Previously by Roger Young: A Letter to the Neighborhood FlagFreaks
A Declaration is Only the First Step
I 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 declaration.
Please understand 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.
I remember 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.
This conscious thought manifests itself as ideas that materialize into action.
Though your 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. Don't 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.
Submission is Not Consent
The state's legitimacy only exists in the mind of those who accept it. To those that don't, it is a fiction, a meaningless abstraction.
However, surviving in a state dominated world requires, in some cases, submission to this abstraction that also possesses overwhelming firepower to enforce that domination. But don't 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.
People try 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 can't be coerced into a contract. And I most certainly wasn't 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.
Many readers 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 to me.
I approach the questions of self-proclaimed rulers from a philosophical view. Such a view can be articulated by asking two questions:
1) When I am born, am I born a free man or am
I born a subject/slave to another individual or a collective entity?
The answer to this question is either yes or no there is no in between. You can't be mostly free or a little enslaved.
If your answer is the latter, I then have to ask the next question:
2) Why? By what authority does such
a ruler 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!
Some readers 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?
Government, 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 don't own people, people control corporations
The Constitution of No Authority
A constitutionalist is one who believes that a Piece of Paper will protects one's life and liberty from a predator disguised as a benevolent government master.
Some viewers 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 document's legitimacy in two sentences:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certainu2014that 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.
What gives the Founders (intelligent, educated individuals they may be) the gall, the temerity, the arrogance to rule me from the grave?
Please remember, 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 individual's 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.
Jumping Through Hoops
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 violence.
When I am born into this world, am I born a free man or someone else's property? The state has created a maze of legalese to distract you and cloud and hide this inconvenient question that the state can't answer. I don't understand why intelligent and awake people allow the state's matrix of propaganda to obscure that basic question in people's 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?
It's 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 state's existence it is a tyrannical, criminal band of thugs with a great public relations agent.
Any legitimate "contractual" arrangement with this beast is rather one sided. I'm 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. That's why I never opened a Roth IRA. I fully expect them to eventually change the rules so you'll be paying taxes on that money twice! That's of course, if they don't nationalize (confiscate) everyone's retirement money first.
The burden 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 supposition.
Why should 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 other's 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?