@modprobe I appreciate what you are doing here!
To critique: you claim all modern day governments "contemporary governments" create there rights out of nothing "ex nihilo rights".
Would you define the original United States Of America as a government? I believe the original members of the organization explained where their rights came from in the declaration of independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 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
Lysander Spooner did argue that men can't create organizations that outlive them. Curious if that is an explanation of how contemporary American Government is ex nihilo
The Declaration of Independence did not form a government, nor did it claim or attempt to. It was a declaration of independence from an existing government. :) It is a fine document, and I don't think I find any faults in it. It did not create "The United States of America."
The history of government in North America is quite esoteric, though, and I'm only so familiar with it. It's much more complex than what is taught in schools (which is, for the most part, simply false), and had several markedly different phases (each more centralized and tyrannical than the previous) which had fundamentally different structures. Currently, as I understand it, the United States of America (properly, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) is a British corporation whose bylaws (The UNITED STATES CODE) are regarded as law for that corporation's franchises (UNITED STATES citizens). Obviously, that's all a bunch of esoteric nonsense, but it is the legal framework they've constructed.
All this is to say, you'll have to be more specific if I'm to answer your question. :) What I will say is that the current institution asserts rights which I can prove it does not have: it asserts the right to kidnap and cage people for carrying a certain kind of flower. It does not have that right, and cannot acquire that right (unless the people in question grant it, which they don't) so it's provably illegitimate.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is an organization (corporation) established under a common law system mirroring British Common Law. At the time of settlement the American Revolution the wealthy landowners sought to govern themselves and declare themselves sovereign. Ultimately they drafted and agreed on a set of rules for themselves.
The big objection raised by Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" -> http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm was that that the constitution was not binding on those who did not sign.
I've also heard the argument that the act of "voting" is how you give consent.
My understanding is that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is much younger than that, but I could be wrong. I have not closely studied the esoteric history of American government.
> I've also heard the argument that the act of "voting" is how you give consent.
I'm familiar with the argument, and it bears some weight since in order to vote one must sign a contract (called a voter registration form) essentially selling himself into slavery for some ostensible influence over the slave master, but most people who sign that contract do not understand those terms, and under contract theory, that contract is then not binding (no meeting of minds). It is, however, the responsibility of the disillusioned party to declare his lack of consent; if he fails to do so, legal proceedings continue and are binding as though he has consented.
What esoteric history have you studied?
I'm interested in the esoteric history of power.
Particularly when it comes to the relationship of Force and Faith.