From: R. Coyote (coyyote@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 19:15:51 MDT
Hale vs.. Hinkle
The Individual may stand upon his constitutional rights... He owes no such
duty to the state since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection
of his life and property, His rights as such as existed by the law of the
land long antecedent to the organization of the state...
"All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of it's
duty to provide protection for private rights (Wynhammer v. People, 13 NY
378), which duty is a debt owed to it's creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the
private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished
nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the government/state
provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised
individual owes nothing to the government." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government
of the [federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the
people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people]
have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." --
Supreme Court Justice Field
----- Original Message -----
From: "Forrest Bishop" <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Patriotism and Citizenship
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Patriotism and Citizenship
>
> > On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 12:27 pm, Brian D Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Again we were talking about an example of another form of
> > > government as portrayed in "Starship Troopers". Again in "Starship
> > > Troopers" it was Federal Service not exclusively military service.
>
> Never read any Heinlein, so can't really comment directly on the above.
The notion of universal federal service is a contradiction
> in terms. A federated republic of sovereign states, such as outlined in
the US Constitution, does not grant the central government
> jurisdiction over the disposition of sovereign individuals that happen to
be residing on land claimed by one of its member States.
> This was made quite clear by the delineation and enumeration of powers
granted the confederated goverment and further clarified in
> the 9th (other natural rights not enumerated) and 10th Amendment (State's
rights). The federal government excercises a very limited
> control over the States- at least the ones that elect to continue their
membership in the federation- and a few pieces of land
> granted to it by title from the States, hence the name "United States".
> The concept is quite different from that of an authoritarian central
government that claims that the people residing on the
> territory it also claims are therefore its chattel property, or
"citizens". Such a despotic, degenerate form of governance could
> then be said to include universal servitude. Incidentally, the 14th
Amendment, positing dual citizenship (US and State), was not
> properly ratified, nor does the Buck Act appear to be lawful.
>
> Harvy Newstrom rhetorically questions:
>
> > What do you call "citizenship"? What specific rights would be earned?
> > Should the right to vote be earned? Should the right to have a say in
> > one's own government be earned?
>
> The *privilege* of voting does not confer a right to a say in how the
government is run. Once elected, the politician is free to
> lie, cheat and steal without any regard for his campaign promises. The
cases of Clinton and FDR illustrate this phenomenon very
> comprehensively.
>
> > Should a right to a trial by jury or
> > access to council be earned?
>
> No, there is no reason a government even needs to be the justice-service
provider.
>
> > Should free-speech, and freedom from
> > religion be earned?
> > Should freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
> > be earned? I tend to see most "benefits" of "citizenship" as innate
> > human rights. I am not sure what benefits could be earned by some that
> > I would advocate taking away from everyone else.
>
> > > Heinlein's specific example was voting. Does anyone here really
believe
> > that the default position of the population should be a government in
> > which they have no say or vote?
>
> The default position is no government whatsoever. Then the issue of voting
for whom to steal from- the political means to wealth-
> goes away.
>
> --
> Forrest Bishop
> Chairman, Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering
> www.iase.cc
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:45 MST