Skip to main content

Early Morning Thoughts, September 15, 2019

Voluntary vs Forced Compliance

If there is one piece of knowledge and awareness that I would like every human to know and understand, it is that there is a huge difference between voluntary agreements between human adults, and forced compliance by organized gangs.

Anarchists want voluntary agreements among men, and governments want, and use, forced compliance of their own sets of artificial ‘rules’ sometimes called laws or statutes.

That is the primary difference – voluntary vs force.  If you like force being used on you and on others, you like government.  In fact, many people like government as a tool (or weapon against others) because they can call government into an adult situation and ‘force’ their adversaries into submission by way of government rules and forced compliance.

If governments were simply an impartial and unbiased arbiter of human problems, I would have no problem with any government, but it isn’t, they aren’t, and so I do.

And here’s the rub.  Government walks a thin line using deception and fraud to convince some members of a society that government force and violence is somehow justified but individual force and violence is not, simply because it is government force and violence.

“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”  ―  Max Stirner 

Really? When did the people ever authorize government to do that?

“The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.” — John Locke 

So, if I can’t use force and violence on you, then Locke tells us I cannot charter government to do that either.  Is our whole American system in 2019 bizarre and/or perverted?  Who designed this system of control?  Did you do it?  Did I do it?

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”  ― Daniel Webster 

I suspect many poor and powerless people just avoid all government contact because they fear the force and violence that emanates from government.  My main theme is that no one ever asks for, or wants, force and violence used on themselves and their families.  Sadly, in a police state as we have in 2019, government monitors EVreyone (except their own government wanker coworkers and partners), and so for the common man, flying under the radar is becoming increasingly difficult.  So, why are the people monitored and controlled and government is not?

In fact, in 2019 you don’t have to harm anyone else in order to have government come after you with force and violence.  You just have to ask the wrong questions, or maybe expose government crimes against the people (e.g. Julian Assange and other whistle blowers). Victimless crimes are the laws of the day.  In fact, red flag laws are being seriously considered by the plantation masters.  Really?  Is the individual dead to the sociopathic militarized gang we so affectionately call government?

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” — Ayn Rand 

And freedom of speech?  What’s that – something to eat?  How about being able to stand on your own two feet and act outside government regulations – can you do that?  How about defending yourself against any and all attackers – can you do that?  How about actually owning property (home, car, etc.) against all outside controls – can you do that?  How about the freedom to travel by current means of transportation without identification and/or a license – can you do that?

I have many lawyer friends and they count on their knowledge of the law to help them earn a living, to command respect from others, and to manage their own pathway through life.  But, what about those common men who do not know the law as intimately as do lawyers?  Is the common man doomed to slavery to the state simply because he is not a master of the law?  Really?  And because modern law schools (like Harvard Law School) no longer teach constitutional law as a degree core requirement, are modern lawyers also becoming obsolete in their own knowledge?  Or is the Constitution really a dead document?  Do lawyers succeed because they know the legal procedures in courtrooms, rather than know the law?  Is this a condition of allowing procedure to rule over law?  What about judges?  Can they ever be actually impartial?

“When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you – you know your nation is doomed.”  ― Ayn Rand

Voluntary agreements among mature humans do not require a universal set of laws outside natural law.  In the US government approved agreements (like marriage licensed agreements), however, require man made laws and statutes, which are then enforced by means of force and violence from the executive and judicial branches of government.  Are we doomed as a country?

Many of my observations and questions are made because I want us all to think about these things.  My thoughts and my ideas are not meant to be the same as yours, and are intended to generate thought and discussion.

Have a nice day.  Think good thoughts.  Continue talking to others.  We can solve this human problem.



  • highlanderjuan says:

    Please don’t ever give up.

  • Publius Huldah says:

    Well, I give up!

  • highlanderjuan says:

    That would appear to be a problem with the Constitution, not with the American people. I’m not certain the American people have ever had the question put before them as to how to control the government, but if they did, I’m pretty certain that some number of fed heads would roll. I think Spooner’s belief was that there should have been some penalties included for violating constitutional law. This brings us to the suggested 28th amendment, which DOES have some penalties included, but, I suspect because of the penalties listed, no one in government would ever vote for its passage. 😉

    BTW, thanks for posting. I enjoy this kind of discussion.

  • Publius Huldah says:

    Our constitution can’t enforce itself. It can’t slap the hands of [or electrocute] those who violate it. enforcing our Constitution is the job of The People. but they decided not to do their job. That’s why we are where are today.

  • Publius Huldah says:

    And what’s so sad is that our Constitution was designed to implement that Founding Principle, set forth in our Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

    But Americans refused to read it and enforce it. They wanted a government which “takes from somebody else and give it to me”.

    • Highlander says:

      The Americans who should be reading and abiding by the Constitution are the Americans who work for the government. It is a defining document for the people inside government, not the American people in general. There are some, like Bill Buppert and Lysander Spooner who believe it is a Constitution of no authority.

      “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

      I have no feelings of ill-will toward the Constitution, but if our country really is still a country based on the rule of constitutional law, the Constitution should be, must be, followed by people inside government, and it isn’t. So, yes, I agree, our condition today is very sad.

  • highlanderjuan says:

    I agree, Ibrahim, and that is the reason why I write missives like this one. Was I off in any of my comments?

  • Ibrahim Abdulrahman says:

    Really to address this forceful impunity, we the people need to wake-up from the government induced slumber

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.