By the authority of those still living I suppose and the power of the executive branch to uphold the laws of the US and the power of the judicial branch to judge you. As long as there is popular consent to the document, it looks like people who don’t consent are still bound and as long as the US has the power to enforce the document, those who break the laws will be punished.
This is a correct explanation concerning by what power persons are compelled to obey the government and its edicts. This doesn’t establish the authority in the first place, however.
But again, perhaps you have an argument, you should take it to court. I am not a judge. I cannot tell you whether you are bound to the contract or not.
That begs the question. You presuppose that the courts have authority to decide the matter in the first place.
I think the courts have the authority in the first place because they have the force to support their power and enough people like me who give consent for them to use that force.
Besides, if the courts don’t have the authority who does? You? Do you have the power to enforce your ruling?
That’s not how any other law works. It’s not possible for anybody to bind third parties to any agreement they make, at any time in history, except this particular group of people 200 years ago?
So?
It only takes one person who doesn’t…
Morality and justice. (And who is “we”? I doubt you have any means of enforcing anything. You’re even more of a slave than “us” – at least we’re aware of our chains)
You can give consent for them to use their force on you. You can’t give consent for them to use it on anybody else. If “because they have the force to support their power” is sufficient justification, there is, by definition, no such thing as a crime – if I murder you, that very fact demonstrates that I had more force than you, and therefore my act was justified, so surely the courts should laugh in the faces of your relatives who want me prosecuted!?
I don’t even know what Bloom is arguing. The so called constitution is an unsigned document. Even his theory that the signers could obligate everyone fails, because there are no signers. It is just a piece of paper with some words on it. Anyone that would argue that obligates anyone to anything just lives in a fantasy world, and cannot be reasoned with.
You have too options; help create a greater force, or submit to the existing force. (Force isn’t necessarily violence)
If you chose to create a greater force, the question becomes how to keep the new force from being corrupted like the old one.
The framers of the Constitution had one strategy for attempting this. People like Tolstoy and Gandhi had another. Still, the real question is, if you were to win against the criminal organization, then what? What are you fighting for, and how do you propose to keep it if you win it?
"What are you fighting for, and how do you propose to keep it if you win it?"
I am fighting an intellectual battle against lies. Once enough people realize that the idea that U.S. government is legitimate, is a lie, and enough people lose their fear of not having a government, then the government will just go away, just like slavery went away once people realized owning another human being is wrong.
There is some redundancy in it. I can probably cut some of it out. However, I do hope it is interesting enough that people will read something that is one page.
Did you guys even read the expatriation case? The court ruled that even if you’re not a national, you’re still under the jurisdiction of the state you reside in. So you can renounce your nationality but you will still be bound by the law. You can go to court and tell them they don’t have the authority to try you maybe you’ll win.
Also, I agree with Benjamin. Either you build a greater force or you submit to the current one.
Did you guys even read the expatriation case? The court ruled that even if you’re not a national, you’re still under the jurisdiction of the state you reside in. So you can renounce your nationality but you will still be bound by the law. You can go to court and tell them they don’t have the authority to try you maybe you’ll win.
There’s no need to read the case if I don’t recognize the court’s legitimacy in the first place (though it’s no surprise that the government court rules in favor of the government). You’ve yet to demonstrate the legitimacy of the court, other than by asserting the legitimacy of the Constitution (beg that question!).
Of course we’re in agreement of the reality of living under such a system. I’m simply demonstrating how monstrous and illegitimate that system is.