On Friday, November 30, 2012, MJ wrote: > > *Permission Slips Instead of Rights > **People beg the state’s permission. Much worse, they have accepted this > as normal and reasonable. They do not take umbrage – or even become mildly > annoyed. Many – all too many – take pride in having begged for (and > received) their permission slips. > *by Eric Peters <http://www.americandailyherald.com/feed/item/eric-peters> > Tuesday, 27 November 2012 > > Our slavery is ingenious because it’s so very subtle. Most people not only > don’t see (much less feel) their shackles -- they get angry when someone > calls attention to them. Most people, in other words, still imagine > themselves to be *free*. This despite the obvious fact that they must > first beg -- and obtain -- permission before they may exercise *any* of > their former natural rights. > > Even the elemental right to choose your spouse, for instance, is no longer > a natural right; the state demands the couple seek its permission to marry. > Exactly as feudal lords once demanded of their serfs. And serfs we have > become. > > One reason to do it officially -- that is, to beg the state’s permission > -- is simply to have the legal standing in case, for example, your spouse > falls ill. An officially anointed husband (or wife) has specific legal > rights that a non-sanctioned (by the state) “partner” does not. And of > course, there is the issue of taxes and the disposition of property > following the death of a spouse. > > The concealed carry handgun permit is exactly similar to the marriage > permit. They are both usurpations of natural rights in that they force you > to beg permission to exercise your (former) natural rights -- and strictly > define and delimit how you may exercise these ex-rights. It is the same as > regards now-conditional property rights, the former right to travel freely, > to speak (and even write) freely… and on and on. These things are now > privileges that require permission. > > As noxious as all that is, the alternative is even worse: Fail to get > permission and your rights disappear *completely*, insofar as any > obligation of the state to respect or even acknowledge them. To put a finer > point on it, you can expect to be *punished* for *any* attempt to > exercise your former natural rights. > > They not only get you coming and going -- they got you *before you got > going*. > > If your wife is severely injured or falls seriously ill, for instance, and > has been taken to a hospital you have no legal standing to take decisions > as regards her treatment -- if you are not legally married in the eyes of > the state. You may have exchanged vows -- you may have done so in the > presence of witnesses and clergy. Irrelevant -- as a matter of law -- > absent the state’s permission slip. In which case, if your spouse is > seriously ill and cannot make her wishes known, the wishes of her *family*-- > as defined by law, which means, her parents or other next of kin -- take > precedence over your wishes. And if there is no “legal” family -- then the > wishes of the state will decide. *You* are nothing more than a *bystander*. > You don’t even have the right to see her in her room. If her father -- or > the doctor -- does not like you, he may legally prevent you from seeing > “your” wife -- because *technically*, you are not her husband. > > Thus, people beg the state’s permission. Much worse, they have accepted > this as normal and reasonable. They do not take umbrage -- or even become > mildly annoyed. Many -- all too many -- take pride in having begged for > (and received) their permission slips. In having acquired a birth > certificate (of ownership) for their children. A driver’s license, a Social > Security number…. and so on. > > Guns: At one time -- and still within living memory -- the natural right > to possess and bear (*carry*, in modern terms) a firearm was explicitly > and *implicitly* acknowledged and respected. Not only was there no law > limiting any citizen’s right to possess and carry, it was taken as a * > given* that free men need no permission to possess and bear arms. Before > November 1963, one could even order a gun through the mails and have it > delivered directly to one’s home. After November, 1963, prior restraint > began to be exercised against *everyone* because of the actions of *one*. > The former natural right to possess a firearm became a conditional > privilege -- requiring a permission slip. If one wished to bear -- that is, > *carry* -- the firearm beyond the borders of one’s home, a permit was > required. > > Ignore “the law” -- and get caught exercising your natural right to carry > a weapon on your person without having made the proper supplications first > -- and you will discover exactly how much credence the state gives your > ex-rights. You will be charged as a *criminal* -- for acting as a *free > man*. > > Because *freedom is illegal*. > > By definition. A *child* must ask permission of its parents. He is not > free. A *bondsman* must ask permission of his master; he is not free. *Anyone > who must ask permission before he is permitted to act is not -- cannot -- > be free. > > *As with the practical necessity of obtaining the state’s > permission/sanction to wed whom you wish and have the union respected > (somewhat) under the law -- or to possess/carry a firearm -- it has become > a practical necessity to -- in effect -- concede that you have no rights in > order to be permitted the conditional use of any of them. You cannot > operate -- or even own -- a car without the requisite permission slip. You > may not legally even make improvements to “your” home without first > obtaining a by-your-leave. Your food must be approved. You may only > transact business if you have permission to do so -- and only under certain > conditions. *It is not possible to live anymore without first having > begged permission*. > > This is the evil genius of the system. It gets people to acknowledge that > they have no rights by getting them to beg permission to exercise them. > > For if you have a *right* to something, then by definition you do not > require *permission* to exercise that right. And more -- the state > (organized force) has no standing -- under natural law -- to use force to > limit the exercise of that right in any way whatsoever. But the reverse is > just as true. By having conceded that you need to beg permission, you > become party to a binding legal contract -- whether you see it that way or > not is immaterial. > > You have accepted the *state’s* rights -- by giving up *yours*. > > The satanic brilliance of the system we live under is that it has > transformed all of our former natural rights into conditional privileges -- > and we have signed on the dotted line. Given our *consent* -- by > accepting the premise. The most vicious part of this devil’s deal is that > few people are even aware of the flim-flam. They actually feel empowered > when, for example, they obtain a CC permit. Or a permit to exercise their > ex-right to free speech (in a “free speech zone,” of course). > > The system leaves free men but one alternative -- to *act* as free men > and damn the state to hell. This of course, is no easy thing. In fact, it > is a very hard -- a very *dangerous* thing. As it was for the lone hero > who stood in front of that tank in Tiananmen Square back in 1989. As it was > for the White Rose (just kids, really) resistance in Nazi Germany. They > painted slogans like “Freedom!” on the walls -- and paid for it with their > lives. > > Free men do not beg permission. They *insist* that their *rights* be > respected. Come what may. > > But before anyone can insist that his rights be respected, he must > understand that his rights exist because *he* exists. Not because his > rights were written on a document. Not because the state acknowledges them > formally. Rights just *are*. And once he has such understanding, he will > resent like hell ever having to ask permission to exercise them. > > *Throw it in the Woods? > > http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/eric-peters/item/permission-slips-instead-of-rights > * > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
