Dispossessed
Sam Aurelius Milam III
In
two recent articles,1
I asserted that the government and the corporations have combined to form
a regulatory complex that controls the people. I suggested some ways
to oppose that regulatory complex. We tend to oppose things like
this just because we don't like them. However, opposition ought to
be justified by specific and fundamental doctrine, not just by whim.
In the case of the regulatory complex, such justification is possible.
Consider
the relationship between you and the Social Security administration.
That relationship has certain significant characteristics.
| 1. | There are parties to the relationship. | |
| 2. | Money changes hands. | |
| 3. | Some benefit is promised or provided in exchange for the money. |
By
themselves, these characteristics can describe either a contract or extortion.
The difference is determined by whether or not all of the parties to the
relationship are voluntary. I can suggest a way to test that difference.
I
suggest that you instruct the Social Security administration to cancel
your Social Security number. While waiting for their response, and
for the sake of integrity, don't use the number or sign any document that
displays it.
If
they cancel your number, then the parties to the relationship were voluntary
and the relationship was a contract. However, without the contract
you'll find yourself to be an outcast. Neither the government nor
the corporations will deal with you.2
Instead, they'll prohibit you from doing most things that you need to do
in order to survive. Those things, which ought to have been rights,
have been converted into privileges and are used by the regulatory complex
to control you. The coercion is compelling. You'll be forced
to beg the forgiveness of the regulatory complex and get the number back.
If
they refuse to cancel your number, then you're not a voluntary party to
the relationship. In that case, there is no contract. On the
contrary, the relationship is extortion, they're extortionists, and you're
a victim of extortion.
In
one case, you're a victim of coercion. In the other case, you're
a victim of extortion. In either case, you no longer have any obligation
to cooperate. There is no obligation under duress. After conducting
this little experiment, you have your justification for opposing the regulatory
complex. You may do whatever you can to avoid it, to deceive it,
or to hurt it. After having usurped your rights and enslaved you,
neither the government nor the corporations deserve any mercy.
| We are not subjects of a State founded upon law, but
members of a society founded upon revolution.
from The Dispossessed, by Ursula
K. LeGuin
|
|
|
Can't
Quit The Game, September 1997
Cash In, Check Out, November 1997 |
|
|
And that no man might buy or sell,
save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his
(the man's) name.
Revelation 13:17
<parenthesis added>
|
Some Definitions
CONTRACT
....Parties.
There is no contract unless the
parties assent thereto; and
where such assent is impossible from the want, immaturity, or incapacity
of mind of one of the parties, there can be no perfect contract ....
PERFECT
....
This term is applied to obligations in order to distinguish those which
may be enforced by law, which are called perfect, from those which
cannot be so enforced, which are said to be imperfect.
COERCION
....
Implied
coercion exists where a person is legally under subjection to another,
and is induced, in consequence of such subjection, to do an act contrary
to his will.
As
will is necessary to the commission of a crime or the making of a contract,
a person actually coerced into either has no will on the subject, and is
not responsible ....
EXTORTION.
The unlawful taking by any officer, by color of his office, of any money
or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before
it is due ....
In
a large sense the term includes any oppression under color of right;
but it is generally and constantly used in the more limited technical sense
above given.
To
constitute extortion, there must be the receipt of money or something of
value ....
COLOR
OF OFFICE. A pretence of official right to do an act made by
one who has no such right ....
These
definitions are excerpts from Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, 1889. Copies of the complete definitions are
available upon request.
editor
| Frontiersman@ida.net | Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236 |
December 1997
Page 1
|
