Frontiersman, July 1994

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Rights?
by Sam Aurelius Milam III

A right is something that is within your abilities, for which you don't need permission, and that is generally or customarily accepted or condoned.

•		If it isn't within your abilities, then you can't accomplish it by yourself. That means you must get someone else to provide it for you, or you won't have it. That isn't a right. It's begging, theft, extortion, or maybe stupidity. Expecting to be safe on the streets at night is an example.
•		If you have to ask for permission, pay a fee, get a license, or qualify, then it isn't a right. It's a privilege. Marriage, authorized by a marriage license, is an example.
•		If you can accomplish it yourself without permission, but it isn't generally or customarily condoned or accepted, then it isn't a right. It's an ability. Murder is an example, and illustrates why rights can originate only through consensus. Otherwise, ruthless individuals would have the right to do anything that was within their ability, and murder would be a right.

Corporations cannot have rights because a corporation isn't a person, but only property.¹ People have rights. Property doesn't.

For decades, U.S. citizens have relied exclusively upon the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights for the definition and protection of their rights. As a result, they have retained only those "rights" which can be construed from their constitutional paperwork, and have lost all others.²

The "rights" associated with so-called due process are an excellent example of this. The U.S. Bill of Rights acknowledges due process rights only for criminal cases; U.S. citizens have those rights only in criminal cases. This limitation of rights has resulted, however, not from constitutional deficiencies (which certainly exist) but from the ignorance or inattention of the U.S. citizens themselves. That is, the failure of the U.S. Bill of Rights to acknowledge certain rights doesn't operate to destroy those rights. Indeed, such failure has, in and of itself, no effect upon the rights at all. Rights existed prior to the U.S. Bill of Rights, they can exist beyond its purview, and they might even exist after its demise. If U.S. citizens want (for example) the right to remain silent in a civil case, they can have the right by insisting, consistently and en masse, upon that right. Recourse to constitutional authority is neither necessary nor desirable.

More fundamentally however, before U.S. citizens can retrieve lost rights, they must understand the idea of rights. They must stop demanding as rights things which they cannot accomplish for themselves; those things are not rights. They must stop asking their government for permission to do things which ought to be rights; asking permission to exercise a right sacrifices the right. They must reach some consensus regarding what is and what isn't acceptable behavior. A right need not be something of which they approve, but it must at least be something that they will tolerate. And finally, they must recognize that so-called artificial persons (corporations) have powers, but not rights.

In general, so long as people rely upon their governments to define, supply, and protect their rights, they will not have rights. While they rely upon their institutions for empowerment, they will have no power. If they want to be free, they must do it for themselves; neither the acquisition nor the defense of liberty can be delegated.

See my essay Liability, Ltd.; Corpus Corporatum or Corpus Delicti?

See my essay In Search of the Supreme Flaw of the Land: The Bill of Rights.

What Rights?
by Jim May

It is my contention that there are no RIGHTS.

I am calling upon all readers of the above article to show me any right which may still exist.
Please reply ^c/o the Frontiersman.

Your responses may be printed in a future issue of this newsletter.

Birthright
by Sam Aurelius Milam III

I've been hearing suggestions advocating the routine "DNA fingerprinting" of babies at birth. Do you want your children tagged for life, before they're old enough to give informed consent? Do you know for sure what the FedMeds do with your blood after a routine blood test? Is it still possible for you to say "No"? How long can you wait to solve this problem before it's too late?

Your Social Contract
by Bob Alexander

You've probably heard many times the argument that we have some kind of "social contract" with government or society. Such reasoning is used to defend gross intrusion into our lives and finances by big government. Since a contact is an agreement entered into freely by two or more parties, without coercion, I thought you'd like to finally receive your Social Contract. Please sign it and send it to A Duly Authorized Representative of the United States government at your earliest convenience!

Social Contract
between an individual and the United States Government

WHEREAS		I wish to reside on the North American Continent, and
WHEREAS		the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and
WHEREAS		tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable, I agree to the following terms:
SECTION 1:		I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.
SECTION 2:		Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the Government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.
SECTION 3:		I will limit my behavior as demanded by the government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.
SECTION 4:		In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.
SECTION 5:		The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.
SECTION 6:		The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.
SECTION 7:		The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.
SECTION 8:		The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be miniscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.
SECTION 9:		I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time.

Signature _____________________________ Date __________________________

No Means What?
by Sam Aurelius Milam III

I spent several months pursuing 'M', who steadfastly refused my advances. Then one night when she needed to "camp out" at my house, she voluntarily vacated the bed provided for her in another room and climbed into mine instead. It was an early lesson for me: sometimes no means yes.

For over a year I propositioned 'D'. Each time, she gracefully refused. One day, quite suddenly, I decided that she wasn't ever going to cooperate, and I gave up. Within a week, she came looking for me. Later, I asked her why she had so suddenly changed her mind. She said, "I noticed that you weren't there anymore, and I came looking to see what had happened to you." Once again, no meant yes.

'LT' loudly objected when I refused to swear fidelity exclusively to her. She insisted that, lacking such a promise, she would refuse to continue the relationship. However, the affair lasted for more than another two years, and I was the one who had to end it. Without a doubt, no meant yes.

'A' was one of the ladies to whom 'LT' had objected, and made the same objection as 'LT'. The affair lasted for several months beyond the objection. No meant yes for a while at least, and certainly for long enough.

'K' was a devout Christian, and had a theological basis for refusal. Nevertheless, she eventually and voluntarily came visiting. Even a religious no can mean yes.

'LA', a born-again Christian, adamantly refused from the very beginning, but was hopelessly persuadable. Throughout the relationship, her stout refusal was a regular preliminary to agreement. The disparity between what she said and what she did was astonishing. She was the most remarkable example, in my experience, of no means yes.

Sometimes no means no, but not always, and even the woman herself can't always tell for sure.

Actually, women sometimes need a lot of help making up their minds, and many a conquest has succeeded because a man was persistent. Men use persistence because generations of ancestors have proven that it works. The fact is that there's no reward like success.

Those arrogant females who strut around and shriek "No means no!" don't have anywhere near enough experience at courting women to know what they're yapping about. Many of them are not interested in courting women at all, and none of them have any sympathy for men who are. Rather, their agenda is to use their sexuality to control men. The idiotic notion that persistence is the same as "sexual harassment" is part of their agenda. To their agenda, I say "No", and in this case no definitely means no.

Another Media Blitzkrieg
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
During the current “domestic violence” blitz, two assumptions are being treated as if they were Holy Doctrine.
Assumption: Government must act to end the widespread tolerance of domestic violence. Page 3 Box 2 Yet, the USA is presumed to be a democracy. If domestic violence is as widely tolerated as the alarmists claim, then whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant; it's condoned by consensus. That is, the people make these decisions and the government, rather than tampering with the people's attitudes, minds its own business.
Assumption: A man is always wrong to hit a woman. Somebody is wrong when a man hits a woman, but it might not always be the man. Such attacks don't always happen in a vacuum, and nobody seems brave enough ask what provocation the women might be providing. I've noticed that sometimes a woman will just keep pushing and pushing, without the vaguest notion of how intolerable she is, until eventually the man just can't take any more. To pretend that men are infinitely docile, and can be provoked with impunity, is very stupid. I might sympathize with a woman the first time, but after she knows a man's limit she should know when to stop. Every man has a limit.
The Bottom Line: For decades, women have ignored our actual nature and tried to mold us into their stupid feminist fantasy. However, we can be pushed only so far, and when we push back we're bigger and stronger than they are; the more they try to force us, the more they're going to be hurt. Before they try to remedy our faults, which I admit are many, they should spend a few more centuries giving some attention to their own plentiful imperfections.

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck
What's demography? — Student Dear Student
A political system where the people have the right to vote.

Law, American Style
This excerpt from The American Rifleman is reprinted with permission. Page 3 Box 3
Jim Dalton, 83, of Higbee, Missouri, was afraid that three men on his front porch were going to rob him, so he locked the door. He was proven correct when one of the men picked up an ax and started to hack his way through the door. Dalton armed himself, and when the men ignored his warnings and broke through the door, Dalton fired his shotgun, wounding one and routing all three. "I wouldn't prosecute a man who was defending his home from three ax-wielding hoodlums," said the local prosecutor. (The Daily Tribune, Columbia, MO, 3/11/94)

Frontiersman
If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name address, and drop the newsletter back in the U.S. mail. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.

Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in whole or in part, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. However no such reproduction may under any circumstances be sold or redistributed for profit.

I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. Unless the author provides instructions to the contrary, I'll credit the author by name and town (or whatever) of residence.

This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

The rule of law is essential to a free society. We obey the law so we do not have to obey other men. Most of us assume that the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.) established the rule of law as the foundation of the British and American legal systems, but the rule of law is in reality thousands of years old. According to Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek, the Greek concept of isonomia has gradually developed into "equality before the law," "government of law," and "the rule of law."

Unwritten codes of conduct honored by ordinary people in their daily lives have also helped secure the rule of law. For example, there is near universal understanding of the principle, "third man out." When two men are brawling, the crowd may eject a third who enters the fray. All civilized people also agree that crimes like rape, assault, and murder must be punished and that private property and civil rights must be protected.

But what is most important to remember about the rule of law is that it depends on the voluntary adherence of citizens and the separation of powers, which protects citizens from the arbitrary authority of the state.

The antithesis of the rule of law is not anarchy but a tyranny of laws. When there are state-enforced rules for every occasion, the state is omnipotent. The Roman historian Tacitus said it best: "The more corrupt the Republic, the more laws." Too many laws destroy the rule of law because individuals will not voluntarily honor them. And when they do not voluntarily honor the law, society disintegrates.

Respond to:
Frontiersman
435 South White Road
San Jose, California 95127

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue