created from nothingness.

Since authority can be re-delegated if the authority holder holds concurrent authority to delegate, this can create a “chain of authority”.  A chain of authority must have a beginning link, and that beginning link must be attached to the original authority.  The authority delegated down the chain can only go to the last link and no further.  All the links in a chain MUST be intact.  Any authority if challenged must trace back to the original authority.  Any authority that doesn’t connect to the original authority is not authority. 

Authority must have purpose.  Purpose shapes the authority and defines its limits.  Authority delegated to ‘government’ must have a purpose.  Purpose shapes the ‘government’s’ authority and defines its limits.  Authority without legitimate purpose is Tyranny. 

The purpose of ‘government’ is clearly presented in the Declaration of Independence.  This purpose clearly shows the shape and limits of ‘government’s’ authority (permission) to act.  ‘Government’s’ permission to act ends where its charter purpose has been accomplished.

The purpose of ‘government’ “instituted among men” is to protect the rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness of its Citizens.  Happiness includes the right to own, possess, and enjoy justly acquired property.  The phrase “pursuit of happiness” was originally penned as “pursuit of property”.  I leave it to the reader as homework to validate or invalidate that statement.

Life, Liberty, and Property is less abstract than Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.  Life, Liberty, and Property makes a more sharply marked yardstick to be used in measuring and examining how well ‘government’ accomplishes its charter purpose.

If the purpose of ‘government’ is to protect the Life of its Citizens, then the ‘government’s’ permission to act ends after it has protected the Life of its Citizens.   If the purpose of ‘government’ is to protect the Property of its Citizens, then the ‘government’s’ permission to act ends after it has protected the Property of its Citizens.  If the purpose of ‘government’ is to protect the Liberty of its Citizens, then the ‘government’s’ permission to act ends after it has protected the Liberty of its Citizens.

Any ‘government’ that kills its Citizens, steals its Citizen’s Property, or violates its Citizen’s Liberty is a ‘government’ acting beyond the limits of its charter purpose. 

‘Government’ authority in general and the limits of that authority are declared in The Declaration of Independence.  The general purpose of that authority is also declared in The Declaration of Independence.  I have given you specific points to consider while you read the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence with a clarity of thought that the Publik Edukashun Sistem (sic) fails to teach.  (This is a deliberate failure in my considered opinion.)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

“The right of the people … to institute new government” clearly shows that ‘government’s’ authority is delegated by the people.  The authority delegated to ‘government’ is the authority to protect Life, Liberty, and Property.  Any action beyond this is tyranny.

In my treatise, “Do you own yourself?”, I establish with clear logic, that no person can delegate an authority they don’t hold.  If one person holds authority X, but does not hold authority Y, that person can NOT delegate authority Y.  If one hundred million persons hold authority X, but do not hold authority Y, then no person in that collective, nor can the collective itself, delegate authority Y.  From this simple truth follows a conclusion that many will have a hard time digesting. 

‘Government’ can NOT be given any legitimate authority that the people instituting it do not have.

There are no “buts”.   

If “The People” do not have authority Y, then there is nobody who can delegate authority Y to the ‘government’.

What then, is the (original) authority the people have, which they may delegate to ‘government’?  The original authority is the personal, individual authority of every flesh and blood person to protect their Life, Liberty, and Property. 

The people have individual authority to order any person who is violating their Rights to end all action violating those rights.  The people have individual authority to preemptively order persons to not trespass upon their rights.  (For instance a no-trespassing sign posted at the perimeter of person A’s property.)  The people have individual authority to use force on any person who ignores the command to stop violating their rights.  And then only to the extent required to stop the violation of those rights. 

The limits and extent of the people’s individual authority, sets the limits and extent of The People’s collective authority, which in turn sets the limits and extent of ‘government’s’ authority.  Therefore it must logically follow: 

The ‘government’ may only order a person to cease violating the Rights of another person or order a person to not trespass on the Rights of other persons.  The ‘government’ may only use force on a person who ignores the commands to stop violating the rights of others.  And only to the extent required to stop the violation of those Rights.

‘Government’ does not have a magical or mystical source of authority.  The source of individual authority is the source of ‘government’ authority .  ‘Government’s’ sole purpose is to amplify righteous commands and to amplify righteous force to protect individual rights.  As a tool, ‘government’ is nothing more than a megaphone and a lever.

[Dale Eastman]

What is ‘Government’?

http://www.wtfpl.net/
Copyright 2008
Dale R. Eastman

The answer depends upon whether you are explaining what ‘government’ is supposed to be;  what ‘government’ actually is;  or what the mythos of ‘government’ would have you believe ‘government’ is.

Those who uncritically believe the mythos of our ‘government’ in the U.S. believe our ‘government’ is benign, trustworthy, law abiding, just, fair, moral, omniscient, and magnanimous; They also believe our ‘government’ will protect their Life, Liberty, and Property and that our ‘government’ will protect them from dictators, tyrants, chaos, criminals, and things that go thump in the night.  The mythos of our ‘government’ is that our ‘government’ is morally superior to all others, in form and in action. 

The mythos of our ‘government’ is a fairy tale fantasy.  Learning what our ‘government’ “is” will debunk most of these mythos induced fantasies.  Logic will debunk the rest. 

What our ‘government’ “is” has two parts.  What our ‘government’ “is”, by law, is what our ‘government’ is supposed to be.  What our ‘government “is” in fact, as shown and proven by its actions, is what our ‘government’ is NOT supposed to be in America.

What our ‘government’ “is”, (supposed to be by law), now follows:

The purpose of ‘government’ “instituted among men” is to protect the rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness of its Citizens.  Happiness includes the right to own, possess, and enjoy justly acquired property.  The phrase “pursuit of happiness” was originally penned as “pursuit of property”.  I leave it to the reader as homework to validate or invalidate that statement.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois both echo the purpose of ‘government’ as stated in the Declaration of Independence, which is protecting Life, Liberty, and Property.

The Right to Life inherently includes the Right to protect one’s life.  The Right to Liberty inherently includes the Right to choose the method or action to protect one’s life.  Adding both together, we arrive at the conclusion that the individual has the Right to use whatever method the individual determines is suitable for the level of protection they decide they need. 

Let us presume that you have just hired the Rent-A-Cop security service.  You have hired them to protect you and your property by patrolling your neighborhood at night. 

Let there be no doubt about this relationship.  You have hired the Rent-A-Cop security service to act in your place and on your authority, therefore: You are the MASTER, they are the SERVANT;  You are the PRINCIPAL, they are the AGENT.  Your interests are to be served, not theirs. 

prox·y n. 1. A person authorized to act for another; an agent or a substitute. 2. The authority to act for another. 3. The written authorization to act in place of another.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

The Rent-A-Cop company is your PROXY because you hired them to act in your place and to use your authority to do so.

The purpose of our ‘government’ when “instituted among men” is no different than the purpose of the aforementioned private Rent-A-Cop security service when hired to protect you.  Therefore our ‘Government’ is a security service just like the aforementioned Rent-A-Cop security service.  Our ‘Government’ is nothing more than a PROXY hired to protect your Rights.

Our ‘Government’ operates by the authority of the people, just like, and no different than, the aforementioned Rent-A-Cop security service.  As I covered in my treatise Do You Own Yourself? and amplified in my treatise ‘Government’ Authority, ‘government’ can not be delegated any authority that the people instituting it do not hold.  If you can’t do something, your PROXY, the ‘government’ can NOT do it either. 

The mythos of our ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that ‘government’ means ‘proxy’. 

Continuing with what our ‘government’ “is”, (supposed to be by law):

If you can sue an entity in court, or that entity can sue you in court, and that entity is not a flesh and blood human, then that entity is a corporation.  Therefore, ‘government’ is a corporation just like Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and General Motors.

‘Government’ is a misnomer (a name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object) used to identify corporations of a specific type.  These corporations are correctly identified by names such as The State of Wisconsin, The Commonwealth of Kentucky, or The United States; NOT “The government of Wisconsin”, NOT “The government of Kentucky”, and NOT “The government of the United States of America”.

Do you have to obey the president of Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, or General Motors, or their Boards of Directors if you don’t work for them?  Keep this question in mind when commands come from the specific types of corporations erroneously referred to as ‘government’.

Corporations are tools.  As a corporation, ‘government’ is no different than any other corporation.  It is a tool created for a purpose, and to accomplish that purpose it is given specific permissions to act whether such permissions are called privilege, power, or authority. 

As a corporation, ‘government’ is neither mystical nor magical.  That means ‘government’ can NOT mystically or magically have any authority greater than the people who created and instituted it among men.  If you can’t do something, corporate ‘government’ can NOT do it either. 

What tool owns itself?  The shareholders own the Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and General Motors corporations.  Who owns the corporate State of Wisconsin, the corporate Commonwealth of Kentucky, or the corporate United States? 

The mythos of our ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that ‘government’ “is” a corporation.

Continuing with what our ‘government’ “is”, (supposed to be by law):

‘Government’, just like any other corporation, is created “by law”.  The LAW that creates the corporate United States is the U.S. Constitution.  Constitutions have been called “Organic Law”, “Fundamental Law”, “Basic Law”, and from Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution referring to itself, “the supreme Law of the Land”.  The law that creates ‘government’ is the corporate charter of that ‘government’.

char·ter n. 1. A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority, creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or bank, and defining its privileges and purposes. 3. A document outlining the principles, functions, and organization of a corporate body; a constitution: the city charter. 
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

‘Government’, just like any other corporation, must obey the limits of its charter and stay within the limits of its authority.  “Authority” means “permission to act”. 

The flow of power; the chain of authority that gives the corporate United States permission to act, is a thread that runs through the U.S. Constitution.  This thread can be seen in the following highly abridged quotation of the U.S. Constitution.

We the People of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Preamble.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…
Article 1, Section 1.

The Congress shall have Power To …
Article 1, Section. 8.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved … to the people
Amendment 10.


The People create the corporate United States.  The People delegate Congress as the part of the corporate United States to hold the power (authority) that is delegated.  The specific power (authority) delegated, is listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  The People retain all power (authority) not specifically delegated to the corporate United States.  In street language: If it ain’t been specifically given to the feds, they don’t have it.

The mythos of our ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that the powers (authorities) delegated to the corporate United States are few and enumerated (numbered).  The mythos of our federal ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that our federal ‘government’ is a corporation completely devoid of any and all authority, except for the authorities specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8. 

We will now look at what our ‘government “is”, as shown and proven by its actions. 

If you want to learn what a person “is”, you only need to observe certain actions by the person in question.  You know what the person in question “is” if you observe this person murder, rape, rob, steal, lie, enslave or terrorize. 

Likewise, to learn what a ‘government’ in question “is”, you only need to observe certain actions by the ‘government’ in question.  If a ‘government’ murders, rapes, robs, steals, lies, enslaves, or terrorizes, then you know what that ‘government’ “is”. 

Any ‘government’ that has capital punishment laws on its books, premeditates murder.  Any ‘government’ that actually executes its prisoners IS a murderer.  And since it doesn’t happen unless the law is on the books, ‘governments’ executing prisoners are committing premeditated murder.

‘Government’ murder is not limited to executing prisoners. 
Do a Google search for “Ruby Ridge” (189,000 hits) and you will find articles such as the one found on the web site of the Cato Institute from which the following excerpt was taken:

During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal "shoot to kill" orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.
By Timothy Lynch, published in National Review Online, Aug. 21, 2002.

A Google search of “Waco: The Rules of Engagement” (24,400 hits) will lead you to more ‘government’ murder.

The mythos of ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that our ‘government’ “is” a murderer.

Do a Google search for “Hope Steffey” (17,000 hits) and you will find an online video of her rape by the Stark County, Ohio sheriff‘s department.  Forcibly stripping a handcuffed woman who called 911 for help IS rape.  No penetration was required as you will find out when you view the video.  WARNING: The video is extremely disturbing.

The mythos of ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that our ‘government’ “is” a rapist and that our ‘government’ “is” a bully.

Extortion is the crime committed when an organization says to a person or persons, “Give us money or else we won’t have our armed goons protect you from our armed goons.”  How is that different when another organization says to a person or persons, “Give us money or else we won’t have our armed goons protect you from our armed goons”  when the first organization is the Mafia, and the second organization is the IRS?

The mythos of ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that our ‘government’ “is” an extortionist.

‘Government’ enforces laws.  “Law is a politician’s command, backed by threat of force, up to, and including, killing you.”  Do what they say or they will kill you.  Terrorism and Tyranny together.

The mythos of ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that our ‘government’ “is” a terrorist organization and that our ‘government’ “is” a dictatorship.

Our ‘government’ shows and proves what it “is” by its actions of murder, rape, armed robbery, home invasion, theft, prevarication, obfuscation, misrepresentation, outright lying, enslaving, world empire building, terrorism, despotism, tyranny, fascism, and communism.   

What is ‘government’?   Definitely NOT what the mythos of ‘government’ would have you believe.