Only slaves ask for permission to exercise rights.

Actually, the title to this post is wrongheaded. Slaves don't have rights. They only are granted privileges by their masters. They MUST beg for permission to exercise those privileges.

Think about that the next time your about to beg them for permission to do something.
Ask yourself:

1. Is what I want to do lawful to do?
a) If yes, then why do you need to be licensed to do it?
b) If No, then how would asking government somehow make it a lawful activity?

2. Is it my right to do this?

3. Do I have the right to do this?

4. Does it harm another or their rights if I do this?

5. Is there ANY fraud involved? (Gov can not license fraudulent activities, even though they do it all the time)

6. Does my asking for permission to do lawful acts grant them my consent to step in and tell me what to do?

7. Do they then have MY permission to tell me just how I can exercise a right because I consented by asking for their permission?

8. Who died and made them god?

9. Are they MY public servants or MY masters?
a) If public servants, then why are you asking them for permission to exercise your rights?
b) If "masters" then learn why granting them your consent makes that so! And learn what granting them your consent even means!
c) Do I even have rights after I granted them to someone else?

Some stuff to think about before you go begging some pointy headed bureaucrat public servant for permission to exercise your rights such as a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. 

I disagree with some of the information presented in this video, but for the most part, I do agree with the content.
 

Do You Own Yourself?

From Matt Biechler

"1. I own myself. Nobody has a higher claim to me, than me. This includes "society". I can't be forced into doing things I don't want to, and I can be nobodies slave - except by a violation of my self.

2. As an extension of owning myself, the product of my time and action is mine. If I knit a blanket it is mine, if I build a house from unused trees, it is mine, if I put unproductive resources to use, they are mine. If I go to work and make $100 - it is mine.

3. The only real crimes that can be perpetrated are force and fraud. If a person is forced to lose their freedom, volition, or property (or it's value) - or is tricked out of it - that is a legitimate offense. Other things like jay walking, selling marijuana, or prostitution are non-crimes because they do not violate any of the above axioms.

4. Governance is force (violence). This is called the "gun in the room". It means that every law, no matter how superficial is an extension of the application of force - or that every law is fundamentally a question of whether people should be killed for noncompliance. The extended argument looks like this:

I am commanded by law to pay taxes to murder the children of Iraq.
Should I refuse to pay for the murder of babies in Iraq I will be fined in addition to being commanded to pay.
Should I refuse to pay the fines or war monies, I will have my property confiscated (theft).
Should I refuse to surrender my property, I will be jailed (kidnapped and imprisoned).
Should I defend my person, I will be killed.

So, should people be killed who do not support killing babies and civilians in the Iraq war?

5. The social contract is void, since it is unsigned, and never agreed to. For an agreement to be valid, both sides must know and understand the contract - and must agree. In the case of the "social contract", this is not the case - therefore it is invalid.

The result of these ideas is "voluntaryism" - the idea that when you and I agree to something, and I don't force you, or trick you - then it's fair and just. The contrary, coercion, is when people cannot choose if they will agree or not - and is unfair and unjust, and violates the primary axiom."

I was just going to do a post today with this video, but then I found the above post and decided to post them together.

Robin Hood Philosophy

I understand the concept of fighting fraud with fraud. I'll call it the Robin Hood philosophy. While I won't claim it's all bad, I would add that it is the same as fighting fire with fire, or an eye for an eye.  
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi 

My own recent quote on the subject 

"You can fight Bullshit with Bullshit, but in the end you both wind up covered in shit" ~Chris Duke

How far you wish to go in using the Robin Hood Philosophy depends entirely on how much shit your willing to deal with, or more eloquently put, how much you are willing to become that which you despise. As I get older, I see much of what I have hated in the past in myself. 

"hate begets hate" and "violence begets violence" Does "fraud beget fraud?"

Despite my understanding of the concept, I still can't help but feel it justifiable on some level. Where it gets stuck in the mud for me is when you are presented with a violent act, and are in need to defend yourself and or your possessions or others from attack. I don't believe that scenario fits into the whole Robin Hood philosophy. I believe that to be another concept entirely, but have not been able to conceptualize a soft dividing line between the two. The hard dividing line is easy to see. A man comes after you with a knife, you pull out a gun and kill the fool. I don't consider that fighting fire with fire even if you were to use a knife to fight off a knife wielding attacker. But what got me to write this post in the first place was in reply to a comment about how to deal with the courts and cops who are using fraud to steal from the people. That is the soft dividing line in my opinion, that's difficult to justify with the Robin Hood philosophy. Do you risk becoming like them in using fraud to fight back? Or do you take the high ground? Any REAL LAW ALWAYS provides remedy. What these fraudsters are doing provides NO remedy whatsoever. That's one way you can tell they are not real laws. 

So to answer my own question, I would suggest vacating the fiction, removing ones self from their privileges, stop consenting to be a party to their fraud, and then, once that has been accomplished, ones hands would be clean in whatever one does to recover or defend from their unlawful activities. But there is the catch 9 again. Should you consider (once ones hands are clean) conducting ones self in fraud to get compensation or battle the fraud once ones hands are clean? They would inevitably wind up covered in shit if you do.

Judge acting outside his jurisdiction

“When a judge acts when he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
US vs. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. ct, 471, 66 L. Ed. 2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohen vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6wheat) 264, 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821).

“Dismissal of charges is warranted, because of fraud placed on the court.”
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)

"Their courts"

By: ZJ Free

"Their courts"

In commercial courts, there are no Living souls, only LEGAL PERSONS, and LEGAL PERSONS have no Constitutionally Protected Rights. All within the realm of 'their courts' is FICTION, so don't expect anything to make sense. The only intent is to fool the Living soul into contributing his assets in furtherance of the FICTION and the FRAUD.

To the players within, it is just an entertaining game...!!