Frontiersman, July 2012

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This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date.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

Frontiersman, July 2012

Freedom by Consensus
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Sacrifice might be demanded of the individual, but never compromise: for though only the society can give security and stability, only the individual, the person, has the power of moral choice.
—from The Dispossessed
by Ursula K. LeGuin

I'd prefer not to be a revolutionary. I'd prefer, instead, to be a sovereign. Being a sovereign doesn't necessarily involve any violence or even any resistance. It involves living outside of the jurisdiction of government.
Any human being, particularly a sovereign, is well advised to behave with courtesy, humility, and integrity. He should mind his own business, satisfy his obligations, leave other people alone, and hope for the same treatment from other people. Regardless of any such hope, it's more likely that the various authoritarian reformers and repressive thugs who always run governments will compel him to behave according to somebody else's beliefs, and punish him if he refuses to cooperate.
When a person is forced to behave according to somebody else's beliefs instead of his own, or is punished for refusing to do so, then he's pushed in the direction of resistance or maybe even in the direction of violence. The results are usually counterproductive. That's true because government is like a muscle. The more you resist it the stronger it will get. Consider such things as the attack on the Murrah Federal Building. That attack was tactically successful but strategically disastrous. It didn't increase the liberty of the people. It didn't increase the people's understanding of government. It didn't reduce the strength of the government. It increased jingoism and brainwashing among the people and it gave the government more justification for additional repressive powers.
I'm not objecting, in principle, to people using force or violence to defend themselves against government. Actually, I'm very much in sympathy with people who try to do so. I don't have much sympathy at all for government thugs who're injured or killed during such confrontations. However, even though such defense is usually appropriate in principle, it's usually futile in practice. Unless someone can win such a confrontation without exposing himself to retaliation by government, force and violence are useful mostly as a deterrent. That is, if people have the ability to defend themselves against government, which they ought to have, if they're willing to use that ability, and if the government is aware of it, then the threat alone might constrain government, at least a little. However, once people are driven to actually defend themselves against government, constraint has failed. Given a confrontation, the government usually wins. Consider the Branch Davidians. Consider MOVE. Consider the Weaver family. There are many examples.
It isn't likely that government will be defeated by resistance or even by revolution but it might be defeated by consensus. It seems to me that the best way to defeat government, in practice, might be by not resisting it. That isn't the same thing as submitting to it. The government has power because people obey it. So, don't obey it. The government has more power when people try to resist it. So, don't try to resist it. Instead, ignore it. Evade it. Abandon it. Don't do anything that would tend to acknowledge it, support it, legitimize it, or strengthen it. Position yourself, get outside of the jurisdiction of government, and try to stay there. If enough people do that, then it might succeed. If too few people do it, then it will fail.
Ultimately, freedom is a result of consensus. Any real freedom movement has to result from consensus. Its goal should be political power in the hands of the people, that is, individual sovereignty. In such a freedom movement, there can't be any leaders or any followers. If there are leaders and followers, then it isn't a freedom movement. It's an organized resistance movement or a revolution, a precursor of the next government. In a freedom movement, there are only participants.

Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution. I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
For PayPal payments, use Frontiersman@manlymail.net.

July 2012

Frontiersman, ^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507

Page 1

Letters to the Editor

Any ideas on how one would go about rescinding one's state birth certificate?

—Carl; Gramling, South Carolina

Since you asked specifically about rescindment, a few words about definitions are in order.

The understanding of rescindment has changed over the years. Bouvier didn't even mention it in his 1889 dictionary. Instead, he mentioned "rescission of contracts" and described rescission as being merely equivalent to cancellation.

In 1979, Black provided a different understanding of rescindment.

Rescind. To abrogate, annul, avoid, or cancel a contract; particularly, nullifying a contract by the act of a party. To declare a contract void in its inception and to put an end to it as though it never were.... Not merely to terminate it and release parties from further obligations to each other but to abrogate it from the beginning and restore parties to relative positions which they would have occupied had no contract ever been made....

—from Black's Law Dictionary, 1979

Given that definition, rescindment is impossible of achievement in most cases. Consider, for example, the termination of a marriage. The example might be a little silly but it illustrates the point. We don't rescind marriages. To do so, we would have to return all parties to the circumstances that would have existed had the marriage never occurred. That would mean, among other impossible things, returning parents to the condition of not having any children. Some situations cannot be reversed. So, in practical terms, most things must simply be terminated, not rescinded, and we must just go on from there.

I don't know if it's theoretically possible to rescind a birth certificate because I don't know what aspects of a person's situation would be different if the birth certificate had never existed. I don't know if a birth certificate creates obligations and jurisdictions, although I did speculate about that in my essay The Lone Raver Writes Again. If a birth certificate doesn't create obligations and jurisdictions, then it probably isn't very important. On the other hand, if it does, then it might be a good idea to get rid of the thing. A more sinister theory about birth certificates declares that they're the equivalent of certificates of origin for manufactured goods and, consequently, convert people into the property of whichever government agency holds the certificates. See The Lone Raver Writes Again.

If a birth certificate creates obligations and jurisdictions, then it might reasonably be viewed as a kind of contract. That brings to mind some of the ancient principles of contracts. For example, a minor cannot be held to a contract. A person, minor or not, cannot be held to a contract that was made on his behalf, without his knowledge, and without his consent. A party to a contract is a voluntary participant or he isn't a party. See Bouvier's Law Dictionary. So, any contractual aspects of a birth certificate are inherently not binding on the person described thereon. I suggest that, the second legal act of a person upon reaching majority should be to notify whatever agency holds his birth certificate that the document is inherently void from its inception and of no legal effect. The first legal act of such a person, of course, should be to do exactly the same thing with regard to his Social Security number.

There are some thoughts on the cancellation of contracts in the article Those Chains that Bind You!. I don't have any idea who wrote the article but it's available on Pharos.

—editor

I loved "Alien Invasion from Outer Space" in the June issue. That is about the most off-the-wall short story I have ever read. Thanks a lot!

—Tom; Redwood City, California

I've written a few other short stories. They're available as free downloads on my personal website.

—editor

Greetings!

... Too much idiocracy and I'm waiting for the revelation by Sheriff Arpaio regarding the forgery by Obama of his birth certificate and SSS card. Some now say his real dad is Frank D. Marshall?? A new book is out.

Budget fiascoes & ignorance is the daily news. I just do not understand how this country refuses to right itself. I am wishing there are multiple universes so I can go to the one where reason & logic prevail.

Take care as no one wants to admit that Atlas has shrugged & that the solution has already been proffered.

Now that the usurper has decided not to enforce the law, I guess we can each pick the ones we want to follow?

—a prisoner

Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution. I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
For PayPal payments, use Frontiersman@manlymail.net.

Page 2

Frontiersman, ^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507

July 2012

C'est la vie
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Back in December of 2011, I expressed to an acquaintance of mine some of my opinions about government and cops. Usually, I try to avoid such conversations. However, the fellow seemed interested so I went ahead. His wife, at first, listened quietly. She had, in a previous conversation, stated her belief that any idea can be proposed just so long as it's supported by logical arguments. That being the case, I went ahead with my comments. Things went reasonably well at first, although I could see that the wife was getting annoyed.

Eventually, I stated my opinion that the cops are all gestapo thugs and that I don't care if a cop is killed "in the line of duty". I suggested that any cop who doesn't like the risks should go get a job as a librarian. The wife abandoned, in favor of an emotional response, her previously stated position about logical arguments. That probably happened because she has a relative who's a cop. Whatever the reason, she declared that my statement was a stupid thing to say. The last thing that the man said as they walked out the door was that I shouldn't be so unfeeling about the hypothetical death of a man, referring to the wife's relative, who has a wife and kids to support. They didn't wait to see if I could support my statements with logical arguments.

Cops kill thousands of people. They don't hesitate if their victims might be lightly armed or not armed at all. They aren't content to merely shoot a man to just knock him down. They'll keep shooting at him until he's dead. For example, see my article Gestapo Force, on page 1 of the November 1994 issue. I'm confident that never has any such cop stopped, before killing his intended victim, to first ask the man if he has a wife and kids to support. That being the case, why should I give a damn if a dead cop had a wife and kids to support?

They shall reap what they sow. See my article Evil Seeds, Evil Crop, on page 1 of the February 2001 issue. I'll repeat my position, just for the record. I don't care if a cop is killed "in the line of duty". Any cops who don't like the risks can go get jobs as librarians. We'd all be better off with fewer cops and more librarians.

Until the cops all begin, for example, to wear armbands that say "gestapo thug" or "not gestapo thug", people can't tell the difference until it's too late. Who can afford to take the chance? Until the cops figure out how to label themselves so that potential victims can tell which cops are gestapo thugs and which cops are not gestapo thugs, before they start shooting, then everybody must assume that they're all gestapo thugs.

The Cure is the Disease
Sam Aurelius Milam III

If you started eliminating legislation purely at random, then you'd have about a 99% chance of improving things.

—Wednesday, December 13, 1978
Milam's Notes

The leaders of reform movements are usually mistaken in their efforts to solve problems. They use their energy and their ingenuity addressing consequences but they seldom address causes. Their campaigns are based mostly on their own personal likes and dislikes, without much consideration of principles. Almost without exception, their answer to every problem is to demand additional regulation of people's behavior, via restrictive legislation. The result is more government. In most cases, a problem could be solved by removing some government involvement, somewhere, that causes or sustains the problem. Instead, the reformers insist on increasing government involvement in every problem.

In many cases, government is the cause of the problem, not the solution. The only thing that additional regulations are likely to accomplish is to make things worse. Granted, some problems are beyond the ability of individuals to solve. Sometimes, an organization might be necessary. Any such organization will have at least some of the aspects of a government and should, therefore, be regarded as potentially more dangerous than the problem that it's intended to solve. Once people form such an organization, the temptation to growth and to the accumulation of power is probably irresistible. Government always seems to result from people's efforts to solve their problems. See my essay Anarchy, Monarchy, Malarkey, on Pharos. Government is almost always a worse problem than whatever problem it was intended to solve. The only solution that I've discovered to the problem of government is to abandonment it. See Freedom by Consensus, on page 1, and my essay Abandonment, on Pharos.

Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution. I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
For PayPal payments, use Frontiersman@manlymail.net.

July 2012

Frontiersman, ^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507

Page 3

Frontiersman
^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive
Gainesville, Georgia 30507

A cop car going the other direction is a beautiful sight.

—Monday, June 14, 2010

Milam's Notes

Acknowledgments

My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; my mother; Dewey and Betty; Tom, of Redwood City, California; and Eric, of Ione, California.

— editor

From the Philosophy of George Carlin
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Lady Jan the Voluptuous.

•

If you ate pasta and antipasto, would you still be hungry?

•

If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest drown too?

•

If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

•

Whose cruel idea was it for the word lisp to have a s in it?

•

Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?

•

Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?

Questions
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by David, of Idaho Falls, Idaho.

•

When two airplanes almost collide, why do they call it a near miss instead of a near hit?

•

Do fish get cramps after eating?

•

Why do they call it the Department of the Interior when it's in charge of everything outdoors?

•

When I erase a word with a pencil, where does it go?

•

Why is it that when a door is open it's ajar, but when a jar is open it isn't adoor?

•

Why does a man believe you when you tell him that there are 400 billion stars but not when you tell him that a bench has wet paint?

•

If Superman could stop bullets with his chest then why did he always duck when someone threw a gun at him?

Frontiersman

Subscriptions and Past Issues — Printed copies of this newsletter, either subscriptions or past issues, are available by application only.

Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, then return it unopened. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.

Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

Submissions — 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.

Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you want to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use Frontiersman@manlymail.net. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution. I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
For PayPal payments, use Frontiersman@manlymail.net.

Page 4

Frontiersman, ^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507

July 2012

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue