Secession Reactions and Suggestions
by Roger Young: A
Letter to the Neighborhood Flag†Freaks
is Only the First Step
received a lot of feedback after posting my
latest video inspired by my previous essay, "I
Hereby Secede." I also received a number of recommendations
on how to make such a declaration into a physical reality. From
this I realized I should make clear the nature of such a personal
that this declaration/affirmation is just a first step. It must
be followed with concrete action. Many folks contacted me offering
a number of viable options to choose from. I think whatever plan
of action you devise and execute is only limited by your creativity.
If that runs out, you have the creativity of the entire human race
to draw upon, which I believe is unlimited.
years ago listening to personal improvement gurus. The one belief
they had in common was the power of personal affirmation as the
first step toward achieving a goal. Such an affirmation settles
into your subconscious and directs conscious action toward achieving
this goal. By sincerely creating a personal declaration of secession/independence,
you have, in a sense, wired and programmed your subconscious into
directing conscious thought toward achieving your ambition.
thought manifests itself as ideas that materialize into action.
plan of action is up to you, I would only caution against substituting
your personal plan of action with joining a "movement"
of some kind. Such movements are useful in locating and exchanging
ideas with like minded individuals, but it would be unwise on counting
on "mass produced" action to bring positive change to
your particular, individual situation. Make sure you remain the
director and not the directed. Donít expect change (as it relates
to you personally) to result from merely following and supporting
the leadership of such a movement, even if they seem to share your
interests and expectations.
The only real
power an individual has is how he lives his life a life structured
by his philosophy, his decisions, his actions. Multiply this by
millions and the result is change.
is Not Consent
legitimacy only exists in the mind of those who accept it. To those
that donít, it is a fiction, a meaningless abstraction.
in a state dominated world requires, in some cases, submission to
this abstraction that also possesses overwhelming firepower to enforce
that domination. But donít confuse submission with consent.
When a robber
sticks a gun to your head and demands your money, more than likely
you will submit to such a demand, as you value your life more than
whatever money you have on you. Of course, you have not consented
to such a forced transaction and transfer of property, as the decision
was made under duress and an undeniable threat to your life.
to tell me that having a social security number is some kind of
contract with the US Government. Of course, this is balderdash since
a gun was put to my head at the age of 15 to get one. No number
meant no employment. I responded to the robber by submitting, but
I most certainly did not consent to any kind of contract.
You canít be coerced into a contract. And I most certainly wasnít
knowledgeable enough at that age to consent to such an arrangement.
Of course, today you are branded with this number at birth
and are given absolutely no opportunity to opt out.
label me a "citizen" and insist I am therefore bound with
certain obligations toward the ruling state that labels me as such.
"Citizen" is merely another word for "subject"
or "slave" used by the state to designate and categorize
you as their property, not the property of a competing state.
The reality is that the state/citizen relationship is just a variation
of the classic master/slave arrangement. But I am not the
property of any state as I have not given consent to anyone to categorize
me as such. Therefore, the issue of "citizenship" is irrelevant
the questions of self-proclaimed rulers from a philosophical view.
Such a view can be articulated by asking two questions:
I am born, am I born a free man or am
I born a
subject/slave to another individual or a collective entity?
to this question is either yes or no there is no in between. You
canít be mostly free or a little enslaved.
If your answer
is the latter, I then have to ask the next question:
By what authority does such
have to make such a claim without my explicit consent?
By the divine
proclamation of a deity or some other supernatural entity? By the
"authority" of a mob, manifested as a state sponsored
and controlled election?
When the state
puts a gun to my head, demanding obedience, I will most likely submit.
However, I will not voluntarily petition and beg, by political
or legal action, for the return of a personal possession (my individual
sovereignty and liberty) that is already mine! The Magna
Carta, eloquent document that it is, was an appeal to a self-proclaimed
ruler to respect certain liberties already owned at birth by his
self-proclaimed subjects. It was a request to a self-proclaimed
king/ruler to give up a small part of his authority. But that authority
was illegitimate from the day it was proclaimed!
mention the error of referring to the USG as a government, when
it is technically a corporation; as if such a designation changes
the fact that this body (by whatever name you call it) is a criminal
organization that unjustly claims ownership over my life and body.
As one reader reminded me: You are Sovereign. You are a Creator.
A corporation is a creation. A creation cannot rule
a Creator. Why is that so hard for so many to understand?
state, corporation give it whatever title you wish. They are all
abstractions. I was not born a subject or slave to any such
fictions created by others. Without my consent, they have no legitimate
authority over me. The fact they can offer only violence in response
to my resistance further strengthens this claim. Wal-Mart is a corporation.
If they claim me as their property, is that claim legitimate? Corporations
donít own people, people control corporations
of No Authority
is one who believes that a Piece of Paper will protects oneís life
and liberty from a predator disguised as a benevolent government
of my video brought up the US Constitution. They either encouraged
me to work for its restoration or claimed it to be a contractual
authority preventing my secession.
I highly recommend
everyone read the works of Lysander
Spooner and his critique of the US Constitution. Not only does
he prove such claims as spurious but he essentially destroys this
documentís legitimacy in two sentences:
whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much
is certainóthat it has either authorized such a government as we
have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it
is unfit to exist."
And he wrote
this in 1867! Seeing what has happened in the years since, the above
statement seems to be even more relevant today.
The US Constitution
was written by a group of self-appointed elites in 1787. Among other
illicit powers, it claimed that the US Government had the
power to rob individuals. And not just individuals then alive
and residing within the geographical boundaries "ruled"
by the government, but any future, unborn individuals finding themselves
living within those same arbitrary boundaries. In essence, the authors
made the audacious proclamation that those not yet born are to be
ruled by this new government and are bound by its constitution.
the Founders (intelligent, educated individuals they may be) the
gall, the temerity, the arrogance to rule me from the grave?
that a constitution is not a contract. A constitution merely charges
an institution with the power and responsibility to regulate
itself which any honest constitutionalist will have to admit
requires a healthy dose of faith in the moral rectitude of his rulers.
However, a contract is an agreement among two or more consenting
parties who agree that definite consequences will be suffered
by any party that violates this contract. All parties are aware
of this responsibility and agree to be held accountable. If a dispute
arises, a pre-determined, agreed to, third party decides the outcome
of any disagreement not a court operated by one of the parties
involved in the dispute.
The fact that
an institution is so feared by its creators that a regulating document
is required indicates the admitted creation of a master/slave relationship.
The expectation is that the master will be refrained from abusing
its monopoly of power by obeying this regulating document. The hope
is the master will regulate himself and hold himself accountable.
In other words, the Constitution is written by my master
to regulate my master, is interpreted by my master,
and enforced by my master. In more cases than not, it is
ignored by my master.
But if this
particular master/slave relationship is so feared, why voluntarily
get into such a relationship in the first place? This curious action
seems eerily similar to a woman, on the eve of consenting to a relationship
with a man, obtaining a restraining order as future protection.
Are you sure, madam, this is a guy you want to spend time with?
It can be concluded
then that a relationship with a state institution, no matter its
regulating structure or guiding ideology, is not conducive to protecting
an individualís cherished inalienable liberties. And it can also
be reasoned that any such relationship with this institution cannot
be considered valid without the explicit, non-coerced, contractual
consent of the individual.
My video inspired
several individuals to suggest methods to secede that are "legally
enforceable," as relates to that fictional abstract known as
the US Government. Here is one
such approach. These are all viable courses of action, if that
is the direction you choose. But I still am bothered by the elemental
question that continually goes through my head: By what authority
does an individual or group of individuals claim rule and dominion
over my life without my consent? There is none, of course, and such
an illegitimate authority can only be enforced through fraud and
When I am born
into this world, am I born a free man or someone elseís property?
The state has created a maze of legalese to distract you and cloud
and hide this inconvenient question that the state canít answer.
I donít understand why intelligent and awake people allow the stateís
matrix of propaganda to obscure that basic question in peopleís
minds. The state creates these legal games to confuse its subjects
and keep them oblivious to the simple, rational truths contained
in the answers to such questions.
How can any
individual or entity (that I had no part in creating) rightly claim
me as their property and then require me to navigate through all
sorts of hoops and obstacles and legal nonsense to regain a condition
(freedom) that I was born into?
Itís no different
or no less reprehensible than a chattel slave being required by
his master to complete whatever perverse directives this despot
can imagine, in order for the slave to win or "earn" his
freedom a freedom that was taken from him at birth! How
is this slavish relationship any different than the relationship
the state forces upon me? Why is the burden upon me to abolish
or rectify this relationship particularly since this entity claims
to rule "by
consent of the governed?" Asking these questions exposes
the reality of the stateís existence it is a tyrannical, criminal
band of thugs with a great public relations agent.
"contractual" arrangement with this beast is rather one
sided. Iím expected to keep my end of any "agreement,"
but the state rejects any demand that they keep theirs. They
can change the terms of any "agreement" at any time and
without any input or consent by me. Thatís why I never opened a
Roth IRA. I
fully expect them to eventually change the rules so youíll be paying
taxes on that money twice! Thatís of course, if they donít
(confiscate) everyoneís retirement money first.
is placed upon the wrong party. As it is now, the individual is
expected to prove why he is not a property of the state.
It should be up to the state to prove such an abominating
I spend my time fighting one legal fiction by replacing it with,
or defensively using, another legal fiction? Even if that is successful,
what is to stop the state from creating still another legal
fiction that I must then counter? Where does it end? I am sovereign.
I am born that way. I need no document or state decision to make
that a reality. The fact of my sovereignty is confirmed by the fact
of my birth as a conscious human being, a property of no one, nor
any self-described ruling entity. If you believe otherwise, than
you have to believe that all men are born as otherís
property. You also then have to admit to the tyrannical nature
of the entity that you legitimize and obey. And what does that say
about you as a person?
Young [send him mail]
is a freelance
photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.