1 1

“I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant [or an oligarchy of a few or many tyrants: legislatures/Congress] who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him [them]; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectable of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke [civil law: admiralty, UCC, equity], not constrained by a greater multitude than they… Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice?...If a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single [or many] man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man [or a gaggle of men] from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery [via civil law contractual consent], what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? …When a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one [or many men] man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such depth…What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough…”

Etienne de La Boetie, “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude”

Melancton 5 Sep 2

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Fear. Of appearing disloyal to your neighbors who could turn you in. Of appearing to be a threat to order. Of making yourself noticeable to authorities. Of what will happen to you if you get arrested. Of what will happen to your family.

Consent and Contract are the two biggest reasons. PARENS PATRIAE (government as father) is just one of many examples. See quotes:
“[Civil] Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“ - Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

“…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. 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).

“The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.“ - Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).

“This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of The State. The State is like a silent partner in the family; a family member 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. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity…The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.” - Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.

“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”- Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

“There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.“ - Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).

“The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.“ - Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)․

“In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“ - Ziegler v. Ziegler, 107 Idaho 527, 691 P.2d 773 (Idaho App.1985) (citing Carlson v. Carlson, 8 Kan.App.2d 564, 661 P.2d 833 (1983)).

“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”- Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ” - Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “ - Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ &rsquo😉.

A group of Texans, all with State issued Birth Certificates, State issued Marriage Licenses, 14th Amend US citizenship, and Social Security Numbers, questioned the Attorney General of Texas (Jim Mattox) May 19,1986,
"Is it true that the State of Texas owns our children?"
Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox replied,
"Yes, it's true (that the state owns your children) and not only your children but you too!"

What makes this possible? The State doesn’t really own the natural Man (male or female) because the civil State, a civil law corporation, did not create the natural Man; HOWEVER, the State did create the civil law person, a civil law legal fiction. The civil State, as a god: EL, Theos: sovereign power, law maker, ruling judge, creates natural & artificial persons, which are what the natural Man gives his natural life to in order to animate the legal fiction, the dead entity, called the person, which is a “mask” worn on the civil law stage. The creator of a thing controls the thing. A state created legal fiction is owned, controlled, regulated and owes its faith/fidelity or allegiance to its creator, the State.
Birth Certificates, Marriage Licenses, and Social Security Numbers are all voluntary, not mandatory. They are only mandatory to operate in civil law as a person, which most people, out of ignorance choose to do because they don’t know about the alternative, which is to live a natural life keeping the Common Law, the Law of God.
Maxims of Law:
Man is a term of Nature (The Law of Nature & Nature’s God); person of the civil law (laws made by men as gods)
All persons are men; but not all men, persons.
Regarding this last maxim, New Zealand civil government recently created a person for a natural waterway, a river, granting the river with civil status so it can have civil rights (gov’t privileges, protections) therefore, today, the last maxim needs a little updating: most persons are men, but not all men are persons.

@Melancton You can look at the world and see the success all anarchies have had. The concept of freedom has given way to sovereignty where the individual knows best what everyone else should be doing.

@Pand0ro In the US there are no laws that make it mandatory for an individual to contract with the government. Such as State Birth Certificates that create a civil law legal fiction called a "person", or any State license, such as a State Marriage license. There is no law requiring a Social Security Number (taxpayer ID Number, federal employee ID number). These are all voluntary quasi adhesion contracts that causes an individual to surrender a lot of his natural law over his own choices and puts him into a commercial civil law jurisdiction where he is reduced to a "serf" with a master he has contractually agreed to obey.

@Melancton Do you think that having no standards is going to make a successful community? What will happen when everyone pursues their own perceived best self-interest with no coordination between entities?

@Pand0ro You need to study law. Most civilians are totally unaware of the differences between the various forms/jurisdictions of law. For instance, the US/federal Constitution recognized 3 forms of ancient law that had been brought to America by the English settlers. Those 3 forms each have their own rules and procedures and subject matter jurisdictions. So NO I am NOT suggesting "No standards" at all. Americans would do well to get the hell out of commercial law: Admiralty/Maritime and UCC because it operates in similar ways to MARTIAL LAW. They need to individually choose to return to common law, which they voluntarily, by contract and consent,individually abandoned during the Reconstruction era (1868+). SEE QUOTES:

American Jurisprudence 2d. Volume 2, p. 720

Section 1 – Origin & Nature of Admiralty Jurisdiction & Practice

The historical development of admiralty jurisdiction and procedure is of practical as well as theoretical interests since opinions in admiralty cases frequently refer to the historical background in reaching conclusions on the questions at issue. The special jurisdiction of admiralty has a maritime purpose and is different from Common Law. It [admiralty] is not exclusively rooted in the civil law system although it includes substantial derivations there from. It has a strong international aspect, but it may under go independent changes in the several countries that an admiralty law and such international features are given serious consideration by admiralty courts.

By the end of the 17th century the admiralty jurisdiction in England had been restricted until it was not as extensive as in other European maritime countries due to a long controversy in which the Common Law courts with the aid of Parliament had succeeded in limiting the jurisdiction of admiralty to the high seas and excluding its jurisdiction from transactions arising on waters within the body of a country.

The Development of Admiralty in the United States.

The admiralty jurisprudence system was brought to America by British settlers along with the Common Law and Equity. The courts for the administration of the maritime law were commissioned in many, if not all, of the colonies. These tribunals continued to exercise of the power conferred upon them until the organization of the federal government in 1787.

Now before the adoption of the Constitution jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime cases was distributed between the confederation of the individual states, but when the Constitution of the United States was framed a system of exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction was incorporated placing the entire subject, substantive as well as procedural, under national control because of its intimate relation to navigation and to interstate and foreign commerce. Now the provision in the Constitution did not abrogate the maritime law theretofore in force; the maritime law became law of the United States subject to the paramount power of Congress to alter, qualify or supplement it as experience and changing conditions might require, subject only to constitutional and treaty limitations.

The power of Congress is paramount in matters of maritime law and it was exercised at an early date when Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789 conferring on the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction of seizures under the law of impost, navigation or trade of the United States and made on navigable waters within the respective districts. This jurisdiction [of Admiralty] has since been modified and enlarged by numerous enactments.”

United States supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): “In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law...It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation (civil law) began generally to replace the common law.”

@Melancton You are correct. I have no background in law and I appreciate the points you made about differences between legislative and common law. My interest is in how society will function under different kinds of laws. If we have a legal system based on common law. what are the benefits to society and are there areas that would be difficult to resolve conflict.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:128488 does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.