It comes from the Ludwig von Mises Institute from around this time last year. The article concerns consent. More specifically, the consent of the governed.
A snippet~
"Nowadays, of course, we would have to supplement Proudhon's admirably precise account by noting that our being governed also entails our being electronically monitored, tracked by orbiting satellites, tased more or less at random, and invaded in our premises by SWAT teams of police, often under the pretext of their overriding our natural right to decide what substances we will ingest, inject, or inhale into what used to be known as "our own bodies."
So, to return to the question of political legitimacy as determined by the consent of the governed, it appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects.
Nevertheless, very few of us in this country at present are actively engaged in armed rebellion against our rulers. And it is precisely this absence of outright violent revolt that, strange to say, some commentators take as evidence of our consent to the outrageous manner in which the government treats us. Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation."
As you know, I removed my consent to be governed by sending a series of affidavits to the government on 8th June 2008.
The very word "consent" throws up several questions:
Can it be demanded?
Is it implied?
Is it explicit? (If so, how?)
The biggie: Can it be removed/revoked/rescinded?
I have done so, lawfully, but it has never been challenged. Perhaps one of these fine days I will get to state my case for doing so in a court of law. I will not hold my breath. They (TPTB) seem very reluctant to get me into a court-room at all. Despite my near constant needling.
(I liked the picture they used in the article, so I nicked it):
If consent can be revoked, why is it that millions more of us do not do so? Is it fear? Is it ignorance? Do we feel safer/better/stronger as a society if we all agree to let 650 fools steal our money in large chunks and our freedoms in smaller, less noticeable chunks? Is it the "herding" instinct?
What is it that frightens us so much? Do we imagine that TPTB will send crack troops to terminate us for disagreeing with them and their perceived right to do whatever they want with no recriminations?
They don't send anybody. I have been waiting for them. I have even been expecting them. There is no evidence of a backlash for withdrawing consent. None at all. They could, of course, be waiting for a critical mass, some sort of tipping point that has already been factored in. Maybe it's a numbers game? Maybe when a million or so remove their consent TPTB will act? The reverse of that is that they simply ignore us. They may "know" we are right, or they may "know" that we are wrong, but why do they not engage?
Over the last few years I have withheld thousands of £££'s. Money I would normally hand over without a second thought stayed in my bank account. Their letters came, and my Notices went, and the money is still in my account. We all know that the only thing that rings their bell is the filthy lucre, so why do I remain free and unmolested?
Saying "No" has not harmed me in any way. The naysayers keep predicting that I will be hauled away in chains but they must be terribly disappointed that I am still here. I don't think they are ever coming for me.
The Taxman, the Census man, the Companies House man, all have suffered "losses" because I chose to say no.
You might want to consider your options.
CR.
Tuppenceworth:
ReplyDeleteConsensus facit legem - consent makes the law.
Can it be demanded?
No - or at least not lawfully? - as consent means "a concurrence of wills" (Black's 1-6), being a "voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another" (Black's 3-6); or "agreement, approval or permission as to some act or purpose, esp. given voluntarily by a competent person" (Black's 7-9). Moreover: "There is a difference between consenting and submitting. Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent." Forced consent: praxeology.net/LS-FC.htm.
Is it implied?
Yes: "Implied consent. That manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given." (Black's 1-6); "Implied consent. Consent inferred from one's conduct rather than from one's direct expression." (Black's 7-9). So if you don't specifically say otherwise, consent is assumed. Qui tacet consentire videtur, silence gives consent.
Is it explicit? If so how?
Yes: "Express consent. That directly given, either viva voce or in writing." (Black's 1-6); "Express consent. Consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated." (Black's 7-9)
Can it be removed/revoked/rescinded?
Perhaps disaffirmance, or rescission (if a contract)?:
"Disaffirm. To repudiate; to revoke a consent once given; to recall an affirmance. To refuse one's subsequent sanction to a former act; to disclaim the intention of being bound by an antecedent transaction." (Black's, 1-6); "Disaffirm. To repudiate; to revoke consent; to disclaim the intent to be bound by an earlier transaction. 2. To declare (a voidable contract) to be void." (Black's 7-9)
"Disaffirmance. The repudiation of a former transaction. The refusal by one who has the right to refuse (as in the case of a voidable contract), to abide by his former acts, or accept the legal consequences of them. It may either be "express" (in words) or "implied" from acts inconsistent with a recognition of validity of former transaction." (Black's 1-6); "Disaffirmance. An act of denial; a repudiation, as of an earlier transaction. 2.A declaration that a voidable contract (such as one entered into by a minor) is void. Also termed disaffirmation." (Black's 7-9)
The word "right" was changed in the 3rd to "legal power". The last line from the early editions is interesting - as consent can be express or implied, so can the repudiation thereof! :-) Notice how that bit disappeared from the 7th onwards...
Similar words don't mention "consent", but "disaffirm" does. I would say, CR, that you have already "disaffirmed" and have done so expressly. :-D
"Rescission. Rescission, or the act of rescinding, is where a contract is cancelled, annulled, or abrogated by the parties, or one of them." (Black's 1-3; 4-6 use different wording each time but give a similar meaning, the 6th also says "The right of rescission is the right to cancel (rescind) a contract upon the occurrence of certain kinds of default by the other contracting party"). "Rescission. 1. A party's unilateral unmaking of a contract for a legally sufficient reason, such as the other party's material breach." (Black's 7-9).
I quite like the sound of a "Notice of Rescission and Disaffirmation"...
If consent can be revoked, why is it that millions more of us do not do so?
They don't know or don't think they can? Never occurred to them? Lack of knowledge? Indoctrination/conditioning/programming? Fear? Slumber? A million other reasons! But more are, slowly but surely.
Regards
TSL
TSL,
ReplyDeleteI'd say that was at least a quids worth.
good value for money too!
Thanks for that. Sort of clears things right up.
Now that we know, folks, whose up for a bit of civil disobedience. All lawful and legal, like?
As TSL explains, there are several ways to say no.
CR.
TSL. Many thanks for the research; and the definition of “Disaffirm” that, is being used in my affidavit to Liz next Friday.
ReplyDeleteThanks Captain!
Once again, a thought provoking post.
I am ready, willing and more than able to say NO!
I am ready, prepared and, even though I do not know you in person, proud to stand beside you and say it.
I am no longer willing to submit to tyranny, coercion or threats of imprisonment for non conformity of the supposed, mass media, informed norm.
I will not submit to the enslavement of my children.
To the P.T.B:-
I am awake!
I am one of Legion.
I will not forgive.
I will not forget.
Expect me, and many others.
I am a free man!
Nick,
ReplyDeleteIt always warms my cockles when I read comments like yours.
Welcome to the Free World.
Just remember to keep your paperwork straight: remain in honour and state your truths as you understand them, or want them to be.
Some say we don't need bits of paper, but I say that without them, we are on a sticky wicket.
THEY need paper. THEY thrive on it. So we need to fight paper with paper.
Nick, you have an interesting and satisfying road in front of you.
Fare thee well,
CR.
Consent is implicit in using The Name they gave your corporation.
ReplyDeleteI have now formally removed my consent to be addressed as The Name unless it is formally recognised that this merely an allegatory title. No affidavits to the fictitious queen and her abandoned throne required but if folks want to follow the herd with that one then its your call. We all choose the path that seems most attractive to us.
By distancing myself from The Name I have withdrawn my consent in a manner that is difficult for the Wordsmiths to argue around. I am very close to completely alienating myself from The Name and handing it back to its owners completely, marked 'no longer required'.
Like you, CR, I have been needling away and never felt threatened or in danger. Its when you talk to the 'officials' that you realise they are the ones who are confused and frightened. They know its a critical mass issue. Once we reach critical mass - and it doesn't need to be that many - we gain the upper hand and our sovereign identities.
Fuck 'em. Their world is a horrible place. The one I am creating for myself is peaceful, pleasant, focussed on the really important thing, and bloody satisfying.
Love and respect to all sovereigns.
bollixed
Bless this place and all who comment here hehe :)
ReplyDeleteI have been saying no too but as a busy guy that runs his own enterprise may have tripped myself up by continuing to be on the company PAYE scheme for a token salary. I didn't fill in last year's tax return, got a £100 fine, when I started getting the demands I sent off a notice conditionally accepting their demands. I sent off affidavits declaring my sovereignty, returned the birth certificate.
ReplyDeleteBy leaving this loose end have I inadvertently provided my consent? Am I likely to cock up my business? I will remove myself from the PAYE scheme ASAFP though.