According to natural law, your body is your property, and consequently your life and the fruits of your labor. Therefore any contract you enter into in which you consign your body, life, liberty and labor to another party is apodictically annullable by you.
So those of you out there who reject this man’s claim have some splaining to do–at the most fundamental level.
Unfortunately, Imperial Law doesn’t see it that way, and you will likely be locked up. Don’t worry about a dishonorable discharge: I’ll try to help you find a job…
With your permission, I will email you privately with the name of a lawyer whom you should contact immediately.
This one got me. Have you ever been in combat? If you have do tell. I haven’t finished the thread yet, but I wouldn’t hesitate to cooperate in combat with this man based on his postings so far. He appears to understand the difference between engaging to defend yourself/property and engaging in combat to kill/steal others property.
The case can be made that the State has in fact broken the contract with Daniel first. He swore an oath to the constitution, followed by an oath the president and his officers. The constitution is broken when a soldier is sent to combat without a congressional declaration of war. Only the congress can authorize offensive warfare under the constitution. (I think the constitution is invalid so I don’t want to argue it.) I’m just saying in the legal/postivist sense the State broke Daniels contract first, so he is free to exit the contract unmolested.
Note: I think that system sucks but it is what it is.
“…the State has in fact broken the contract with Daniel first. He swore an oath to the constitution, followed by an oath the president and his officers. The constitution is broken when a soldier is sent to combat without a congressional declaration of war.”
Very good point.
I too would more readily defend life and property alongside this man, knowing the principled stand he has made.
I also like your remark that the Constitution is invalid, although arguably irrelevant here. I guess when someone swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all threats foreign and domestic, then the Constitution is valid for that person, at least until killed or discharged.
But for those of us who did not swear such an oath, or have been discharged, the Constitution is indeed invalid. I didn’t sign it, you didn’t sign it. It’s not valid. Nor does our choice to live within the supposed jurisdiction of the Constitution make it valid: again, we didn’t sign it.
I can’t wait to hear the flurry of replies to this.