The GA Freeman's case against the State

The GA Freeman and anti-statist atheist here to discuss the State.

I like to start with definitions of what I am going to discuss:

Statism – Miriam Webster Defines
Noun

1. the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government

State – Miriam Webster Defines
a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign
b : the political organization of such a body of people
c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character (a police state) (the welfare state)
6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country
a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government (the fifty states)
b plural capitalized : The United States of America
: the territory of a state

Sovereignty:
1.Absolute, supreme and ultimate dominion and authority of a political state subject to no higher power, expressed within its territory in full self-government and in complete freedom from any outside influence.
2.Total ownership and control of a property by an individual or other entity.

Constitution:
Fundamental and entrenched rules governing the conduct of an organization or nation state, and establishing its concept, character, and structure. It is usually a short document, general in nature and embodying the aspirations and values of its writers and subjects. The oldest (1787) written national constitution is that of the US.

In America this is a piece of paper that is currently held as a contract that no one in modern times has signed. In other words, like the bible, it is an old piece of parchment with some old men signing it that is fantasy about an ideal that never really existed.

Political -
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy

Government – : Merriam Webster defines:
the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.
: a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.
Latin:
a. gubernare "to direct, rule, guide, govern"
b. ment- "mind"
To control the mind
To Govern – To control or rule
The essentials of government consists of two things: a group of individuals and control. Other wised defined as the monopoly of force by a group of given individuals, in a given geographic area, exerting control through violence.

Tax – Mirriam Webster
1
a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2: a heavy demand

Full Definition of CONTROL (Miriam Webster)
a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : regulate
b : to have power over : rule
Authority – noun
: the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something
: the confident quality of someone who knows a lot about something or who is respected or obeyed by other people

What the essentials of a state are, as integrated from the definitions above.

1. Authority – how is it achieved?
2. Control – how is it maintained?
3. Violence – where is it exhibited?

The reason I have identified these definitions is to discuss the validity of the state. If the state is a politically organized body of people, what does that mean? Body of people? There is no such thing as a body of people. This is an abstraction (relating to or involving general ideas or qualities rather than specific people, objects, or actions) used for a group of individuals who are working together to act politically. If political is defined as of or relating to government or the conduct of government and government is defined as the group of people who control and make decisions for a country or state and in this case, country or state is defined as a given territory or physical area, and finally to govern means to control or rule.

A modern state simply means a geographic area where a group of people (think they) control, own or rule everything or everyone within that given area.

Considering the definitions and the question of control. If control in the political sense means to have power over or to rule another being, where does this power come from? Many argue that it comes from the Constitution for as the Declaration says, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. This suggests that the power in the government to rule comes from the consent of the governed. If authority is by consent then the authority to rule me comes from my consent. Therefore if I don't consent then the state has no authority to rule over me. Correct?
If this theory of consent is true, then I must admit that this is not my personal experience as I have never personally been asked if I want to pay taxes. I've never been asked if I want a license. I have never consented to being governed. If I don't actually consent to being governed and I am still ruled against my consent, where does this power come from? Where does any government derive the power to tax or to control the roads or to license my car or tax my property?

Let's consider just one of these examples above. What happens if I decide not to stop when a policeman turns on his lights and comes after me because he says that I'm traveling at a rate that is faster than he authorizes? If I simply ignore him and did not agree to be governed or ruled in that moment, what will happen? YouTube, Facebook and personal experience can all help tell the story of what will, most likely, happen. The police officer will do whatever is necessary to arbitrarily stop and accost me. He may call in other police officers to help in this violent stop. When I am finally stopped I will be removed from the car and charged with the crime. I will be charged with something like evading arrest or otherwise ignoring the cop, also known as simple contempt of cop. Even if I was not evading arrest but simply not consenting to being ruled. I will be handcuffed and jailed. My car will be impounded and I will have to get a lawyer to try and minimize the amount of time and money that I must sacrifice because I was traveling faster than another man said that I should be traveling.

My argument is that I stop when I see the flashing lights of the police car because I do not want to be imprisoned and attacked. In reality, I do not stop voluntarily. I stop because of the threat of violence and even death.

Where does the authority and rule come from? The honest and direct answer is the underlying and overt threat of violence. I argue and can demonstrate that in every case the consent that we offer is invalidated because of the underlying violence that that consent is based upon.

Control or rule or authority is maintained within the given physical territory of the state by the underlying threat of violence.

If you disagree and simply ask yourself the following questions:

1. What will happen to you if you do not pay your property taxes?
2. What will happen to you if you do not register your car?
3. What will happen to you if you do not get a license?
4. What will happen to you if you cannot or do not pay your taxes for whatever reason?
5. What will happen to you if you try and start a business without government permission?
6. What will happen to you if you buy or grow something that the government does not want you to even if you do it voluntarily for your own use?
7. Can you leave the country without permission?
8. Think about the things that you cannot do without permission or paying fees and ask yourself why do you pay those fees or why do you get that permission.

Let me offer a couple of simple answers to some of these questions on a personal level. If I do not pay my property taxes then the government will put a lien on my house, take it from me by force using sheriffs and sell it on the open market. If I do not register my car and I am caught then the police will impound my car, jail me and sell my car on the open market. Also, If I do not get a driver’s license and I am caught driving by the police will initially ticket me but may in fact simply jail me and take my car. If I do not pay my taxes then the government can steal my wages, steal my property or put me in jail.

The reason that I participate in any of these activities is because I do not want men with guns to come and steal my property and/or kidnap me and put me in a cage. I do not give any consent to any of these activities. I do them only to protect myself and my family from the violent threat of the state.

If you think that this system is moral or reasonable by any means then ask yourself the following; could you go and make these demands of your neighbor. Could you tell your neighbor to pay you or that they owed you their car because you did not like how fast they were driving? Could you take their house because they did not pay you a fee that you said they owed you? All of these activities and behaviors are immoral on their face because you or I could not exert them without violence. The government cannot exert them without violent force and if the government operates on the consent of the governed, how can the government do something that you or I cannot. How does the State do violent activities that are immoral for you or I to do?

The state is immoral. In the end the state is based in violence and does not ask for nor require any consent. The state is a violent and immoral IDEA. The state does not exist, only people do. The people that act in the name of state are the immoral, violent agents, calling themselves authority. State speech is hate speech and the only true type of it.