Question: What is required for a set of uniform codes and regulations to apply to all the persons of the United States?
Answer: Uniformity of legal equality under the law. In other words, equal rights.
It is an ultra-common misconception amongst the subjected people of the United States in their thought that “rights” are always a good thing, and that “rights” are always somehow a protection against the erosion and encroachment of government and corporations (persons) into the people’s personal liberties. To be even more clear, the general thought is that rights are always in place to prevent things like crime, extortion, tyranny, foreclosure, unlawful searches and seizures, incarceration, and so on from happening to the people.
For instance, one might arrogantly say that they have the right to a “fair trial”. And yet not once does the consideration dawn upon men of good conscious that the trial itself is literally forced upon them by government. Thus, the “right” to a “fair” or “speedy” trial is in actuality a direct consequence of an oppressive government in the first place. In other words, the fact that the trial is forced upon a person is the actual “right”, and the ability to receive the qualities of “fair” and “speedy” in that trial are not the root of that right. In this way, we begin to understand that rights are not voluntary at all, and these governmental rights are indeed forced upon the people. The government sells this tyranny to the people by baiting us like snake oil salesman with positive sounding diatribe such as fair and speedy. This is like me offering you (forcing upon you) my services to get hit with a hammer upon your head, but the impact will be “quick” and “painless”. Your right, you see, is to get hit upon the head with a hammer, with the beneficial service of the impact of that hammer being quick and painless.
Or you might believe in the “right” to free speech and the ability to freely assemble. Yet hate speech laws proclaim your speech must be nice and politically correct. Some cities require you to get a permit for free speech and to protest or assemble peacefully – but only in small, roped off , designated areas. The police even tell you that “anything you say may be used against you” when they read you your “rights”. But how can this be your right? If you don’t have a choice about these rights, are they really rights?
The real question you must ask is: Can a right be violently forced upon you?
Today we are going to be talking about a concept that is very difficult to understand. In legal code, we find what is called positive law. But we often forget that where there is a positive there is usually also a negative – an opposite and equal reaction, if you will. Positive law and “positive rights” are put into place in purposeful and direct violation or opposition to natural law and “negative rights”. A right is either positive or negative, and never-ever in between. Positive laws are laws assigning temporary and are revokable governmental rights placed upon legal persons, which usually create a direct violation of a man’s natural rights under God – the natural laws outside of governmental code.
The difference between these two types of law or “rights” is paramount to understand.
The problem is that all legal codes are positive, including the very misunderstood U.S. constitution itself.
Let’s use as an example the constitutional (positive) right known as the “freedom of religion”. This is one of the most deceptive phrases in legal code (positive law) that I can imagine. For in order to comprehend what it is to have the “freedom of religion,” we must first have a legal definition of these two legal words. All terms and phrases in the legal language have very specific meanings, and are often quite opposite to what we generally think of as conversational words – the words generally defined in an English general language dictionary. The word “freedom” is perhaps the best example of a legal word used to fool the unwitting public. We must realize that there is a very good reason why the legal dictionary is completely separate from the regular English dictionary, and why general dictionary definitions specifically tell you when referring to the same legal definitions within. English and Legal are two completely different languages, no different than English and Chinese. And every word in government must be a legal one, for government only deals in the legal construct, in the legal language.
Would it surprise you to learn that government is acting constitutionally when it requires you to get a permit for exercising “free speech”? To understand why this is so, we must define the legal terms involved, and you must stop thinking of the constitution as anything other than a legal language document.
So what is “freedom”, and what is “speech”?
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“
First, let’s get it into our heads what the word “freedom” means as used in this legal constitution.
While the natural or negative right to free participation in any religion is unalienable, the governmental or positive constitutional right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech is most certainly alienable. To understand this, we must understand the legal meaning of this legal term called freedom. In the Merriam Webster or any other normal English dictionary, you will see that the word freedom is defined in two distinctly different ways. Let’s take a look…
(1) The quality or state of being free: as
(a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
(b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence
(c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
(h) unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
(2) (a) A political right
(b) franchise, privilege
And so we can see here that there are without a doubt two distinctly different definitions of the word freedom, and that the legal definition is indeed a political or “positive” right.
The truth about freedom is this…
There is but one freedom under government rule enjoyed by citizens (subjects): freedom is the revokable political positive right (privilege) to be free to act as you will as long as you obey the laws of government. This is not the state of actually being free in an unrestricted way to do what you please while being responsible for your actions, but rather a literal legal enslavement to government law to act under government rule. It is a truism to state that free men must have responsibility for their own actions, lest government become the master and punisher of those who are its servants (subjects). United States citizens are not free men, but instead they live within invisible legal chains called “freedom”.
The right to bear arms as a natural/negative right must go unchallenged by government by its very nature of being a negative right – the natural right of non-interference. But the positive governmental rights which are assigned to citizens to carry legal “fire-arms” is certainly being challenged in government right now – as we speak. The trick with government you see, in order for its tyranny to prevail, is to make all its equal people as citizens accept positive rights by government so that the people turn their backs on their natural, God-given, negative, unalienable rights - the rights of men against government intrusion into those rights. Indeed, government actually requires a lien on all people’s natural/negative rights for them to enjoy citizenship within the United States under government’s strictly positive law, for we must remember that negative rights cancel out positive rights. So government must find legal ways to circumvent the peoples liberties (negative rights) and assign restrict-able political (positive) rights. Government does this via the contractual relationship offered to the people called “citizenship”, which carries with it the contractual benefit of positive rights, often called “civil rights” and/or “constitutional rights”. While it calls these liberties, they are far from it…
The Laws Of Attraction
So that we do not get confused here, let’s see just how one form of “right” is cancelled out by the other form. The job of an attorney as an “officer of the court” is to keep you within the legal language, so that the court never has to talk in plain English. The legal language of the law society within government is meant to keep you always in the artificial person-hood of your citizenship – never speaking the language of mankind. The following list shows the difference between the laws of man (natural) and the laws of government (legal):
Negative ……………………………………………………… Positive
Man …………………………………………………………….. Person
Free …………………………………………………………. Freedom
Free Man ………………………………………………………. Citizen
Natural ………………………………………………………. Political
Liberty ………………………………………………….. Entitlement
God-given ………………… Man-made (government granted)
Right (natural) …………………………… Privilege (revokable)
Right (natural) ……………………….. Duty (moral obligation)
Duty (responsibility, trust)…………. Contractual obligation
Responsibility ……………… Limited liability (incorporated)
Unalienable (inherent) ………… Alienable (not permanent)
De Jure ……………………………………………………… De Facto
Lawful …………………………………………………… Color of law
The words unalienable and inherent can be defined as essential and intrinsic . These words apply to ideals rather than to actual living beings. While life itself is not unalienable in any way (as is apparent throughout all of nature and its food-chain) the idea that life is an unalienable right is a negative concept in that it refers to the negative right of men to not be subject to the will of other men. This is the moral obligation of honor and duty that men should not kill other men… or as it is more commonly known: “Thou Shall Not Kill”.
On the contrary, cows, pigs, and chickens live under the positive rights granted by ranchers and farmers, in that they are subjects of that farm and its positive laws. These animal’s natural rights are only valid in as much as the farmer or rancher grants the same positive right to mirror their natural/negative rights. But when slaughter-season comes around and the market-price for bacon goes up, the cows, pigs, and chickens learn real quick that any rights they may perceive as livestock (citizens) of that farm are certainly alienable and in no way inherent or permanent. The cows only eat because the government (farmer) feeds them hey – thus the cows believe it is their natural right to have food brought to them every day by the farmer. But the farmer is only acting under his own positive law, and in reality the cows have no natural rights. But they still believe… The chickens may only have children (chicks) if the government (farmer) allows the hens to keep their eggs and hatch them. Parenthood is a legal term under contract with the state (farm). But the farmer, under the positive law of his farm (his rules), overpowers the natural rights of the chickens and allows those unborn children of the chickens to be collected for sale to others.
The only difference between the cows, pigs, and chickens and that of the humans within the United States farm is that the humans contractually volunteer and agree to be livestock under positive rights and laws, whereas these animals never had a choice.
And people think animals are dumb?
The difficult aspect here is to make people understand that as citizens they are not free, but are also livestock under the United States farm which grants the alienable privilege of “freedom”. Breaking through the “it’s a free country” paradox and fallacy of the American people seems to be the biggest challenge of our modern life and times.
Perhaps the most difficult of these opposite terms is the way in which a right creates an opposite duty. The individual natural right of “liberty” creates an opposite natural duty for all other individuals to respect the right of each others’ individual liberties. It would be the duty, for instance, for the people to use arms against government for violating their natural negative rights, no differently than if it was just a neighbor. For a natural right is something to be cherished and protected to the death. And it is a man’s duty to protect his own rights and that of others. It is a man’s duty to not interfere or trespass upon others rights – the duty to protect each others’ negative rights.
But when government offers political rights to citizens (artificial persons), the moral duty changes into a contractual obligation under legal law. The obligation of legal duty is no longer a choice, but rather a forced positive right – a right that forces you to conduct yourself in an activity that may be against your own interests or those of other individuals’ interests. The negative right requires only the opposite negative duty – a moral obligation to do no harm to others or yourself and to defend your negative rights with your life if necessary. But the contractual relationship of citizenship stifles negative rights (the right to not have your own rights trampled) so that positive rights are agreed to by the persons under contract. In other words, citizens agree to abandon their natural (negative) rights and accept under contract with government or corporations a replacement to their natural rights with the political (positive) rights offered by government, and accepted through contract by citizens. Thus, while in the natural realm government has no power over a man. But in the political realm government has total control over the person/citizen. For a positive law to be acceptable to natural men, that positive law must not be in violation of any negative right.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines a the word Duty:
DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them. 2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them. 3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind… 4. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites. 5. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.
To live under natural law is to follow the laws of non-interference, responsibility of ones own actions, and honor to fulfill one’s moral obligations under promise and private contract.
On the contrary, the magnetic opposite of this natural law called duty is offered by government through contract, as a political or positive right:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things; in its more restrained sense, it is often used as equivalent to customs, (q. v.) or imposts. (q. v.) Vide, for the rate of duties payable on goods and merchandise…
When the services of government are forced upon the people, the people must pay duties (taxes) on those services whether they enjoy or require those services or not. The right to pay taxes is a positive right, and the right to be punished for not paying those taxes is also a positive right. Punishment is an artificial duty created upon the positive right to be taxed – extortion being the right granted by government to persons. You, as a citizen/person, have the positive right to be taxed without the negative right to say no. The imprisonment you may enjoy as punishment for not paying mandatory taxes is also your positive right and duty. And most importantly, the right to pay more and more taxes on more and more things and accept more and more government services with more and more duties, as well as the right to allow government to raise those taxes at its own whim, is also your positive right.
Again, a right is not voluntary in the positive legal realm. So unfortunately, tyranny through extortion is certainly your right if government says it is so, and creates the positive law declaring it as such.
Positive law is involuntary service at the barrel of a gun…
It is perhaps easiest to comprehend these two completely opposite kinds of “rights” by using an analogy of magnets. Most people have played with magnets in their lifetime, attempting to push together two equal magnets that are opposed to each other in their polarities. A positive and a negative are diametrically opposed to each other. The harder we push those magnets together, the harder it becomes to push them, until the negative magnet throws off the positive magnet with a protective shield. And so the only way to make those magnets stick to each other is to turn one magnet around so that the polarities are equal, allowing them to join together. When speaking of God’s law and natural rights (negative rights), our opposing magnet in this case is government code and legality (positive rights). In essence, we must turn our back on law and our natural rights in order to function within government and its legal law and codes. The natural law is magnetically opposed to the positive (legal) law, just as negative rights are magnetically opposed to positive rights.
The first thing to consider whenever attempting to discern the legal language is to remember that emotion must be left out of the equation; that morals and ethics happen in men, not in legal codes. The legal language is just words, with a specific meaning, and with no humanity or consideration of morals or ethics. A contract, for instance, is just an agreement as written in this legal language. It has no moral obligations in an of itself to do anything, but instead establishes the specific positive rights and counterpart duties that will be followed. The moral and ethical parts of the fulfillment of that contract happen outside of the contract, in the hearts, minds, and actions of the men who signed that contract. The contract itself is a bridge between the moral realm and the legal realm, allowing what would otherwise be a natural duty to become an enforceable positive right. For instance, the right to be paid in exchange for an already delivered service or thing as agreed to within a private contract is a positive right, enforceable by law if one party to that contract doesn’t fulfill. Multiply this by 1 million and you have a government contract with men to be citizens, and in exchange the men as citizens must accept the services of government’s legal codes as a forced legal duty to accept. This is also positive law, the difference being that the former contract between men is done in good faith, where no legal recourse is needed, while the contract of citizenship is done without understanding, intention, comprehension, or good faith. A contract steeped in fraud is not enforceable by law, unless the law has been replaced by the positive laws created by government that allow that fraud to be law. This is government.
Just remember that rights are a double-edged sword, which can be positive or negative. In defining what this means, the term positive should not be misconstrued to mean good, no more than the word negative should be misunderstood as a bad thing. They are legal terms, and so attaching an emotional meaning to these words will only lead to confusion.
Equality – Ladies Acting As Men
A woman reading this may have an emotional response and espouse that women may sign contracts too, so why only mention “men” here? The confusing answer to this question is that in law, women are men. This is not my opinion, it is just legal law. All people are part of mankind, regardless of sex. The legal language sees no sex and feels no emotion or obligation to appease the feminist or male perspective, unless specifically written into that code as an artificial construct. The word “men” simply refers to the species man, regardless of color, race, creed, or sex. In this way, the basic legal language itself is a higher language, not weighted down with petty intricacies and debates about whether women and men are equal, or whether all men are created equal. In actuality, the legal language has no ability in and of itself to make such a discernment, and is only concerned with defining the artificiality of mankind as “persons”. It is just a tool. Thus it does not recognize sex unless it is specifically told to, and then does so only in terms of a legal “status”. Legal code cannot be prejudiced, for it has no emotion or predisposition. A natural (real female) woman has equal rights with a natural man only if that natural woman has the legal status assigned to her as a legal fictional man called a legal “woman”. The legal term “Woman” is a status, not a natural state of a living being – not a living man (mankind). For legal does not recognize a natural living man or woman, only the artificial persons of these living people – which have no sex unless specifically defined that way in the code for legal separation purposes (rape, etc.). But this is no different legally than separating different species of ants for research and classification. There is no realization of feminism or masculinity in legal code, because a piece of paper has not the ability to make such distinctions or realizations. Paper has no emotions, any more than the legal words written on that paper. And so any sexual or other emotional or physical distinction between these two artificial persons is solely a construct of science and legal status, no different than distinguishing between garbage and recyclables. To the legal language, garbage and recyclables are the same thing – trash. Only when the legal codes are changed to recognize a certain type of trash as recyclable will a legal status be created allowing certain rights, restrictions, and benefits to be placed upon certain trash legally defined as “recyclables”. Though all garbage is created equal, certain garbage has a status. But that status can only be granted if all trash is first made equal under the legal law. Similarly, women have equal rights with men in law only because they take upon themselves the artificial person-hood status called “woman”, creating this status in positive law which states that persons shall be equally protected and punished under the law and shall have equal rights under the legal law known as “positive rights” but called “Equal Protection Under The Law”.
The reality for women is that their legal status is detrimental to their natural rights as men (mankind), and they become whatever the legal codes say they are as artificial constructs. Equal rights for “women” in law makes them no better or no worse than men, but instead makes them “equal” – removing any sexual differences unless specifically enumerated within that code and how it applies to that particular status of “woman” in opposite to men. Once this equality is established, then special positive rights can be assigned to the legal status of “women”. Thus, a “woman” can have unequal rights giving them special privileges over their supposed equal citizens of the male persuasion. The same goes for “African American” or other ethnicity’s – who are given a special status of “minority”, which then allows them to claim certain positive rights which trample all other citizen’s natural rights or lesser positive rights. In this way, it is the lesser status citizens who have inequality forced upon them, of which it is their contractual duty to accept that positive right and give up their right to sue for what would otherwise be blatant discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is an example of this. Protected rights of a certain status of citizens requires unfair and unequal treatment of all other citizens. Equality steals away the individualism of a human (regardless of sex, color, race, etc.) and makes everyone not special in any way. It peals away the sex, the color, the race, the religion, and the humanity of each individual living man and woman and places them all in one giant legal blender – a melting pot of unwarranted equality. The end result of this multicultural duel-sexed cornucopia of persons is called legal “U.S. citizens”, whom in the end are in no way equal under law due to the assigned legal status’ called entitlements. If one person is entitled to a positive right that other persons are not entitled to, then the negative right of liberty does not exist in that legal system.
This is not to say that the legal language doesn’t neutrally define these unique traits of mankind in a scientific and unemotional way, it is just to say that it treats them no different than any other legal concept (like the trash example), and its basis is not founded on anything but simply defining these terms without the hindrance of human emotional traits. In short, the legal language only deals with artificiality in the form of corporations, contracts, and persons (i.e. citizens). These citizens are artificial things, not living people. Thus, when defining legality, emotion and humanity really has no place, race becomes a legal weapon, and equality exists only when considering positive rights and punishment for not obeying the forced contractual obligation of legal codes.
Back in 1856, this was the definition of “Sex” in Bouvier’s and other dictionaries, which shows that “women” is a status:
SEX. The physical difference between male and female in animals. 2. In the human species (of animals) the male is called man, (q. v.) and the female, woman. (q. v.) Some human beings whose sexual organs are somewhat imperfect, have acquired the name of hermaphrodite. (q. v.) 3. In the civil state the sex creates a difference among individuals. Women cannot generally be elected or appointed to offices or service in public capa-cities. In this our law agrees with that of other nations. The civil law excluded women from all offices civil or public: Faemintae ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt. Dig. 50, 17, 2. The principal reason of this exclusion is to encourage that modesty which is natural to the female sex, and which renders them unqualified to mix and contend with men; the pretended weakness of the sex is not probably the true reason. Poth. Des Personnes, tit. Vide Gender; Male; Man; Women; Worthiest of blood.
A mature and thinking natural female human should be able to see that though this legal definition has changed over the years, the status is still the same. Legal persons called “women” have now been made to have equal status with legal persons called “men”. This is to say that the equality established in the legal code is completely artificial with respect to the hearts and minds of men. And though this status seems to benefit the female sex of mankind, you as a woman must remember that government defines you first as an “animal” here, and then assigns you a special status of woman-human-animal. So while you may certainly enjoy the positive rights bestowed upon you as “wo-man”, you must accept these positive rights with the knowledge that they create inequality among all natural men. In other words, equality in law is not true natural equality, but is an artificial status granted by a corrupt government that by definition tramples the negative rights of half of the population (male-human-animals). You, as a female of the species human, will only ever know true natural equality when men are not forced by law to treat you as such by positive law. As it is in legal code, men are forced to accept your legal equality, which in the end creates a resentment between sexes in the natural realm. This goes for creed, race, sex, and any other status that is “protected”. And in this way, citizens are forced to accept the most deviant and sinister of persons as equal, even when those persons act completely against the morals and values of others’ negative rights, and even as organizations of these persons legally extort from others. These persons are equal under punishment of legal law. Ironically, the struggle for equal rights for women, slaves, blacks, homosexuals, and other minority groups necessarily requires the unequal state of equality and status for certain individuals, but in no way creates equality among mankind.
If you are emotionally angry right now, then you are speaking a different language than the legal one, and your emotions are getting in the way of understanding your own enslavement.
As a woman, you are a legal fiction.
As a man, you are a beautiful creature of emotion, love, and flesh and blood.
Here is how these legal terms are defined in Bouvier’s Law Dict, 1856:
MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children… 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things.
MANKIND. Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. See Gender.
GENDER. That which designates the sexes. 2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the feminine, as, man sometimes includes women. This is the general rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the feminine, the latter is not in general included… 3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the feminine never includes the masculine; that according to this rule if a man were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the legacy; but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be included.
WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject.
In the modern definition, Webster’s English Dictionary defines the word woman not as a natural being, but as an artificial person. Most people will not realize what is being defined here:
a : an adult female person
b : a woman (person) belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilwoman>
In the legal language, the term woman is never used in legal code to describe the natural state of a female, but only to issue a legal status.
However, the word female is used:
FEMALE. This term denotes the sex which bears young. 2. It is a general rule, that the young of female animals which belong to us, are ours, nam fetus ventrem sequitur. The rule is, in general, the same with regard to slaves; but when a female slave comes into a free state, even without the consent of her master, and is there delivered of a child, the latter is free.
If right now, while claiming to be a “woman”, you wish to call me sexist, a chauvinist, racist, or other false paradigm, you could be no further from the truth than I can possibly imagine – and you need to reread this section. In fact, I may be one of the few men in existence who actually recognize your natural/negative equality without the threat or need of being punished by the positive legal system if I don’t!!!
For those who can separate the legal and English languages with logic and reason, we can move on…
Love And Marriage
Love and hate are not considered in this legal language when speaking of the contract of legal marriage. Marriage is nothing but a contractual state of being between (as persons) the man, the woman, and the State. It is paper with legal words written on it, and signed by all parties involved. It has no emotion, ethics, morals, values, etc.
Children produced by this marriage contract are not treated as living breathing humans, because the legal language does not deal with living breathing humans. Rather, it treats children as artificial things that are State property – things which are disputed due to the avoidance or negation of a contract by the artificial persons contracted in that legal marriage. Children are no less fictitious persons than the persons who birthed them, when considering the legal nature of human animals.
Again, judging or discussing the legal language with emotion is foolish, since it has no emotion when it defines you. It does not understand love any more than that for which it may necessarily define love as a legal concept. Like an android, the legal language may sometimes simulate the emotions of living man, but will never actually feel them. And like an android with its humanoid appearing synthetic skin and outer shell, our own artificial persons may appear to be living men and women; but are in fact made up of nothing but the wires and circuitry of this legal language.
Love and marriage are distinctly different concepts. One is an emotion and one is a legal arrangement through contract. Love is for the most part incredibly outside of our control while marriage is a legal set of rules and regulations defining a state of contract controlled by government. Love is not in any way dependent upon the contract of marriage, nor is love required in a contract of marriage – for the legal language knows not love! But this does not mean that attempts by modern society, religions, and the courts have not presupposed the conjoining of these two concepts. But love is an emotion, and marriage is a thing (a signed paper contract). But most importantly, love is not controllable by law while marriage is.
Therefore love is a negative right whereas marriage is a positive right.
Love has no limits, whereas marriage is nothing but limits.
So now we may begin to personally see and feel the difference between positive and negative rights – like feeling the difference between heat and cold. When it comes to love, it is safe to say that our natural or God-given right is that we should be able to love any man or woman we choose, and that in fact it is not even a controllable choice – as love is an emotional feeling that, as most of us have certainly felt, is way outside of our emotional control. So love is not something that can be controlled by government with regards to law.
But the government deals especially well in the creation and enforcement of contracts. And marriage is nothing but a legal contract, which has nothing to do with love or emotion in the eyes of legal law. Therefore, marriage is indeed something that can be controlled by government with regards to positive law.
This again makes love a negative right and marriage a positive right.
I imagine right about now your emotion has kicked in again and you are feeling something that is causing you to perhaps forget that legality has no hindrance of emotion. This disposition may be getting in the way of your understanding of why or how love can ever be considered a negative thing. And some folks may musingly be thinking the opposite about marriage being a positive thing! But the confusion is only there because you are assigning emotion to the equation of the definitions of a legal construct. You must never do this. And one of the most difficult aspects of truly understanding the law and how it applies to living man is to be able to switch back and forth between the conversational and the legal language. For while we express our emotions through our interjectional conversations among other living humans, we must assume an unemotional state of person-hood when we switch over to the legal language. For the legal language is nothing if not a perversion of the natural state of man. Thus, we must recognize this perversion and imitate it in order to succeed in legal dealings and communications. If I am going to speak to an android, I would not expect that machine to contemplate morals or ethics other than what is written into its software and codes as a simulation. So why should I do anything different when speaking the legal language to an attorney or a judge? To them, you are nothing but an artificial person, and they are speaking the legal language without the limitations of human emotion if indeed they are doing their jobs correctly. They, in their capacities and regulations as officers of the court, are perversions of man that can only act within the scope of their written code and court procedures. They are legal automatons working in a fictional legal world that in my opinion no man should ever lay his natural rights or trust within. Doing so creates a contract of acceptance of the moral perversions of the legal language, the giving up of negative rights for positive ones, and acquiescence to all of the codes that are created and opinion-ed by such legal automatons in government.
And so your confusion about why a negative right is actually a good thing can be compared to traveling to another country and attempting to speak a new language there. In China, a horse may have the same name as a pig does in America. Thus, confusion may stem in conversations with the Chinese people when they call a horse a pig. But after a while, one becomes accustomed to switching back and forth between ones natural or “1st” language and that of the foreign language.
To most people, the legal language is certainly a foreign one. And so for now, simply realize that any confusion that you may be experiencing is just a loss in translation from your normal every-day conversational language to the foreign legal language.
A negative right is very much a good thing. Sometimes negative rights are referred to as “liberties”. Negative rights are also stated to be “unalienable” – which in legal language means that a legal lien cannot be taken out against that negative right. The constitution lays out some of these unalienable rights in a legal context, but is certainly no guarantee of such an unalienable status upon those constitutional (positive) rights. The thought that any legal document can ever guarantee another legal thing or right as unalienable is pure fallacy. For remember, a legal right is a positive right. And a legal positive right can be revoked at any time by its creator. Perhaps this is why God’s law in its permanence over man’s law is so important. We will talk about that in a moment.
Instead, the constitution as a legal document contradicts the very essence of protecting negative or “unalienable” rights as it boldly describes the ways in which such supposedly unalienable rights may indeed have liens put upon them or against them through legal means. And because of this, you will continuously hear me state loudly and fervently that my “rights” are absolutely not derived from the constitution or any other man-made law or legal code.
I have stated many times before that the 5th Amendment of the “BILL OF RIGHTS” in the U.S. constitution is perhaps the worst example of the deceptive nature of the legal language I have ever encountered. Perhaps in understanding what a “liberty” is as a negative (natural) right can help us to understand why the constitution in no way whatsoever gives individuals unalienable (negative) rights.
The 5th Amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Geez, the constitution uses longer run-on sentences than I do!
Firstly, this is the right of persons, not men. A fictional person cannot have unalienable rights. A person can only be granted political positive rights.
Secondly, we must know what a “bill” is:
BILL, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment. After it has gone through both houses and received the constitutional sanction of the chief magistrate, where such approbation is requisite, it becomes a law.
This nickname given to the first ten amendments to the constitution is not an official legal term, but instead borrows from the original English term of the “Bill Of Rights”, which was a declaration granted by Royals William and Mary who reigned England. But this was not a declaration of natural rights of the British people, but was instead a declaration of the rights bestowed upon the SUBJECTS of the crown. Again, this can be compared to a farmer declaring positive rights of a bail of hey to be fed to his cows (subjects) twice a day. But with these seemingly wonderful rights also come the duties to submit as subjects to all other rights forced upon the subjects.
And what is the legal definition of “subject”?
SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement.
SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.
SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others. 2. Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is understood the subjection to the authority of public persons.
CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children. 2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that ” the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Art. 4, s. 2. 3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.
Now, you should be wondering how a “right” can ever be “lost”. Of course, only political (positive law) rights can be taken away by government. Natural rights must be voluntarily given up to government.
But you may also be wondering why I am including these antiquated definitions within this essay.
The answer is an important realization about rights in general. For to declare that all men are created equal, and then to claim citizenship only for white persons should be a big clue to you that the legal law sees no equity but that for which is written by the hands of privileged men. And the preponderance by 100’s of millions of U.S. citizens that the constitution ever granted equal rights in natural men is the greatest fallacy of our time. Instead, the constitution literally and clearly states that only certain individuals (persons) are equally privileged and have the right to entitlements as positive rights that trample on the negative rights of all other colored or female persons.
And if you are not a citizen… let’s face it folks, then you are just an animal without government granted privileges and positive rights.
But even more importantly to comprehend here is that just because the constitution and other legislation has been changed over time to reflect “equality” in all persons regardless of sex or color, this if anything proves that nothing in the constitution or civil rights is in anyway an unalienable negative right. In other words, as they were changed in the past, so too can they be changed in the future.
Just ask the Japanese American citizens who were imprisoned during World War II if all citizens are equal regardless of race or color?
Here in this Bill Of Rights we have a listing of 10 positive entitlements that people mistakenly refer to as unalienable negative rights or liberties. But these are not in any way negative rights. They are instead listed here as positive rights that can be aliened upon through what is called “due process of law“.
This is why I call these an “exception clause”… and the constitution and all of legal code is riddled with them.
If your protections from double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and your protections of the rights of life, liberty, and property are indeed absolute and unalienable, then there would be no need to write them down in the first place, let alone place an exception clause within this statement (bill) of rights that allowed “due process of law” to deny you those very rights. In this way, these listed constitutional positive rights are not at all unalienable, and the constitution states clearly the “process” of how a lien can indeed be placed upon these listed positive rights – with due process of law.
Just ask anyone whose had their land stolen by government for “public use” through “eminent domain”; having watched in horror and helplessness as that land was then sold off to private corporate developers for a parking garage, a strip mall, or housing projects. Then ask that person whether they feel that their rights to property and liberty are secure and unalienable?
The 5th Amendment is the entire basis of the positive right of eminent domain claimed by government. In eminent domain cases, the 5th Amendment is noted as being the “takings clause“. This refers to the “exception clause” as noted within the 5th Amendment that property can be “taken” for public use by government with due process of law and “just compensation“. It is a fallacy to mistake the term “due process of law” with the “protection of natural rights”. Law and legal code can only protect legal or positive rights without exception.
If property rights were truly negative in nature for citizens, then government would be forced to respect the nature of that negative right without the ability to apply its right of positive law to nullify that individual persons’ negative right. In other words, the negative or natural right would not be able to be tread upon by a legal concoction of codes and concepts. A positive right by true republican idealism and rules of ethics can never trump a negative right.
In the case of eminent domain, with the backing and righteousness of the constitution itself, the government claims that it is your political “positive” right to literally have your land and home stolen by providing a remedy of what it terms to be “just compensation” for the imposing of that positive right upon you. We know this is a positive right when government won’t take no for an answer…
Imagine if I came up to your front door and handed you a check for $10,000 for the forceful purchase of your home that has a market value of $200,000 – me being just some guy with no government or militarized police force to back me up. Your first inclination would likely be to tell me to go stick my check where the sun don’t shine. But when government comes-a-knocking, our knees quiver and our head spins; for we know not how to tell government to stick its positive law where the sun doth not shineth.
So what’s the difference between when an average every day Joe “offers” you the contract of his version of “just compensation” in exchange for your home and when government makes you the same legal contractual offer?
Ah, this is where positive and negative rights truly come into play…
When the man approaches you to purchase your home, you use your negative right to say no to the contract offered by this individual man. You did not recognize his person, and refused the right of contract – acting in a negative capacity. This means that you have imposed the consequence of your negative right upon the man and expect him to fulfill his natural duty to uphold your right to say no. The abeyance and non-retaliation against your own negative rights by others with similar negative rights is called a “duty”. Thus, when average Joe made the offer for your home at a ridiculously low price, well below the market value of what you might sell that same house to another individual, it was your negative right to deny that offer of contract. It is now the duty of average Joe to respect your negative right to say no by walking away from the offer without force, retaliation, or theft of your property.
Duty has a direct association with negative rights. The consequence of a man declaring his natural, God-given, negative rights means that all other men of good conscious have the duty to respect that negative right. Thus, a negative right creates a duty in others to refrain from taking action against another. So a negative right is best explained as the right to not have “due process of law”, violence, or coercion forced against you. Therefore, a negative right is the right to be left alone. So Joe would respect your negative right to say no to his offer by fulfilling his natural or negative duty to not coerce you to sell your house to him. When this process is complete, the natural or unalienable right has been fully implemented and respected.
Under this system of respect and integrity between men, a lawful society without government can be imagined. But since we live in and except the artificial world of fictional persons we must understand how this mutually respectful system of trust and integrity-based law has been perverted by government legal codes and its courts – which claim the very power of “due process of law” as listed in the Bill of Rights. In this regard, the constitution is in direct violation of all of man’s natural rights.
Before we can go on, this realization must be acknowledged: that the constitution does not give inalienable rights to individuals. Without this conscious admission, we cannot proceed. And we must fully realize and appreciate that the difference between a negative right and a positive right is that a negative right will never be written down as a legal right. Only a positive right must be written down, for this is the only way that a positive right may be enforced through due process of law to have power over a negative right. A positive right is adjudicated under positive law. And through the perversion of the legal code and its contractual nature, men are tricked into accepting positive rights that are in direct conflict with their natural/negative rights. They voluntarily relinquish the right to utilize negative rights against legal positive rights. Without the contractual nature of legal codes, no positive right of men could ever overshadow a negative right of God. In other words, the duty of men to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of their fellow man would never be excusable under color of law just because that man has a government ID, a police uniform, or a judges robe. The acceptance of a voluntary contractual obligation of positive rights by “citizens” allows other men to act as perverted beasts – artificial persons that trample upon any semblance of another man’s natural/negative right to not to be trampled on in the first place, with the excuse that their duty to respect man’s negative rights do not exist in legal code and are justified through due process of law, which is forcibly served upon that person/citizen for the benefit of the collective “public”. And in doing so, any recompense or remedy for their actions is applied not to the man himself for committing these acts of violence, coercion, and theft (taking) of property against the natural rights of another man, but are instead considered legal actions by an artificial person against another artificial person and its estate. You might say that no man was harmed, but only his dead or artificial person. This is referred to as acting under the “color of law”. Thus, the man doing the taking is not responsible for his own actions – actions taken by an artificial person (an incorporated entity with limited liability) on behalf of the due process of law of government. Positive rights then really equate to moral corruption of the living man in lieu of legal protections granted to the artificial person for which that man carries – the veil of artificial and limited liability corporation status called person-hood. And with this disposition; as in the art and atrocities of war where men kill men while claiming the positive right to do so as their perverted legal “duty” in the following of orders; men avoid their true and natural duties to protect the sanctity, integrity, freedom, and livelihood of the rest of their fellow man by claiming that due process of law allows constitutional and legal authority to do so. And government protects that positive right.
And so we now take for our example the constitutionally proclaimed power by government to at any time, through due process of law and with just compensation, “take” your property through this process of eminent domain. To do this, the government exercises the true nature of your constitutional “rights” by utilizing the legal system of which government created in the first place. Thus, the taking of your property is justified by these artificial persons in government with the disclaimer that they as men are not responsible for the theft of your property because the due process of law allows such perversion of responsibility to be delegated to an artificial construct within the protection of legal code. Government officers are not men, but instead an incorporated group of persons. They have the positive (government granted and protected) right to ignore their duties to uphold and respect your negative rights because you agreed through contract to consent and be subject to these positive rights granted by government. They claim this positive right for one and only one reason: because you unwittingly told them they could. You gave up your natural rights when you became a citizen, accepting positive rights through contract. And every time that you state a pledge of allegiance to the “flag” of this artificial corporation called the United States (not a pledge to the other people within these united states of America and their natural rights, mind you), and every time you check the box that states you are a “citizen of the United States”, and every time you claim legal constitutional rights instead of negative natural rights, you are literally giving your consent and permission for government to tread on you and your negative rights via contractual obligations and duties to government’s provided positive rights and services.
Understanding and proving to government that you are alive 100% of your life seems like a ridiculous notion. But the truth is that government requires you to be dead for any transaction in commerce or contract with itself, and assigns you an artificial person for such commerce and communication. Proving that you are alive every minute of every day of your life while claiming only natural rights is the only true defense against government tyranny. Any other right provided by government and claimed by you in court is of a contractual nature, meaning it is by default a revokable and enforceable positive right – the validity of which will be decided by an artificial person known as a judge.
A negative right is the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.
A positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.
A free man has the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.
A citizen has the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.
A free man enjoys the negative right to be free under God and nature, deriving his rights as such.
A citizen enjoys the positive right (privilege) to be free under government, as long as and only if he obeys the law (legal codes) of that government no matter how tyrannical and inhumane they become.
The perversion of the words positive and negative is just one example of how the legal language harms man’s natural state of being by perverting even the basic definition of natural words. However, legal words only apply in the fictional legal realm, which is why of course living men must be attached to an artificial person.
But I digress, for the title of this writing is “Tyranny Requires Equality”.
And so I had better now qualify why I believe that this is so…
Just as the words negative and positive have been perverted into different meanings than we are accustomed to in our everyday speech, so too have the words equality and rights.
It is important to understand that as with all legal terms, when the legal language uses the word equality it does not predispose that such equality is espoused by living men. Remember, the legal code does not deal in living beings. It can only define legal terms for artificial persons attached to human animals. Thus, when the government states that all men are created equal, it doesn’t really mean that in literal terms. It is referring to persons. And it is referring to the way in which the law punishes equally that of all persons under the law.
Let’s face the hard truth… When the constitution and Declaration of Independence was penned over two centuries ago, the term men combined with the term equal only applied to white male land-owners. As much as it pains us to admit that the constitution did not in any way make all men equal, and in fact made some men 3/5 a person (not a man) for political purposes, we must admit that the constitution was only a legal document granting subjects of the government certain entitlements. It did not deal in men as flesh and blood human animals, it dealt strictly with artificial persons. A statement of equality as is laid down in the constitution does not necessitate the conversational meaning of that word when describing flesh and blood men, race, or color. In fact, since the constitution only applies to persons as citizens, its privileges also only apply to persons as citizens. Remember, a legal government document only applies to men who have taken the perversion of artificial person-hood. The constitution promoted slavery and entitled only the privileged class to “freedom” – which again means the requirement to obey the law. And it can only be considered a document of freedom for those who contractually accepted the legal definition of freedom to “obey the government’s laws”. The constitution, if anything, made all men un-free, but gave the privileged class of white male citizens the “freedom” to arbitrarily own other men and be higher in legal status than the female half of the species. Of course, the contract of marriage created the STRAWMAN Dominus name change that allowed women to obtain some of the rights of their husbands via a legal contractual nature.
This ownership of people was without question or doubt the “original intent” of the constitution. Just read the damn thing! And remember that slavery was outlawed in England long before it was in the United States.
Over the decades, incremental change began to be seen, amendments passed, and legislation created that allowed for all “persons” to obtain “equal rights” under the law. But remember that these were certainly not natural rights granted by the government, but were instead positive rights. And slowly but surely all persons were made civilly equal. But what this really meant was that all men were allowed to accept the perversion of their natural state of being men and were allowed to become persons. And so again, I cannot stress enough that the constitution only makes contractual obligations of men as persons for which it calls “equal” and “civil” rights. Again, any natural man, woman, or child who wonders into the fictional borders of the United States will know immediately that all men are not equal, but that equality requires the voluntary agreement and contract of tyranny of citizenship. An illegal alien is simply a man who has not sold his soul for the positive rights and entitlements of citizenship. And the treatment, imprisonment, and exportation of these “human animals” by government and it’s millions of citizens is enough evidence to me to call any woman, black man, or legal immigrant a total and complete hypocrite – one who screams for their equal rights from a government and constitution that for centuries denied their ancestors those same rights that they now deny all other men of the world. Americans are hypocrisy defined – free men enslaved by their own freedom. And the white, property-owning citizen is ironically the only non-hypocrite… but only because his ancestors were born into the privileges of citizenship in the first place that denied all others their own rights and entitlements.
Never again should any United States citizen falsely and hypocritically declare that all men are created equal. For they are not men – as citizens they are not even alive.
This is the oft quoted fallacy that plagues the people of the United States and other governments. For government can not declare all men as equal and free, but can only declare its citizens as equal with freedom. For what happens when one bucks their government and tries to act upon their natural God-given rights in their negative capacity and as protection against the forcibly assigned positive rights violently bestowed by that government upon its people? Why of course the government violates the man’s natural rights claiming that his person’s positive rights come first!
And this is the most difficult thing about law and rights to comprehend. For most people believe that rights are somehow voluntary, and don’t realize that there is such a thing as positive rights that are involuntary. It’s certainly a confusing concept – that there should be in existence a human right that is enforceable by punishment from government, whether you want that right or not. Well… that’s because people think only in terms of humanity, and not in the terms of their artificial person for which those forced rights apply.
Another example I like to use over and over is this one from TITLE 42 of U.S. CODE. This code is in my opinion the perfect examination of how a “positive right” is actually a forced privilege through coercion and violence upon persons and not men:
42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and to no other
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
And so here in one neat little package, the tyranny requires equality concept comes shining through. Remember, as stated here, the nature of “civil rights” is not to make men equal, but to make all persons equally screwed under the law. Government does not define men. It’s legal language simply makes all human animals as equal citizens – which means equal protection of the positive rights that are forced upon those citizens. This is the tyranny of legal equality. True natural equality will only ever happen in the minds of men, not through statute or positive right. It will never happen in all men, and no legal statute will ever succeed in this task. For the acceptance of all men as equal is a negative right, and this type of acceptance can only happen within men, not without. The bottom line is that respect for human and animal rights must be earned and learned, not entitled and forced.
First, in Section (a) of this U.S. CODE we have an explanation of your positive rights as an (artificial) person within the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) – the federation controlling the “union” of States. It tells you that you have the positive right to enter into contract equally with all other persons, and most importantly into contracts with government. And then it tells you that by committing to such a contractual nature, the positive rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction (literally defined as legal extortion) are applied to you under that contract. If you sign a government or other contract, you are subject to positive rights. If you sign a contract, you give up your power of natural negative rights in acceptance of politically assigned privileges called positive rights. And in doing so, as a person and citizen, you are subject to all of the coercive measures that government allows itself to use against you to enforce those positive rights against you, including pain, punishment, and extortion.
Notice here that taxation and extortion are listed here side by side as a your right. There is hardly a difference between the two, and the avoidance of both gives you the positive, forceful, contractual duty to give acceptance to your right to be receive (enjoy) penalties, be punished, and be put in pain.
Now do you understand what a positive right is?
In Section (c) it states something that is also very important. It implies here that State laws, when compared to Federal laws, are subservient to these Federal U.S. CODES. By stating that the laws of the government of the individual States are only assigned to be as authoritative as to the “color of law”, this code is stating that you have no positive State’s rights that will protect you against these stated Federal positive rights. Federal contract law (citizenship), in other words, trumps any state law that may protect any other right you enjoy, either positive or negative. In other words, as a citizen you really have no negative rights!!!
But most important here is the legal right that all persons have to be equal with every other person. The last thing that government wants is for a man to break out of his or her artificial person/cage and be special – and claim to be unequal in the eyes of the legal code. Only with equality can democracy exist. Only with uniform equality can the people be considered a “body politic”. And only in a body politic can the government claim to act with the consent of all the equal people through representative government – representatives of the whole equal citizenry.
Some folks think that by exercising their right not to vote in elections that they are withdrawing consent to the election itself. But not voting is just another political positive right that persons have, in that this duty is not enforced as a requirement. Not voting is technically voting “no contest” to what the majority votes. Government doesn’t mind at all if individuals don’t vote in its public elections, for not voting means nothing at all. Even with less than 50% of the people voting in an election cycle, the majority of those actual votes still creates a majority vote. There is no law stating otherwise. And the president is not elected by the people anyway, but instead by the “electors”. That’s right, the constitution clearly states that the president is not elected by the people (voters) by popular vote, but by appointed electors. Amazingly, the majority of United States citizens believe that they actually elect the president every four years – a laughable psy-op that creates the illusion of authority of that office.
If this is news to you, you’ll be tickled to death to know that migrants who obtain citizenship in the United States know more about our presidential election process than most natural born citizens do!
Here is a link to the questions asked of potential legal immigrants before they become citizens. You’ll notice that question #16 asks: “Who elects the President of the United States?”
Scroll down a ways and you’ll see “The Electoral College” as the official answer.
Elections are a positive, not a negative right. Citizens do not have negative rights, other than those which have not been supplanted YET by positive ones.
What is the definition of the word “negative”?
NEGATIVE. This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. Vide Veto. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not always admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him, and he must prove the negative. Although as a general rule the affirmative of every issue must be proved, yet this rule ceases to operate the moment the presumption of law is thrown into the other scale. When the issue is on the legitimacy of a child, therefore, it is incumbent on the party asserting the illegitimacy to prove it. Vide Affirmative Innocence.
NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. 2. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is, incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes. Vide Onus Probandi.
And from Webster’s 2012 dictionary:
(1) a: marked by denial, prohibition, or refusal <received a negative answer>; also : marked by absence, withholding, or removal of something positive <the negative motivation of shame — Garrett Hardin>
b (1) : denying a predicate of a subject or a part of a subject <“no A is B” is a negative proposition> (2) : denoting the absence or the contradictory of something <nontoxic is a negative term> (3) : expressing negation <negative particles such as no and not>
c : adverse, unfavorable <the reviews were mostly negative>
(5) a : not affirming the presence of a condition, substance, or organism suspected to be present; also : having a test result indicating the absence especially of a condition, substance, or organism <she is HIV negative>
By these definitions we can construct a view of how the word negative applies to and interacts with the word positive in law. A negative right attempts to remove or refuse a positive right, and a man seeks to withhold or remove the positive right with his negative right. Negative rights are a prohibition against positive ones. A living man may deny a positive right exists by denoting the contradiction of that positive right to his negative right. A living man must prove the non-existence of a positive. Positive rights directly contradict negative rights, negating the inherent and replacing it with the artificial, creating an absence of liberty. Positive is adverse and unfavorable to the negative. Men must not affirm the presence of a positive right, unless he is prepared to accept the conditions of its disease.
Even the word enjoyment has been twisted into a legal perversion, as defined in Bouvier’s:
ENJOYMENT. The right which a man possesses of receiving all the product of a thing for his necessity, his use, or his pleasure.
And Black’s Law Dictionary online defines Enjoyment as:
ENJOYMENT: 1 (a) possession and use <the enjoyment of civic rights>
And from Webster’s:
ENJOYMENT: The exercise of a right; the possession and fruition of a right, privilege, or incorporeal hereditament.
So while you may emotionally enjoy living somewhere, enjoyment is a legal term with no emotional attachments. It is the state of usufruct to which you are a person who enjoys the use of property, but do not legally own that property. Paying off a loan to a bank, it turns out, has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, as the home never belonged to the bank in the first place. A “lien” position is not an ownership position, but rather just a status of legal claim.
Legislative records explain this positive right of equal enjoyment best:
“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” — Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933
“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” –Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, and referring to the Act of March 9, 1933.
Enjoyment is use, as a user, of government property. Persons are not owners, they are users. Persons enjoy incorporeal use of real estate. The word estate in Latin means “status”. And a status of course is an entitlement – a positive right.
But don’t worry, all property holders have equal rights under the law – which really means that all property holders cannot say no when the government wants to eminent domain (legally steal) their property. Equal rights means equal enjoyment of equal extortion, which means equal victim-hood of the people is equally enjoyed as persons under the contractual nature of citizenship. Does it make you feel better that at any time the government can take anyone’s property, including your own? Does this equate to the disposition we take when our friends and neighbors have their property stolen by government for the public good? You are the “public”, you know.
Is it this equality of the possibility of legal theft upon all citizens that stops us from defending the property of our fellow man?
Have we been artificial for so long that we are becoming emotionless?
Have we grown to love our servitude, as Huxley declared so long ago?
Perhaps we have just lost our ability to do anything but legally enjoy our servitude – and have forgotten how to be free men.
Equality in legal terms is a detriment to all men, for no two men are alike. Under the law, men and women have no sex, except as a mechanical function in science. Their uniqueness is stripped away and replaced by a legal status. Their thoughts and ideas are stunted so that equality can prevail. By accepting the artificial person, the living soul becomes nothing but a user of the body – with enjoyment of the artificial person which interacts with the artificial world. In this way, the man hides away behind the mask of his or her person.
But the person is not the man, it is not created by the man, and it is not owned by the man. The person is a creation of and property of the government, assigned numbers and statistics which define each artificial person. And only the creator of persons can establish forced equality and tyranny among all persons equally.
And so I leave you with these final questions…
If government is the creator of persons, then isn’t it time to stop worshiping these idols of the false god of government and get back to nature’s and God’s law?
Who is your creator?
Isn’t it time to become a man again?
–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 19, 2013