COMPLETE LIBERTY

• Sign up Now!

No topics yet...

0 Photos

1 Members

4 Wall Posts

• 

  by Wes Bertrand 1 year ago

  Thank you for your reply. I agree that ideas ought to be assessed on their own merit. It's just that the things stated by politicians are encumbered by the nature of what they do, which does not meet people's needs for justice, choice, and autonomy. There "job" entails the violation of property rights, after all.
  
  One need make no assumption of valid contract with those who violate property rights, so there is no "silent acquiescence." Taxation, regulation, and fiat currency make all legal connections with the organization of government null and void, however impractical our decisions to severe those various connections may be. There is no such thing as "the state," btw.
  
  So, I see that you have a need for those on this site understand the statements and extended excerpts you are pasting in your posts. We understand the nature of political/legal enslavement, so perhaps your group can serve as a resource for those who'd like to know more about the etymology and terminology of the statist language. It's important that everyone meet each other's need for respectful dialogue in the process.
• 

  by Absalom ? 1 year ago

  The particular local is is no geographical in nature, it is a place in the mind and I hold no prejudice in my research and sources. To do so is to obfuscate my own observing apparatus. It doesn't really matter who says what if there is truth to it. I never knew the man so I see no reason to take anything he said personally. I am pushing an agenda and I don't see a lot of this the same as most others out there. It's enough to make the distinction.
  
  If you already agreed to the terms threw your silent acquiescence then it is you who are the one in dishonor when you act and behave as a citizen and then say you're not. In turn if you do act a behave the part of the citizen, who is anyone else to tell you you're not?
  
  Part of your argument is that no person has a right to govern others. Well I ask you just how you got here? As I recall everyone is born naked, helpless and incapable of governing themselves. Therefore they must be taken care of. And if naive parents can't do it by themselves they bond them into the system. So it's your parents that gave you away to the government, you can't blame the government for that.
  
  Well you can but it would do you any good. They never interfere with your ability to chose. The question what have you chosen? If you have no chosen to do anything other than be a citizen subject to the terms and condition of citizenship. Well then what are you complaining for again?
  
  Everyone is sovereign out here and that's the real rub because chances are you give up your sovereignty every time you open your mouth to a policy enforcement agent. At least if you willfully enter into his ad personum jurisdiction. You see how they've captured you? They captured your mind and they've been doing since you were born. So damn near everything you can even think of has to be wrong. In other words, if you think you're Wes Bertrand, then you're subject to whatever terms and conditions apply to Wes Bertrand, even though the living spirit in there may take issue, which evidently has. The real question and key is, how do you end the duality?
  
  Are you in fact, self-governing? Can you really say that you are? Well if you're still trying to cast off this government then I'm gonna guess not. Remember what the Framers stated. They said, "We hold these truths to be self evident." In other words they were doing it. They were being self determined to the formation of their own independent nation state. And you know what? You're right no one has the "right" to govern over others in this since because the Framers didn't pledge to you and me and their declaration never set anyone else free, it certainly didn't set their slaves free. And, if you fight a war and incur a debt and that debt is bought up by the same guy you fought your war of independence with? Are you independent? Can't be. And if you refuse the pay the debt what then? Well in 1812 the King came back and took control of all the courts, which is were the titles are. That's what the King did to secure the debt and the response was to institute a central bank. All the Frames won was that right to run the Kings plantation of 3 million colonials.
  
  You say that, "men can never escape being governed" is fallacious. I say just look around. Whatever state you find yourself in, you are indeed perfect for that condition, or the condition would not exist.
• 

  by Wes Bertrand 1 year ago

  Thanks for joining, "Absalom ?" Interesting choice of religious name and Interesting group. I of course agree that each individual is sovereign, which is the essence of complete liberty. So, if this is a general web-based group, it might be superfluous. Do you intend this group to be one in which people can meet in your particular locale?
  
  I'm a bit concerned about your posts of quotes by politicians. What is your rationale for that? Complete liberty is not about lending credence the doublespeak of those in politics. Roosevelt's statement that "men can never escape being governed" is fallacious, albeit convenient for him to say. It's true that we are self-governing beings, yet no other person has the right to govern another. No person "must submit to being governed by others." "Citizen" is a statist term, by the way, and even if someone calls you one, that doesn't mean that you "must submit"--which would be pure slavespeak: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07a.shtml
• 

  by Absalom ? 1 year ago