I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect and its ridiculous on its face.
"The "right" to KBA proceeds from the fact that you can't stop the owner of the ore from selling it to someone who makes steel, and you can't stop him from selling it to someone who makes guns, and you can't stop him from selling the guns to whomever he pleases."
The right to KBA proceeds from the ability to take an object or objects (rock, stick, combination of both, etc) and turn same into personnel property that can be used as an arm (club, spear, etc).
The right to KBA is not dependent on a separate someone selling his personnel property to a second separate someone who turns it into something else and sells that to a third separate someone who turns it into yet something else and then sells that to anyone.
“Everything proceeds quite neatly from one and only one assumption: …”
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to the effect everything proceeds from your one assumption, neatly or not.
“the right to property is absolute. “
Which is not to say that property rights are absolute. The right to property is different than the rights you claim as a property owner and I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me.
"(Note: one's self is one's property, so self-defense is a special case of defense of property. In particular, libertarians usually say that the only right is the right "not to be aggressed against"; that's equivalent to "property rights" as I've formulated them here.)"
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect.
One of the characteristics of property is ownership and ownership can change. When ownership of personnel property changes, it leaves you. When ownership of real property changes, you leave it. You can’t leave yourself and yourself can’t leave you. If you could give up ownership of yourself, someone else would own you. Normal people believe that when one person owns another, one is a slave and the other a slaver. Which would you be?
White Paper on State Citizenship
Address:http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/white-paper.htm
Another 'allodial rights' site:
"--- There are hundreds of thousands of sovereigns in the United States of America but I am not one of them. The sovereigns own their land in "allodium."
That is, the government does not have a financial interest in the their land.
Because of this they do not need to pay property tax (school tax, real estate tax). Only the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution for the United States of America define the laws that they have to follow. This is a very small subset of the laws most of us have to follow.
Unless they accept benefits from or contract with the federal government, they do not have to pay Social Security tax, federal income tax, or resident individual state income tax.
They do not need to register their cars or get a driver's license unless they drive commercially.
They will not have to get a Health Security Card.
They can own any kind of gun without a license or permit.
They do not have to use the same court system that normal people do.
I am sure that most people reading this are saying to themselves that this can not be true. I know I did when I first heard of it.
The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen and a federal citizen.
A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual whose inalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his/her state Constitution against State actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.
A federal citizen, also called: a 14th Amendment citizen, a citizen of the United States, a US citizen, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has civil rights that are almost equal to the natural rights that state Citizens have.
I say almost because civil rights are created by Congress and can be taken away by Congress.
Federal citizens are subjects of Congress, under their protection as a "resident" of a State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution).
The individual States may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them. This specific class of citizen is a federal citizen under admiralty law (International Law).
As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as "allodial" (absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others. ---"
You don't have to. Property rights are inalieneable. Call it "natural law" if it helps you grasp it: the fact is that you don't have to agree to anything before I'm empowered to defend myself and my property. If you don't like that, then you'll have to learn the hard way. I'll explain to your heirs that it was self-defense, and they'll accept it, sorrowing.
The right to KBA is not dependent on a separate someone selling his personnel property...
You're confusing the "Bill of Rights" with actual inalienable human rights. The BoR is a list of rules restricting government in order to prevent government from violating those inalienable rights. It isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now. Lawyers refer to those restrictions as "rights", but they mean "legal" rights, not fundamental human rights.
In any society that respects (1) private property and (2) non-initiation of force, citizens must be able to keep and bear arms. Not because of the second amendment; these societies presumably don't have the US constitution in the first place. Nevertheless, government (and anyone else) would be powerless to take your guns away.
Why is that? Because, firstly, you have the right to self defense, so your possession of weapons cannot be interpreted as the threat of illegal aggression. Secondly, nobody can tell you not to make, buy or sell a gun. Ergo, any attempt to disarm you by force is illegal, and you have the right to defend yourself from it.
One of the characteristics of property is ownership and ownership can change.
That is not inherent to property; what makes property property is that you own it, not your ability to sell it.
If you could give up ownership of yourself, someone else would own you. Normal people believe that when one person owns another, one is a slave and the other a slaver.
Rothbard argues cogently that selling oneself is inherently impossible, because obeying the commands of a "master" is itself a consensual act. Others counter that you can indeed voluntarily enter into contractual slavery. I agree with those others, but point out that the contract cannot be enforced per se; rather, it must identify specific penalties for default, whereby the person can essentially "buy himself back".
But note that to be valid, a contract must be voluntary. If you want, you can take a job; if you really want to, you can also sign a contract allowing your boss to tell you where to live, who to marry, and giving him custody of any future children.
The critical point of contract law, however, is that it must be possible to quit, possibly subject to some sort of fine or penalty. This fact is essentially why Rothbard argues that contractual slavery is literally impossible, because he regards slavery as characterized by the fact that you can't quit. To that extent he's right, and "indenture" would be a much more accurate term.
An open area of research concerns what sort of penalties may or may not be assessed for violating a contract of indenture, and precisely how those limits are determined in the context of a libertarian legal code.
Or were you just making a cheap ad hominem when you brought up "slavery"?