Government, by its very nature, is the selective application of force and coercion. It may not be a pretty picture but it is the way that things are currently governed in the world today. People may have some illusion of freedom but are they truly free? Even in a “free” society? “Show me the man,” says any federal prosecutor, “and I can show you the crime.”i This is not an exaggeration. Neither however, is this any kind of denial regarding the need for government and a governing body.
Government is a necessary function of society, especially within larger, urban population centers. There must be more than just a natural order to ensure the safety of all individuals within the community developments to the extent that it is possible. There must also be a system of enforcement but it must be kept in check by the consent and ultimate approval of the governed.
It may in fact be possible that a system can be built that provides true freedom for the people but how many of the people really want to be free? Yes, that sounds like a foolish question at first glance but think about it for a moment. How many people are quite content to slave their lives away in exchange for a paycheck and comfortable surroundings during their enslavement? As long as people can go home, have a bite to eat and maybe have a beer or glass of wine and turn on their favorite form of entertainment, the vast majority of people consider themselves to be free ... at least until some jackbooted thug comes busting through their doors for whatever reason, right or wrong. Only when the system actively invades the average household do they care about the system of governance in place.
The average person is, by and large, mostly apathetic when it comes to politics and governance. Thus, the only people who actively seek political office, tend to be those who crave power and control. Once in office, none of them seem to be objectionable to using their newfound power to usurp more power and more control in what becomes a vicious cycle that ultimately oppresses the people even more and prevents them from ever being truly free ... socially or economically.
Nearly half the population of the world remains living in abject poverty while farmers are being paid not to grow crops. Millions of people, including entire families are homeless, while millions of homes stand empty and some even abandoned. Government agents break in the wrong doors, toss flash bangs in haphazardly and shoot family pets ... and far too frequently, even shooting the family members ... and there is absolutely no viable system of accountability in place ... and then the very people who are harmed, are ultimately the ones that pay for the errors and abuse from the very system in place ... ostensibly at least, for their protection.
The current system is broken.
Before anybody goes running for their pitchforks or torches, it should be noted that this is not in any way to be construed as a call to arms or even to interfere with the current system of government in any way. It is however, believed that there is a better way of doing things, though this depends on a number of factors that have not been finalized as of the time of this writing. Ideally, the treaties will all be signed and the Community Developments will be wholly and completely sovereign entities, subject to their own form of governanceii. However, all of that is merely conjecture at this point in time.
Why would this be an ideal solution though? What would make this “utilization of force and coercion” any better than the last one or the next one?
The system of governance as is being established by and for the Community Developments is different in a number of ways. The founding documentation will list what powers the government has in addition to what powers it does not. As has been proven historically, the ability of a free nation to remain free often depends as much or more on its own citizenry than it does on any outside influence. It is not possible to build any form of governance that is not subject to the usurpation of powers and abuse unless the people allow it to happen or stave it off, as has been the case throughout history. Historically, the only major inclusion that has ever been put down in any official records of the founding documents, was what the government can and should do with very little about what the government cannot do. This is one area that is decidedly in need of being rectified.
The issue of marriage has come out numerous times in discussions regarding the Community Developments and their governance. Quite simply put, marriage is a private contractual agreement by and between two interested partiesiii. Marriage can only be defined as being between members of the human species. Quite simply, no other species or item is legally or morally capable of granting consent to, for or as an individual flesh and blood human being. While a corporation is a person insofar as a civil person with a natural life is concerned, it is not a flesh and blood man or womaniv.
A minor cannot give legal consent without the permission of parents or guardians and cannot thus, be lawfully wed without the permission of the parents and/or guardians. When the parties are consenting adults, a marriage contract is, from a legal standing, a private contractual agreement by and between two private individuals and thus, not further subject to government regulation. From a religious standing, the marriage contractual agreement is an oath taken in front of God as a witness and again, is not subject to further government regulation. While there may and should perhaps be a civil record of marriage, it should not be subject to any terms or conditions above and beyond standard contract law in accordance with the principles of Common or Natural Law.
By spelling out what powers the system of governance does and does not have, it is hoped that it will make it easier ... if not mandatory for the citizenry to demand an accounting by the governing body and have a viable means to enforce any such resolutions as may stem from that accounting. The ideal solution would be a more wholly symbiotic relationship by and between the government and the citizens wherein the government does have the right ... the duty to serve and protect the people and not some arbitrarily enforced statute, regulation or piece of legislation. Civil Servants should serve for the benefit and with the consent of the civil body ... the civilians. As has been noted, it is important that when the governed do not consent to the actions of the government, that there can be an immediate and lawful resolution of the issues of concern.
The formation of the Ombudsman Program, the Citizen Review Boards and other options should always be made available to the people directly. If the people are not given a direct voice, their cries will go unnoticed and unheeded leaving very little alternative but to accept the slowly moving but constant and pervading encroachment of oppression of the people at their own expense and peril.
Furthermore, officials of the governing body may also utilize these panels when they have concerns to be addressed. In some cases as may reasonably be foreseen, an official of the governing body may see or even be compelled to participate in some act or actions as may be deemed to be either morally and/or ethically reprehensible in nature or contrary to the principles of society within the Community Development. Such matters can and should be brought before the Ombudsman Program and/or the Citizen Review Board(s), if not for adjudication purposes, at the least so that such issues may be addressed by the citizenry being represented by governing body. In other cases, the official from the governing body may have mitigating factors regarding personal matters that may normally be hampered by their role as a civil servant and seek mediation in order to be considered for an exception to such rule(s) as may hamper their personal endeavorsv.
i This quote is originally from Lavrentiy Beria who was part of Stalinist Russia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR. Unfortunately, it has also become equally prevalent in “free nations” across the globe. The United States of America, the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” has the highest known incarceration rates in the world. These people are often denied any opportunity to regain their status as full citizens within their societies even after their “debt to society” has been paid in full. This particular quote was from an article entitled “The Criminalization of Almost Everything” written by Harvey Silverglate at the Cato Institute in 2010.
ii It is not just infeasible, but impossible to believe that the current system is going to just let someone walk in and change the entire system of government. Wars have been started for substantially less and the entire point here is to end the root cause of war and strife and build a better system to provide true economic and social freedom to the people of the world. By isolating the system of governance to the Community Developments, an alternative system will be put in place to allow the people of the world to see how well it functions. As people around the world see the development of a society that provides true freedoms and holds its government to account, it is believed that they will be demanding changes be implemented, even if somewhat slowly, across the entire world.
iii A marriage is a legal contractual agreement by and between two parties. The introduction or more than two parties into any such agreement would impede the ability to perform in accordance with both common law and statutory law regarding contracts and would breach the original contractual agreement from a legal standpoint. Or would it?:
“Civil Records” under the Color of Law are utilized to bring the government in as a third party to these matters wherein there are Civil Certificate requirements. A Civil Birth Certificate is issued by the STATE and registered with the US Census Bureau which is a Sub-Agency of the US Department of Commerce. Same with the Civil Wedding Certificate. In the case of the Birth Certificate, the given Christian name is replaced with the All Caps Name and registered with the Department of Commerce becoming a surety. In short, you become a surety … a guarantor to pay the debts of the federal system and the corporate USA. Through the introduction of the Maiden Name of the Mother, the infant is legally registered as a Ward of the STATE (In all capital letters, being considered as a federal jurisdiction or a federal STATE within a State, making the denizen of the State a federal citizen, enjoying “privileges” contracted with the federal government under the fourteenth amendment), granting the STATE the right to make claims for and on behalf of the child … to contract.
In Linneman v. Linneman, we see legal precedent and evidence that “Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State.” (Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2D 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953) citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926) and further that, the State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. So the government can even decide what is important to you and your family under the Color of Law.
iv FROM BLACKS LAW: Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen Is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not Citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person Is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law.
• • • A person is such, not because he Is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person Is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Pollock, First Book of Jurisprudence. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. IL
"Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P.2d 850, 853.
It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam. Ill, 178; Appeal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337; 4 A. 149; but as a rule, corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly. to exclude them. Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand., Va., 132.
It is also imperative to note however, that the Court, being a “legal fiction” has authority only over the “natural person” meaning the person of inherence or the legal fiction or strawman of the flesh and blood man or woman … this is evidenced by the following observation of the Supreme Court of the United States wherein it clearly states:
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than the corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)
v Just as an example: The investments of a Civil Servant will be placed in a blind trust, but they may wish to cash out a portion of their investment in order to assist a relative to purchase land for a home or personal use or for any other fully justifiable reason. In such a case, the facts of the matter in addition to the physical property and any potential for conflict may be reviewed by the citizenry who will either approve or deny such a request as has been made. The option for the Citizens Review Board(s) and/or the Ombudsman Program will further offer both the civil servant and the common citizen the opportunity to expedite such matters only in such cases wherein a petition to expedite has been properly filed and accepted based upon its own merits.