This is a complicated issue and not as easy to debate as first thought. I’ve covered some of this in my Blog “who owns Australia” As “governments” are not actually governments, but a business and therefore have no legitimacy at all. The fact that all governments assume that they have authority over the people, whether they agree to be subservient or not, and they rely on lies and deceit to maintain their position over the people, are full of corruption and fraud, means that no current government could ever attain legitimacy and the only way forward would be to start with a clean slate.
For a government to be legitimate for me, would mean that they would be required to have my "CONSENT" and register as a corporation. They would then be required to redistribute the wealth equally among the shareholders, which in my mind would be the land and the resources of the country in which you live. It would also require a democratic vote of the people to agree with its function, there would also have to be an option for opting out for those that wish to be self reliant, and that would not mean giving up your land as a shareholder, only the benefits and privileges of being governed upon the land. If the benefits and privileges provided by the government are actually billed for use, and not taken as TAX, more people would be happy to support the government functions giving it legitimacy. That's just the start.
I do believe they are 'registered' as a corporation through the US Securities and Exchange Commission and your 'consent' has been acquired if you hold any of their documents, applied or registered for anything, receive benefits, privileges or anything like that. So they do have that consent from the VAST majority of people on this planet. So how to you reconcile that based on your comment above? You mentioned 'opting out', so what does that look like to you?
Why would Australia register with US S&E unless it was owned by the US? interesting. i do not believe everyone has given consent even by accepting so called benefits and privileges. The law of contracts is quite clear that all elements must be disclosed. For example, a man cannot have a driving licence, only his person - and at no time does the agreement remove the private right of the man to travel freely without let nor hindrance.
As most people are paying for the things they receive, in most instances i think people believe they are a service and not a benefit or privilege. A man may receive these things as a service, but for a citizen/person they are classed as a benefit or privilege.
Surely all consent to be governed is therefore assumed over the person which is legitimate because they own the person and is lawful because it is not rebutted as the man believes himself to be a person - in truth, this is not legitimate because the man does not know that he is not a person and all elements of the contract have not been disclosed and consent is therefore not legitimate.
Opting out for me, in its simplest form would mean that i can buy land with allodial title and any goods, benefits, services i choose to receive , are billed. That way my choice to opt-out would be as simple as not choosing to receive any goods or services provided by government.
Australia:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0000805157&action=getcompany
We are not dealing with contract with our relationship with the state, we are dealing with feudalism. Big difference!
Thank you for the link, i think the registration is for the embassy? i need to learn feudalism now... The person who registered is "ADRIAN J.S. DEITZ, ESQ" signed off by a David Pearl.
COMPANY DATA:
COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000805157
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: UNKNOWN SIC - 8880 [8880]
IRS NUMBER: 000000000
FISCAL YEAR END: 0630
FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: POS AM SEC ACT: 1933 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 333-163307 FILM NUMBER: 11983593 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW STREET 2: C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY CITY: WASHINGTON STATE: DC ZIP: 20036The embassy is the business address within Washington DC (city state). That city state along with the other two (London and Vatican) are the three states that control the planet. The Vatican is the feudal master and head, London controls the financial aspect and Washington DC is the corporate and military branch of the empire.
I speak about the feudal state within my book and I've also mentioned feudalism within my blog along with books that you can read. A Treatise on Copyhold and Blackstone Commentaries are two that I recommend. They both explain the feudal system in place today which I've given an outline within my first book "Graduating Life with Honours"
What should we this type of government corporate communism.
There are two basic types of government with modern thinking, Left wing and Right wing.
It could be said that national socialists are extreme right wing, that is what Wikipedia will tell you, and extreme communism is left wing.
Left wing governments remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights, less freedom. That sounds like communism.
Extreme right wing governments, “national socialists” remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights less freedom. “Papers please” Wait that doesn’t sound like right wing, it sounds the same as communism!
It doesn't matter whether they are national socialists or communist, they are both left wing, both the same, simular to our governments of today.
What i have described is at the other end of the spectrum, a true right wing government. There is a lot of fake news and a propaganda war against anarchy and the belief in a right wing solution; they have deliberately associated the right with National Socialism – Nazis.
One day I hope someone can give me a good argument for anarchy that doesn't lead directly to government.
Yeah the political horse shoe theory just a different way of saying "different wings same dam turkey"
The redistributing of land is difficult.
1:The land currently held as private by individuals represents the the fruits of their labour and redistribution would be theft.
2: Given that the land I own is the product of my labour any attempt to redistributed it would require threat or coercion which would be an effort to exercise authority over me that would leave me financially worse off. So we can see that any government that attempted this could not legitimately claim anarchism and that first act would dissolve any honesty and integrity.
3:Pretending that we lived in a world where land ownership had not existed and we could divide it in a fair manner.
Clearly we can't divide up the country into lots and randomly assign lots to individuals because not all land is equal so the alternative becomes I guess is establishing a standardised lot sizing and providing everyone with a vote weight on every lots use.
The number of issues with such a strategy are immense but the biggest is are these two 1. The shear volume and responsibility of voting on such a massive scale is overly cumbersome on the individual and so incredibly inefficient as to be a negligent waste of the resource. 2.It does not fundamentally change the status quo the vote of the majority over powers the minority anarchy by any other name is democracy.
The closest we could come to anarchy would be the Flux party. Any other method would require coercion or force which would represent power through violence as per the debates question.
All land in common law countries is owned by the crown. There is no no true ownership through alodium title. And i didn't say your land should be re-distributed, what i'm saying is that you should have the right to hold title to your land and not have to pay fealty to the crown ie "TAX" This is something @wwf is currently trying to achieve. If you do not wish to own land, then the income from renting that land "TAX" should be re-distributed to the people. i don't think you understand what anarchy is and the purpose of a right wing government is to decrease in size until it is no longer required. @wwf lives a true anarchistic life, there is no force, show of power or violence. Anarchy needs no political party or government or religion. We believe in peace, love and harmony. :)
Private property and equality of land ownership appear to be in direct conflict.
@wwf by living of grid has an amazing privilege to be able to free himself from much of the usual issues faced by many however if tomorrow the whole of Canada was to demand anarchistic equitable distribution of the land could Canada's land mass provide them all with same privilege he has?
If not then then life wwf has is immediately brought into conflict with with a fair and equitable redistribution with out even adding the fact that all land is not equal.
I think the left/right wing argument has, over time, shifted from a libertarian to a socialist/fascist/communist paradigm. By keeping people focused on the left/right argument, the don't notice the shift from freedom to slavery. This shift has taken place over decades, perhaps even centuries. So I don't think one can make an argument like that without taking this covert shift into consideration as well. The left and right is VERY different than they were 100 years ago.
i totally agree that there has been a shift from freedom to slavery over the centuries, they play a long game and with the creation of the person in the c'est que vie act in 1666, shows that we see little or no change in our short lifetimes. History is often re-written to support their long term goal. With regards left/right politics. i believe this is just smoke and mirrors to give the illusion of control to the masses. Like voting for a new shepherd but the farmer is still leading them to slaughter.