Atlas Agora

Manifesto.
Chapters - in title style. Detail every foundation and paint every virtue, of a well designed society

1. Natural Law

The study of my life is the study of justice. To study justice is to seek an understanding of all human rights. What rights are natural to each individual concerning their person and their property? What are the limitations to what each may do or have without violating the freedom of their fellow people? America has defined her interpretation differently than all nations and people before her. Our Declaration of Independence claims that we base our rights on the foundation of each individual’s existence, properly described as our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. As each individual contemplates the outcome of their time on earth, they reflect on their decisions through more than the context of the present moment. In fact it is impossible to determine what to do with your time without evaluating your past and planning for your future. Therefore John Locke and Thomas Jefferson rightfully publicized the notion of individual rights through life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because they allow individuals to freely choose the purpose of their life in all considerations of time. To choose what to do with your LIFE is to plan your future. To exercise your liberty is to be act freely in the present moment. To pursuit happiness one must examine the outcomes from choices previously made. Happiness is wealth with two specific measures of knowledge and property. Knowledge is the part of wealth acquired by learning from past mistakes and recognizing achievement. Property is the physical product of your time, energy, and talents. These natural rights establish self ownership and natural protection. If someone were to take a life it is murder and such an action would deny the right to a future. To take liberty is to enslave and to deny the right to act freely in the present. To take property is theft and to deny a person’s past achievement. It is also important to know that these protections established as a natural principle of justice were denied to many people on earth before the Declaration of Independence. Vulnerable and weak people throughout time have been subjected to the supreme authority to kings and gods. Under each tyrant, rights were selectively granted and most of the earth’s population was extremely likely to be enslaved, murdered, or stolen from to solidify the worthiness of their rulers. The alternative to these oppressions is peace on earth. This is only made possible by maintaining the study of justice and natural law, for it is to study the conditions by which mankind can live peacefully. This claim has been made by many liberty minded authors and is often referred to as the non aggression principle. To maintain peace among men, each must follow simple directions. The first is that in the event that one might infringe on another person’s rights they must make reparations for any injury. The second is that individuals should abstain from doing what justice forbids such as theft, murder, and coercion. If people can live by these simple barriers to their natural liberty they will live at peace. If they are not met people will continue to be at war with each other until justice is re-established. In the most basic terms, natural law simply asks men to live honestly. Those who live honestly to all others whom they interact with will seldom find conflict in their life. Also they will find honest interaction with others facilitates mutual growth and happiness among all people. 1 When any person rejects this standard of natural law, denounces their honesty, and seeks to injure another, it is a right to all people to defend themselves from this aggression. By applying force in events of self defense we find the only instance where force is aligned with justice. Next it follows that individual defense is not always adequate and that people should also have the right to organize a common defense to provide a more constant protection. Thus, through law we may establish a collective right of force, granted that the law remains within the context of self defense. Law cannot remain in the pursuit of justice under any other mission. If an individual uses force against another individual’s life, liberty, or property they depart from protection under the law, and may be subject to any means of retaliation by the injured party. This principle is also true of the collective force. The law exists only to defend our own individual rights, and cannot at the same time seek to use force against any individual’s natural rights without being subject to retaliation by the injured party. By this example we can tell that justice cares not whether an individual or collective group breaks the non aggression principle. Justice teaches us not only persuade others among us to live by these honest natural principles, but also to establish a just an enduring government with the same design. 2 However simple the natural design of justice may be, there continues to grow a group of critics. They feel that since force is not allowed by the collective right beyond the purpose of self defense, the ambitions of individuals will cause them to neglect the progress of those with less ambition. They proclaim this form of individualism invites greed and cruelty toward less fortunate people; however they forget that prosperity comes only to those who cooperate naturally. Therefore it is natural to give charitably to those whose protection, help, and counsel is perceived to be valuable. I do not want those whom I associate with and depend upon to become weak or inadequate therefore it is in my interest to provide my excesses to them. This notion is long forgotten in America however it is not lost. Alexander De Tocqueville described that America was different in the sense that it provided equality and peace naturally whereas the Europeans favored state granted equality. He claims that this standard for cooperation is only possible by the free institutions and political rights which citizens are able to make so much use. Americans therefore lack animosity toward other classes only because, “he is never either their master or their slave, his heart readily leans to the side of kindness.”3 It is seldom to find in our country a person who does not have a single friend. To claim a friend is to claim a person whose standards of honesty meets or exceeds your own. Since people live in contact with others and seldom are completely alone, it is unavoidable to form an opinion about justice. Those who live in freedom honestly, often find agreement with the majority of others around them. Those who have been made bitter and frequently practices crimes, gain only scorn from the majority around them. By understanding this context it is clear that natural law is a science which is easily understood by the common mind. Its applications are infinite and ongoing, for it is impossible to remove the censor of justice which is our conscious. In fact, Children learn the fundamentals of natural law at a very early age. They learn to decipher whether an act is good or bad. They learn to tell if each item is “mine” or belonging to someone else etc. If a child takes by force a toy of another child, the other child will first offer objection and next call other children and parents to come to their aid. In other words, they seek a neutral observer to bring justice to right the wrong doing. Only will the child create a reciprocal injustice such as striking the thievish child when the initial injustice was not recognized. Regardless of the outcome both children will learn by the reactions other people take. These events are the first important transactions in a child life. They learn these principles before they even know the meaning of the words which I am using to describe them. To make them learn the meaning of justice or injustice they must learn the nature of the things by experience. It would be as impossible as it would be to make them understand the meanings of things such as hot and cold or wet and dry without experiencing the difference with actual experience.4 2. Consent

Consent – Dangers of Implied Consent Once it is understood that Natural Law facilitates a peaceful society it then follows that free citizens have the right to peacefully associate or not to associate with any group they chose. No person should be required to join or support a group whose protection is not desired. Nor should one be required to support a group who in personal opinion is considered inefficient. Most importantly no one should be required to support a group who may commit injustice towards others. For each person can only make relationships with others who trust their honesty. To join a group whose establishment promotes coercion, laziness, or crime would be to denounce one’s own honesty and to choose to group up with the criminals. Therefore, it can damage and destroy all progress made by the free association of honest others. The lesson Americans should learn from this is that it takes hard work and cooperation to earn respect and it may take one instance of poor association to lose all progress. The danger is exponentially increased when association is assumed by government. For the larger and more diverse a government becomes the more likely it becomes that association becomes implied. The Declaration of Independence tells us that governments are created to SECURE our natural rights and that they derive their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. It follows to tell us that when any form of government becomes destructive to it’s the ends it is the right and duty of the citizens to alter or abolish it. The ends it speaks of come from a few specific words. The first is that government is entrusted to SECURE our rights, not interpret them, not to manage them, but merely to establish that they shall remain with us. Next it says that the powers government derives must be just. A just power is one which is known by all; it must be requested and declared so that no person may be confused about the suitable ends of government. If the government becomes vague in describing its responsibilities and powers the people should know they are no longer just. Above all, the people must be able to determine if they will consent to the government existing during their time instead of relying on the assumed consent of past generations. This rule applies to any free society, both during times when powers were few, defined, and just as well as during times such as now when powers are unlimited, irrevocable, and acquired through stealth legislation. It is my intention to highlight some very important errors in the method for acquiring and interpreting consent. These errors are important to point out because if one does not consent and is compelled to act against their will, they are in fact a slave. I have little pity for a person who cannot recognize their own enslavement because they obviously wouldn’t know how to live free were they handed the opportunity; I do however pity the future children of the slaves. Should the people become slaves for their government it is obvious that the government is not acting to secure any natural right to freedom but in fact are denying any natural right of freedom. Since the government can only derived consent for the purpose of securing our natural rights, it follows that when they fail to meet their most basic function it is the right and the duty of the people to alter or abolish it. (Declaration of Independence ) Consent is more often assumed than acquired. First of all it is utterly irresponsible for my generation to consent to a large debt on behalf of the future generation. It is not consent for the many millions of unborn children who do not have a say, and to speak of enslaving the productivity of the unborn should be criminal. I say enslaving the productivity because the lazy and lethargic portion of society will continue to benefit from such government interventions while the productive, innovative and ambitious will continue to pay the penalty. If opportunity is ever to be completely killed it will be by this method of creating a burden before birth. The notion that we can assume debts to be paid in future taxes is like asking our children to play in our adult baseball league where the score is 100 to nothing and the kids better learn to double our production fast. Our constitution, although interpreted rather fraudulently, was very particular about the subject of posterity. We declared simply “to secure to them the blessing of liberty.” Please note from the previous section that liberty is the freedom of the present. Therefore, the blessings of the present freedom shall remain for our future generations. You will not find anywhere in the constitution a mechanism for requiring the youth to consent to the government, nor to uphold it, nor to agree with. Instead our government has existed under false methods of assuming control. They have hardly yielded in their attempts and grossly overestimated the consent of each succeeding generation. Lysander Spooner was a champion in exploring the virtue of consent and he explains that the government only attempts to bind the posterity by method of voting or paying taxes. Historically America has about 40% of eligible voters fail to cast their vote during elections. I intend not only to prove that this portion should be considered as discontent, but also that seldom is consent implied by most voters. In our history minorities, women, minors, and felons have all been denied the right to vote at one point or another. The logic behind such barriers should be exposed that some men, even still today, believe that other people, for whatever qualification, cannot decide a government for themselves. The purpose behind some eligible voters and some non eligible voters is a re commitment toward slavery. Would blacks not vote themselves out of slavery? Of course they would, and for this reason ignorant people sought to keep them from voicing their opinion. I challenge any person to defend the current age limitation for voting in our day. Is it not the same reasoning that evil men denied women, blacks and others voting for their own freedom, to announce their own consent? I believe that the youth is denied the right to vote because they would vote against the burdens place upon them by the status quo. I know I would have voted against Social Security had I been given the chance. It is not very ethical at the very least, for the voting class to be granted privilege to cast their votes to burden the classes of ineligible voters. Some might argue that children cannot know their best interest, but the bottom line is that each person must be allowed to speak for themselves and no one else. I believe many people do not vote in their best interest be they, men, women, blacks, or children. On the whole I think America proves to be completely insane every single election, by voting for the same thing and expecting their condition to change. After each election the results are portrayed to society as if it actually measured consent. Although it is a terrible measure of consent, it cannot even be considered consent until each person has a say. It is incompatible with a free society to rest the foundation of consent on the notion that eligible people can consent for those whom for whatever reason aren’t capable of deciding for themselves. A privileged citizen will always be the master and the ineligible one will always be the slave. In this regard, contemplate whether the 40% of nonvoting eligible voters would rise or fall if we included the victim class of ineligible voters. Perhaps we are at least at 50 percent of the country would show their disapproval by not voting. The LESSER OF TWO EVILS BATTLE Assuming Americans could move past their voting stipulations placed upon various groups, there exists a more dangerous problem from voting as indicator of consent. Many voters lack interest in an election until they become convinced that a certain candidate may bring with them an era of tyranny. They first may support a candidate with no prospect for success, but whom respects individual sovereignty and appears of integrity. Voting for this candidate does not represent consent of the more popular ambitious candidate, instead it represents shear opposition. As the powers structure aligns themselves with the successful candidates so to must the voters. By method of compromise, each voter will abandon their ideal candidate in hopes that a more moderate candidate may still block most the tyranny to be delivered by the opposition party. As Lysander puts it, “ A man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of this natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use the ballot. He sees further, that, if he uses that ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing.” The individual did not live by his natural rights to have them lost or won by a swarm of votes by others. Voting by this perspective is only a matter of self defense, and the only possible choice of action left available is to use the ballot as a bullet. 1 Upon understanding the true nature of defensive voting, it follows to explain the categories of several types of voters. For upon recognizing the battle of voting, some act aggressively while others shy away into hiding. The first are called, “1.Kaves – a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class no doubt --- each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and property, and because his is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man, “a sovereign”; that this is a free government. 3 A class(I will call Hermits) who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interest as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.” 2 From this example the difficulties of retaining individual consent becomes clear. There will seldom be a day where the Knaves rest and the Dupes and Hermits come together as individuals to put a stop to their servitude to the Knaves. Therefore, as time continues, the Knaves solidify their dominion over others by simply appealing to percentages. They may double their efforts in recruiting dupes to practice their methods until the time where it becomes acceptable to display voting majorities as absolute consent. If my reasoning is beyond the reader at this point consider the impact of polls. In our day it has become paramount credibility to simply cite a poll whose majority supports your cause. The dupes and hermits viewing each poll consider their cause all but lost as polls support the knaves calling. Next the Knaves parade around with their results on “news” networks as a reminder that the majority is sufficient for claiming absolute consent. Should any individual take a stand against the absurdity presented by the Knaves, he or she will be reminded of the credibility of the poll, or ridiculed for questioning the importance of it. One method highly used by the Knaves is to publically portray any individual who disagrees with the majority as a dictator. Who are you to say our poll is worthless, you are but one person and we have the majority? Would you claim to have more voice in the decision than this group of others? This tactic has been highly effective as a tool of enslavement and it can quickly garnish societal ridicule for the brave individual. However dreary the situation may become, the question of this chapter must return: What is implied by a government based on consent? “If man (A) claims that his consent is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of government, he must automatically admit that man (B) and every other person’s are equally necessary; because B’s and every other person’s rights are just as good as his own. On the other hand, if he denies that B’s or any other person’s consent is necessary, he automatically admits that neither is his own, nor any other person’s is necessary; and that government need not be founded on consent at all.” 3There can be no other conclusion to draw from this perspective than to say that either each separate individual must consent in supporting the government, or that the consent of no one is necessary. Highway man The second aspect vital to the continuation of government is taxation. It has been used to imply consent from feudal kings who derived power from assumed divinity, to our current system based on supposedly voluntary taxation. Our law continues to consistently make the claim of voluntary taxation as if we had voluntarily entered into an insurance policy. One which enabled us to pay fees when we felt the protection was beneficial, and would inherently accept our independence when the insurance company proved inefficient with our dues, or fraudulent. It is however, a complete absurdity to claim that any rational individual could mistake government taxation as voluntary. On the contrary, taxation it is nothing more than violent seasonal theft, more dangerous to liberty than any group of thugs or gangs existing in our country. A criminal seeking to make a robbery in a back alley must account for the risk involved in his or her actions. The government sends servants who are much better protected both in physical protection and in all cases of liability. A criminal will not tell the victim that the violence to ensue is for their own good, or their protection. Nor would they make a rightful claim to your money, or that the money to be stolen will be spent in your own benefit. 4 The most notable difference between a common thief and the government is how they treat victims after they have scammed them. A thief might remind the victim that the territory on which they were standing granted permission for this one time robbery. The victim can either avoid returning, or return with a group intent on restoring justice, being better protected this time of course. Next, notice that thieves do not generally make their identities available to their victims. They prefer to return to the shadows to keep their criminal activities away from a suspicious public. Similarly, when the government lack transparency, and appeal to spend taxation money secretly or “independently”, they do so for the same reasons a thief conceals their identity. If the suspicious public were to comprehend the flow of their stolen money, they may seek to reclaim their property at the home of their thief. Although both government criminals and individual ones both prefer to conceal their identity, individual thieves do not keep a sophisticated list of the victims whom they have taken advantage of. They return to the shadows, whereas, the government seeks to track and follow their victims. After initial subjection to government taxation the government will appeal to claim you are in need or their protection. A considerably bold statement after having just previous injured you. Should you agree they will proceed to demand your allegiance and claim to make your conclusions for you. With your stolen money they have compiled an extensive list of actions prohibited to you, and they reserve the right to periodically steal from you again at their will or discretion. People who are frequently victimized often become the easiest targets for government theft, for they do not generally believe they can provide for their own defense or capable of preserving their life with their own decisions. Those who become prey for government I do not pity, for they did not prefer to be their own master anyway. Those who seek to live free do so at great cost, for should you dispute the authority of the thief, or rise to defend your property, you will be declared a rebel and an enemy to your country. In such a case where my sovereignty would mark me as a terrorist or any other claim I would say as Thomas Paine did, ““Let them call me rebel, and welcome; I feel no concern from it. For I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.” 3. Social Contract

Although both politicians and the press proclaim that taxation and voting are most prominent indicators for confirming consent from the people, they conveniently downplay the importance of other options. Following the works of Rousseau and Locke a social contract can be made by the people in order to best represent justice. A social contract should include all of the best performing characteristics used by people of contract, and should consider history to provide a pretence for known abuses. Very basic protocol can be required of our governments in areas where abuse has been known to flourish. Foremost, it is seldom found a person who would enter into a contract without a restriction for renewal. For instance, one would not knowingly bind them self into agreement for the remainder of their life. It is beneficial for common minded people to enter into written agreements which will bind them for a short period into the future. They risk less responsibility and are more likely to fulfill their obligations. When the government adopts long term social contracts they often neglect to adequately provide specific means for the people to renew their contract, thus contracts under this principle may bind citizens to the debts and tyrannical establishments created by their parents. In America’s experience we know of an Amendment process provided by our Constitution, and we even retain the method of Constitutional Convention should we seek to redefine our contractual agreement with the government. The amendment process is seldom used and in many ways abused. The convention for discussing as adults the parameters and ends of our government has never happened on a national level. Is it not assumed that people can decide for themselves which government responsibilities maintain their designed enumeration and which do not? Is it not in fact, a responsibility to take alert at debt obligated upon us by our parents and seek to remove its facilities? If not now with urgency, then when should we begin to impose our contractual rights. The danger of letting government legislation and programs stand during our generation is that it sets precedence for future generations to remain disinterested. This is dangerous because legislation which begins as a temporary fix often becomes a 100 year program of the federal government with complete disregard for the original purpose. The next common notion of social contract is that no court should obligate a person to fulfill an obligation to a contract which they were not present for, especially in the case where a citizen might be obligated to fulfill a contract written and signed generations before they were born. Yet, although I recommend our own constitution as a basis for our social contract, it is wholly inadequate without provision for a renewal of consent. Each generation must be allowed to establish which governments they will live under and provide ample methods for future generations to approve or disapprove. Many may fear that by requiring a renewal of citizens approval say every 10 years that they might make our government enormous and utterly unrecognizable. They are mistaken. First of all this will provide incentive for law makers to simplify the burden upon the people, because it is in the interest for law makers to pursue immutable policy which will hold favor in the future generations. It will be more difficult to persuade the people to agree to massive bills of legislation which are barely understood and require reform with each election cycle. Will programs funded by our mounting debt remain functional and small in 50 years or 100 years? Will programs created either unconstitutionally, or unrecognizable to their original enumeration, be removed by the government itself? The second characteristic of a proper social contract is authenticity. You would not feel obligated to make car payments for a vehicle you sign a contract for. Nor would you feel anymore obligated if your friend or peer signed it for you. Why then should I feel obligated to pledge my labor and livelihood to government programs which I never signed an agreement with. Citizens most definitely did not feel obligated during FDR's seizure upon their gold. Nor would any court demand you pay a business for a product you did not buy. Even the less educated illiterate people were capable of at least leaving their mark and were competent enough to be aware of their contractual agreements. Would our founders believe that the constitution was meant to declare our consolidated representatives completely in charge of our individual contractual agreements in all areas, for all time, without once requiring property authenticity? Perhaps it has become so distorted and expansive that the American people cannot agree on anything. Most who follow that belief also believe that dissenters should be forced to comply. Consider the Constitution in its early implementation, was it not a simple set of rules? What portion of its contents would an average citizen agree to, possibly one half or three quarters? Compare that portion with the portion of current U.S legislation, which Americans could reasonable understand and agree with. Nearly each person would give up before reviewing even one year’s amount of legislation, it is an impossible task. Therefore to harvest first a higher level of competency and second a higher portion of general agreement, the law must be simple enough so that average people can willingly sign for their consent. We may not achieve consent through signatures based on our current index of millions of complicated laws, however were the people to discuss in a mature manner the responsibilities of government, perhaps we could come to an agreement as our founders did with the constitution. Consent through signature is an admittedly lofty goal, however the point is that more people would be willing to sign a simple set of rules such as the constitution with less hesitation than agree to the mountains of laws currently on the books. The third characteristic of a proper social contract is arbitration. From time to time citizens must be allowed to confirm agreement or disagreement through amendments to the contract. Should the government seek further responsibilities, or the people seek to write down further natural rights, there must be a pre approve method for alterations. Article 6 of the Constitution declares that our government shall remain in republican form, and adequately provides a republican amendment process in Article 5. Without means for change, government is either forever bound to its written limitations or chooses to favor loose interpretations of it's written limitations. History will often recall the latter. Samuel Adams (wicked tools of tyrant to pervert the plain meaning of words) In either case arising where the amendment process has become void by absents or perversion and avoidance, the authority by which governments claim becomes absolute, irresponsible and irrevocable. It means nothing to provide consent to a government which seldom uses or bypasses the available means for arbitration. At this point I would like the reader to consider our establishment of self government derived through natural law. Our government was not created by divinity, or power, but through a republican agreement to secure our nature rights. It is not hard for any republican to find an example of an abuse of power established by our government. Therefore we must come together, as our opposition's greatest credibility is mocking conservative’s vagueness. Government continues to grow exponentially regardless which weasel puts an R by their name and assumes office. Since Article 6 provides an irrevocable guarantee to the people of our country to provide a republican form of government, I would like to establish a few principles found in the wealthiest and most long lasting republics. Each characteristic is seldom discussed on the election trail but I intent to prove that each is paramount to the preservation of our republic. When it is believed that the government has acted unconstitutional in any manner we should sound the alarm bells of liberty, for our sacred social contract to preserve natural law, and to establish justice has been has been breached. Without a proper contract our government cannot continue to obligate it's citizens to terms made outside of contractual agreement. 4. Localism

Alexander Tocqueville recognized that it is difficult for a person to genuinely become interested in the affairs of the state. It is difficult to understand the impact each piece of legislation will have as it relates to their own personal liberty. Thus he argues, it is beneficial to keep minor administrative affairs to the discretion of citizens, instead of designing large important affairs of the state. Tempting citizens with large public services might win the “favor,” of the people during an election, but to earn “love and respect” requires constant individual kindness.1 Those who would otherwise remain disinterested in the affairs of the state will be perpetually drawn to those whose manners and reputation speak for themselves. By this example it is clear that local freedom is preferred for establishing proper communities, and managing the affairs of the state. Tocqueville provides an outsider's view as to how America functioned before our massive centralization of authority. When speaking about the attitude between economic classes he praised the United States saying, “the more opulent citizens take great care not to stand aloof from the people; on the contrary, they constantly keep on easy terms with the lower classes: they listen to them, they speak to them every day.”2 A rich person knows to provide for the poor through their manners and their merits. For when seeking recognition from the rich it is not money the poor seek but respect. A rich person may forget their pride and economic advantage to concern their day with a less fortunate person. Therefore, equality is naturally promoted through this method, and the rich person may benefit through finding a charitable cause which they know will be appreciated. Consider charity through a pro government perspective, and the upper class were taxed a great percentage more only to go unnoticed by the public. It is an often neglected argument that people provide charity when they can witness the results. It causes resentment when charity is forced from the rich, and given to those who have no means of thanking the person who were the source. To further clarify the difference between a local government and a central or consolidated once I will cite Anti Federalist 14. George Clinton discusses the possibility of a consolidated government enforcing the interest of the slave states upon the northern. The differences between people in both regions are very numerous. The north is frugal; it respects independence, and works hard to create property. Thus, the manners and fortunes of these people are derived from similar sources with similar ambitions. The south, on the other hand, seeks luxury, promotes slavery, and acquires property with much less of an investment of personal effort. Thus the manners and fortunes deriving from such different sources make it difficult to govern them with any hope of a political bond. The 14th amendment eventually would declare a citizen of one state to be a citizen of each. No longer would legislation be based upon those living similar sources of opinion. The success of a state would previously depend on each state's ability to represent the local opinion, and cancerous failures such as slavery would continue to weaken those states which defended it. When states are provided the opportunity to compete and also compare their relative standing, they may recognize failures and quickly remove the source. For example when a government program proves insolvent, it will be easier to remove when it affects fewer people. Also when the actions of neighbors are considered abhorrent, it is easier to confront and convert a well known neighbor than to declare by force a universal law. Clinton illustrates the dangers of consolidated opinions stating, “These principles are, in their exercise, like a pebble case on the calm surface of a river – the circles begin in the center, and are small, active and forcible, but as they depart from that point, they lose their force, and vanish into calmness.”3 Is it possible then, to create a government which can provide a uniform identity for all Americans? Common sense would say no. The people of California have different interest, industry, affiliations, and history than those living in Alabama. It is absurd to believe that a consolidated government can provide the same care an attachment to their legislation than could the local sentiments of the people. I would not be providing ample evidence for my preference toward localism if I did not further distinguish the characteristics of a small republic in comparison with other forms of government. J.J Montesquieu provides some of the most important distinctions for recognizing a tyrannical form of government, which many of our founders cite as the inspiration for their dedication to a republic. In a small republic citizens are particularly inclined only to their own interest. The interest of the public shall remain, “more obvious, better understood, more within the reach of each citizen; and abuses have less extent.” 4 In large republics the public interest seeks to provide over larger territory, while simultaneously pretending cognizance over multiple opinions and interest. To mimic a resemblance of a small republic it must make exceptions to the rule of law through a series of accidents. They serve to promote fear amongst the people, and create an opportunity to further control. Try to notice what events gain the leadership's constant attention. Wherever an accidental failure occurs in either the economy or protecting our nation, the extensive republic seeks to consolidate failed agencies into larger and supposedly streamlined bureaucracies. Accidents are always useful to an extensive republic because the people never tire of them. If a small republic were to fail as often as the large, the people may tire of ever increasing burdens. In reaction they would seek to remove all portions which did not protect them and would be weary of accepting similar programs in their place. In a large republic the blame may be shifted more easily. Since the people do not have direct inspection of the government prior to accidental breakdowns, they know not who to blame in the wake. Although the founders were well aware of the devious temptations of large republics they did not become so without a frame a reference of successful historical republics. In Anti Federalist 18-20 The Newport Man describes a tiny Republic called St. Marino which remained independent for 1300 years, even while their neighbors were powerful and ambitious. A republic such as this can provide hope for the longevity of America considering that many nations declare themselves to be a republic only to be destroyed, often by their own ambition. 5 The second notable Republic mentioned by The Newport Man is the Republic of Lucca. It had existed for over 500 years and was of the wealthiest states in Italy. Surely, the leadership in our own country should admire republics with such longevity and wealth, however I assume most could not recall either one. Pause to consider how our recent governmental administrations might interact with such a place. Lucca was a place which would remain neutral amongst neighbors constantly at war, and whose legislation remained immutable for centuries. Instead our nation boasts of simultaneous legislative inadequacies each requiring quick and drastic changes. The notion that a government is necessary to provide economic growth, and trade would be laughed at in Lucca. In fact Lucca sought to make it nearly impossible for bills of those suggestive natures to pass. They would implement an election process by which the whole of the administration changed hands every two months! Considering the amount of lobbyist developing our legislation, perhaps the United States should adopt such an election cycle. Can you imagine a 1500 page bill being proposed if we held two month elections? 6 This section on localism had attempted to show the reader two things. First, how the United States functioned efficiently by designating most affairs of the government to local authorities, and second how we constructed our republic based on the existing structure and example of the best republics in history, using a standard of longevity and wealth. Although we were formed with the hopes of remaining a peaceful and wealthy nation, there should be no doubt that neither of these qualities remains with us. For all the benefits of remaining as a confederation of small republics, we cannot deny have transformed into a large empire. The design of our constitution establishes a rare appropriation of sovereignty. Although it designates certain enumerated responsibilities to each branch of the Federal Government, it leaves all further questions of authority to the local and state governments to determine. Thus, we have established a nation of dual sovereignty. Although members of the constitutional convention were diligent in their work provide any necessary compromises, it has become quite clear that the concern of a consolidated government was completely valid. The State's were reassured that they would remain the protectors of each republic, and they have all but been dissolved. The vast differences between the governments we serve now, and the one which was designed then is best described by the Anti Federalist, “It is a solecism in politics for two coordinate sovereignties to exist together.... A mixture may exist for a time, but it will inevitably tend in one direction or the other, subjecting the country in the meantime to all the horrors of a divided sovereignty.” 7 5. Judicial Review

In Federalist #10 James Madison admits that in many situations conflicts between rival parties or conflicting jurisdictions are not decided “according to the rules of justice.” In some cases we drift from our republican government and allow an overbearing majority to rule. Although Madison attempts to reassure the reader that majority mob rule will not break through our republican defenses, he describes in particular detail the methods for restoring justice should it take place. When a political disagreement occurs, a faction splits the opinion into majority and minority groups. During such a faction, each person develops a distinct and passionate tie to their cause; therefore it becomes a major problem for governments to make decisions about the issue. Governments have often sought to destroy the liberty which caused the faction, by “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” This method creates unquestioning robotic citizenry, who will eventually die without their soul, ambition, and curiosity. This solution is often considered by powerful states who tire of political disagreements, however, it is better to have citizens with a mind capable of disagreement during events of injustice, rather than a robotic citizenry who are incapable of describing their condition. The better government would recognize factions as a beautiful mechanism of freedom. “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire.” The latter dies without the nourishment of the former.1 The second solution Madison claims should be the first object of government. As long as man is not perfect, each person must be free to form their individual opinions of what perfect is. Each must use one’s “reason” and “self love” to develop “opinions” and “passions.” When this occurs a reciprocal effect will cause each person to constantly dwell upon the best suitable manner to display their passion or opinion. Following this constant meditation, people next choose to attach their passions with objects and tools which allow them to share the thoughts of their mind with others. The right to have diverse interests and to develop them accordingly is where the “rights of property originate.” This is also the primary objective for government, to avoid creating a uniformity of interest, and thus lose all creativity, individuality, etc . Madison continues to describe what a nation would look like should it adopt a pure democracy, which holds no solution for factions because it constantly feeds an unprotected minority to an always supreme majority. When the property of individuals is constantly subject to the theft of the majority power, the government power has always shown, “spectacles of turbulence and contentions.” Thus, as soon as this notion is adopted by the government they have sown the seeds for their own death. As Madison states, “Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in the political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” From this analysis of Madison’s words it should be clear that the primary function of government is to protect the property which is derived from our natural rights. Notice Madison claims that self love and reason are our most paramount faculties. He does so unashamedly because being self interested does not put a person who was self loathing at any disadvantage. Nor should it make the person of confidence and ambition a victim to one or hoards of boring and lazy leftist. Before moving forward, I must declare that this is the primary reason I align myself as a Republican, and not a Democrat. Madison next provides the most important distinction between an honest government and an abusive one. During any occasion of faction, a neutral judge must decide in favor of justice. “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” If any person were allowed to determine the conclusion of their battles every man would be a King. When Madison claims that even one opportunity of self judgment will corrupt his integrity he is absolutely right. Their no longer exist a barrier between self interest and blind greed. This individual would seek conflict where none exist simply to declare or assume victory. The impact of disregarding this principle is inescapable; it is the most terrifying threat to a just government which could ever exist. If this notion takes hold it will establish a time bomb, a mere matter of time before the people lose faith in the courts, or the courts destroy the people. 2 Madison would claim that small republics are poorly defended from invasions of mob rule, and that large government institutions would have a more difficult time convincing a larger region and population. He argued that a large republic would represent a variety of parties and interest and thus would be much more difficult for a majority faction to gain control. While this explanation served as reassurance, it was wholly inadequate. While Madison was correct in some sense, he underestimated his enemies. When he wrote that the alarm bells of liberty would sound at each attempt of usurpation, he also highlighted a more stealthy approach for government consolidation. It is my strongest passion to prove that our Federal Government has become the most abusive judge of their own cause. Of all amendments and changes I would make to our social contract in the constitution, this is the primary source for all usurpations. Every conservative or tea party affiliate enjoys demanding that our government has overstepped its limitations. Each has an idea of what the Constitution means and where it has been usurped. Although I have strong preference to state sovereignty I still support the Constitution, however it is an insult to my intelligence for any candidate claim that they will somehow limit the Federal Government to its constitutional enumerations. Under our current judicial system it is completely unattainable. No elected official is given any say whatsoever as to the limitations of the constitution, as this responsibility now rest with the federal judiciary. They consistently make judgments in favor of power, and their integrity has proven to be corrupt. I have not supported one piece of legislation put forth by the federal government for the duration of my lifetime. Therefore, I make I pledge upon my sacred honor to expose the dangers our founders warned about, and provide real solutions for removing such nasty imposters. Today’s spineless politicians automatically assume that a mere act of legislation can authorize new venues for federal authority and new taxing powers. This assumption comes from a deliberate bypass of our sacred amendment process in Article 5 of the U.S Constitution. James Madison assured the people that the constitution would establish a federal government of “few” and “defined” powers.3 This reassurance by Madison was given before the ratification of our constitution, and has now been interpreted as unlimited and implied powers, suggested by the Supreme Court. Please note that these few powers were agreed upon by the states and the definitions for these powers remained up to the states to interpret. States were fearful that the new government might become irrevocable. Paramount to American self –governance was the preference of localism. For example the Declaration of Independence denounced an irrevocable King on the other side of the ocean for the same reasons we should denounce a national government which establishes irrevocable legislation in Washington. The authors of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, opposed congressional legislation considered outside the powers granted by the ratification of the constitution. Foremost among their concern were the Alien and Sedition Acts because congress never granted constitutional authority to limit speech and were in fact in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Soon after Jefferson was elected president, John Marshall created a new federal power delegated to the Judicial Branch called Judicial Review. This extra constitutional decision in the famous case of Marbury V Madison would forevermore leave the Supreme Court Justices to be responsible for determining the constitutionality of federal law. In opposition to this claim Jefferson wrote, “The constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” 4 I tend to agree with Jefferson and propose that limited government is wholly unattainable under this hypothesis. The first reason any rational person would oppose judicial review is because it establishes a conflict of interest. In reference back to Madison in Federalist #10, each party in any dispute will believe themselves to be the innocent party. To ensure fair trials throughout our judicial system it is paramount that we provide a neutral observer whose circumstance will not influence their decision. We do this through jury trials to ensure our connection to the trial will not be biased toward our own benefit. Yet when a federal branch such as the judiciary is allowed to determine disputes between states or citizens against the federal government it is clear which level of authority will prevail. This was a major concern for all the states ratifying the constitution and it is hard to imagine any state which would have ratified a federal government to interpret law in their own favor. It should also be said that checks and balances concerning the federal government are now insignificant. Sure there may be slight rules to their processes but when multiple branches of the federal government act in concert they inevitably erode and destroy the rights and powers reserved to the states and the people. By allowing the judiciary to make the rulings for their own causes we can assume all co equal branches will plead innocent in every trial of usurpation. The contrast in political positions on this issue remains as this; when an unconstitutional legislation has passed, it is the states that hold the burden of proof to present in a court, or when an unconstitutional piece of legislation has passed it is the Supreme Court who retains the burden of proof. The states, being legislatures seem the rightful candidate, considering that congress is the only federal branch allowed to write laws, and allowing a judicial court to write laws violates the constitutional boundaries as much as allowed the executive to write laws would violate. Those expecting a limited government to return under these conditions will sadly go the way of Madison and Jefferson before them. No recourse – usurpations are unnoticed In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. (TJ) The second reason citizens should oppose judicial review is it establishes an unaccountable branch of the government. Justices are appointed for life and cannot be voted out of office. This leaves the American people with lifelong appointees whose first allegiance is to the President who granted them job security. Have we really allowed Constitutional interpretation to be determined by political favors? Even if the American people were to rally against a law dictator they would not even be able to impeach them. The worst scrutiny newly appointed justices can expect to endure is a few hours of questioning from the senate before they have even been given a chance to prove their incompetence. Thomas Jefferson would joke about this perceived “threat” of impeachment saying that it was a mere scarecrow. Justices therefore, naturally shy away from public opinion and scrutiny, whereas an elected judicial officer might actually be proactive about the position. Not authorized – 10th amend check The third reason to oppose judicial review is that it is unconstitutional. Had the federal government been granted the ability to interpret their own rules the constitution itself would never have been ratified. The power to make rulings between federal interpretation v states interpretations was not granted to the judicial branch by Article 3. Therefore, with what authority did John Marshall assume the power of judicial review? He did not ask for a constitutional amendment to create such a power, and without which the authority does not exist. In fact those who ratified the constitution would show that the issue was already clearly settled before Marshall’s mischief. The 10th amendment is meant to serve as a limitation to federal power. As the last of the declared natural rights in the bill of rights the 10th amendment says that it is the right of the state or the people to interpret the constitution. Even if the 10th amendment is ruled void by interpretation of implied powers, look next to the amendment process for state participation. If an unconstitutional power is granted by the supreme court as an “implied” power should it not only require 25 % of the states to nullify said power. I believe this is a more sound alternative considering it originally required 75% approval to create a federal enumeration through the amendment process, and should the amendment process be subverted by judicial review it should only require the same amount of states to kill existing enumerations created by bypassing the appropriate amendment process. Limited government folk sure do a lot of complaining about programs they dislike as if there is no way to remove a power of the federal government which proves destructive. Above the law – children without rules. The supremacy clause in Article () of the Constitution declares that constitution is higher law than anything else that could be made after it. It stands as my A priori argument that whenever considering any political change we should consider the constitution first. Should change need to ensue, the amendment process exist to provide any necessary power to government which the states and the people deem fit. By granting the power of Judicial Review, John Marshall not only usurped the constitution, he deemed himself and the following justices to be more powerful than the law itself. The constitution which may have otherwise been protected could now be systematically removed from the hearts and minds of the people. Today the supremacy clause is ignored. Courts now consider first the supreme courts precedence and the text of the constitution with proper amendments second. What a daunting task for a law abiding citizen to remain lawful. Each citizen would be able to defend oneself were they allowed to use the constitution in their defense. However no citizen is capable of defending oneself with full comprehension of Supreme Court precedence. Since the states created a federal government through the ratification of the constitution, it only makes sense that the states are the main authority to decide the limits provided by the constitution. The federal government being a collective child of the states should not be allowed to interpret their own rules, for the same reasons that parents[ who expect their kids to behave ] do not allow their children to interpret their rules as they see fit. We have hired the supreme court to baby sit our law according to our{states] rules[limitations] only to come home to a child with a fierce temper tantrum, unrecognizable, and impossible to calm. To reassure the reader that these thoughts are not simply my own, I would like to discuss concerns from the states prior to the ratification of the constitution. The example I am using comes from Anti Federalist #49. It always gives me vindication to know that my complaints aren’t purely resting on a paranoid notion which I have developed, but instead they were serious concerns before the supreme court was even created. If the states were to ratify the constitution they would only do so with the belief that they were creating a subordinate authority. The powers remaining with the states must remain as independent powers. While acting individually the states fought for independence and established government by their own decision. They were successful not in spite of their independent actions but because of them. This is a much higher standing than they would hold under the supposedly subordinate federal government. The amendment process within the constitution does not provide any independent authority to the states. Since a federal government could not exist without the states previous approval for ratification, why then, can states not amend the original? Were they considered too dumb, incapable, ill suited? I do not think this was the case. Without an independent mechanism for states to re confirm or adjust the limitations of the federal government, we become stuck with a Frankenstein government. We have created a monster with the best intentions, however we hold no control over it. As the OLD WHIG states, “Three fourths of the legislatures of the several states, as they are now called, may ratify amendments – that is, if the Congress see fit, but not without. Where is there any independent state authority recognized in the plan? And if there is no independent state authority, how can there be a union of states?”5 The Old Whig would continue in his opposition to the constitution by questioning the role of congress in calling for a constitutional convention. “We need not expect two third of them ever to interfere in so momentous a question as that of calling a continental convention.” 6 His reasoning baffles the political science pundits of today, however he is quite clear to me. The independent states which won their sovereignty from Britain with the treaty of Paris could never be subverted. Should they agree to create a national government, they need not consult their creation further, if it in fact turns out to be a beast. If Americans are ever to realize their mistakes we should not be required to contemplate any further dialog from the beast. Many other people explain this message by saying the term the emperor has no clothes, I argue they have no sovereignty as it naturally remains always with the people. "It is a testament to the difficulty of having a constitutional challenge heard that, as of the end of 2002, the Supreme Court had struck down only 158 provisions of federal statutes. Considering how voluminous are the federal laws and regulations, this is a very dismal showing on the part of the Supreme Court." Warren Michelsen The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, Sec. 177; late 2nd edition, Sec. 256 6. Mutable Policy(goes next not finished)

One understanding which is often lost in the translation of the U.S Constitution is the difference between the our House of Representatives, and our Senate. Originally it was designed that the House of Representatives would hold elections more often to frequently refresh the chance of the people to have their will represented. One term used to describe this politician is a statesman. A person who actively listens to his constituents and bases his political actions as a direct copy of their interpretation of the call of the people. The perspective of such a person could focus more on their ability to listen to the people, and less about their credentials as a legislator. The Senate was intended to be very different. A Senator was to have elections less frequently and represent a person of proven virtue and credibility as an experience member of the local government. Fewer elections gave our government stability and allowed a member of each local government to represent their native land as a leader of our nation. Had Senators been designed to simply represent the ever changing will of the people, we might be viewed internationally as a democracy of mob rule, or similar unstable forms of government. For this reason a Senator was thought to be a trustee, or a person whose individual achievements in the local government provided credibility for their candidacy on a national level. Thus, this person was a known and respected individual among the local people long before a possible run for federal employment. After the 17th Amendment it has become more difficult to associate with a new contender for the seat, as they are not required to have previously served as a public servant to the people. This observations should stand as an example of a check and balance which has been removed from the constitution, for James Madison was very clear that a Senator would act as the representative of the states and not the people. In Federalist #62 he describes this role as an “ingredient in the constitution,” as, “additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.” Thus, by removing notion of holding trustees in the Senate, we have created two branches of congress intended to represent the majority of the people. Madison felt this would never happen and that “sinister combinations,” could not occur due to the “proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies.” He also felt that many would make it a political issue to distinguish one from the other, as a republican government would always retain representatives of the states; without the invasion from a mob rule electoral process. By eliminating the requirement of having experience on the local government level, the political process in America is changed in many ways. The representatives of the people were believed to be more subject to change and representing the will of the people as their opinions split into numerous factions. In many ways the process for the peoples representatives was more mutable than the Senators who were to serve a more constant position of their respective states. The effect has had some “sinister combinations,” within our federal government which has evolved our political process. Most notably is the velocity at which our federal government can alter the responsibilities required of their legislation. It was considered more difficult to pass legislation which would offend the positions of other states, most often in cases of the state's independence. Madison believed that we would one day experience dangers he called mutable policy. The danger of having multiple people in power is that they may seek to lay a burden upon the people which changes so frequently that is difficult to comprehend. Also with frequent change comes uncertainty from the people considering the validity of large legislative compromises. For example Madison felt that constant change within our government may appear reckless to other nations who might view our inability to stick to certain plans as a weakness, by which they could exploit. For example when an administration glorifies legislation which passes through the federal government but holds much opposition from the people, foreign governments may view the proposed government solutions as an inability to reach agreement with the people and would likewise avoid long term association with such an ineffective government. Madison describes this lesson in such a well thought paragraph, it is essential to include the entire example. This message is incredibly important for current leaders to examine, and future leaders to cherish. “In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.” The image of America has always been important to it's citizens, in response there is usually a heated debate about how to best protect from the invasion of foreign influence. As much attention is given to remain in a positive light abroad, is also necessary to maintain within. It is one level of embarrassment to be overtaken by a foreign power, and a much higher embarrassment to be destroyed internally. For this reason Madison, would warn of the internal effects of mutable policy by claiming, “It poisons the blessing of liberty itself.” He would argue that it doesn't matter who the people choose to represent them, if the laws are so “voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” With laws so large, they must always undergo revisions and constant amendments and reforms from their initial design. It is often argued in business terms that investments will not be made by the people holding capital if the market seems immensely volatile. The same is true of all actions, that most avoid making difficult decisions if they cannot grasp with insight, the results which will occur. Madison says, “Law is defined as a rule of action; but how can that be a rule which is little known, and less fixed.” He might add that a law which is little known, is hardly obeyed. Madison's argument cannot be extrapolated from his meaning as it relates to the constitution. For he believed strongly that provisions were made adequate enough to avoid a legislative library of millions of pages, precisely because the Senators held a role to minimize the intrusions of the federal government for their respective states. He would prove this position along with Thomas Jefferson when they proposed the Kentucky and Virginia Acts to nullify the Alien and Sedition acts. A further observation is that many federal institutions would not exist if Senators were of state governments which held specific provisions within their state constitutions opposed to the federal initiative. For example, a state may adopt an immigration policy, or transportation policy completely removed from federal discretion. Upon a new bureaucracy being presented on the federal level, several states may block through their senators, any intrusion as it relates to their specify state constitutions. This position holds immense value to Madison because he also believed in a tendency of corruption to follow a mutable policy. For it was obvious that some might watch the changes in policy carefully and once aware of its mechanisms and processes may seek to use the policy to their own advantages. This may be a birthplace to the political lobbyist. If one company can rule the products of a different on to be dangerous or unfit for the public, they may achieve a state granted monopoly. Often they may simply seek contract with the government, and by obtaining a special bid, may claim a new market for their company with relatively easy maintenance. They must simply extend political contributions to the members of the industrial elites periodically, and society would never know the difference. Madison would better explain this idea further by writing, “Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.” The disappointment of such a realization can be overwhelming to a person, when they finally understand that all laws written in their lifetime are of no value to the people. The political pundits can argue for every bill within Congress, yet each is cluttered, difficult to understand, and of such length no person even attempt to read them in entirety. No person should even speak of the worthiness of a law which they cannot credibly understand. Students of the future may as well seek PHD's in specific Article 5 Section 4b Subsection 6 on page 2421 of the how to be a lawful citizen bill, in order to show political competency. Why even argue with a court which holds so many laws, no team of lawyers could adequately defend? In the worst conditions consent can be assumed by a society too discouraged to even argue for their rights. When we consider that law is held to posses everything good about a society, we find society's attachment to it's cause remains long after the basic premise of law is lost. It may hold completely contradictory definitions to the government’s initial foundation, and the people do not struggle because at one time, the law represented something good. Madison would describe this as means which, “steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes.” The purpose of this section is not to conclude that Senators bear the only burden to avoid mutable policy, but just to begin the notion that the states at one time held dual sovereignty as a paramount mission, and the citizens of the states were free to compete amongst each other for the best form of government. This is the capstone of localism, that competing interpretations of law is not only easier to find influence, but also makes law corrections more meaningful. If it is unsuitable for one region and suitable for another, then they may live in peace, each maintaining their respective definitions. Whenever a person claims to be the utmost expert of national law, you may be certain that they are lying. Even a judge cannot claim to understand but a portion of the law which his daily tasks require him to follow, this is very different from a broad understanding of the purpose of law. Within our system I believe it obvious that our judicial system with too much power. Previously, I covered Judicial Review which allows a federal group of few people, to reign supreme as our legal interpretation. I believe the states are the rightful interpreters of constitutional interpretation because they are the only natural neutral observer. My position is often justified by every provision offered of federal legislation. The Amendment process is ignored to bypass state participation, and the Supreme Court need only assume the legislation permissible to make it law. My contention is this: Mutable policy is less likely to occur under a state judicial system. An 80 year war is unlawful when undeclared, according to Article 1 Sect 8 of the Constitution, yet it is permissible under a judicial system of appointees from various commanders in chief. Legal Tender is Gold and Silver as also described in Article 1 of the Constitution. Yet legislative bills of all sorts have given us 100 years of an ambiguous form of money. Some people still believe Gold has some government contract with our money today. Did the Supreme Court take a 100 year nap, from their responsibility to define our money? No the Keynesians say, money can be whatever the government demands. The gold price maintained $20 per oz for roughly 150 years, $35 per oz for 50 years, and magically with no explanation from the government pops up to $1400 per oz. These are some of the more obvious long term effects of mutable policy, however most of their effects occur in how citizens may participate in the government. A simple law to follow is a simple law to defend. Our Constitution once the Supreme Law of the Land, is now the Supreme law of John Marshall, and the lackadaisical puppets who have sat on the bench after him. Early in America a common man who was facing trial could gather his family around, read the constitution with them, and determine the correct course for defense. Now we hold so many barriers to proving our own innocent, that many people default to pleading guilty not because they are but because it is an embarrassing process to prove justice in America. One must first hire a lawyer who assumedly has read through more of our millions of laws that the defendant. Upon arriving at trial the system has already registered an itemized list of petty offenses used to hold the citizen prisoner until they can total up his conviction. He may have have his words used against him, often in violation of his 1st and 5th amendment rights, he may be searched without warrant in violation of the 4th, or he may be beaten or tassed until he complies in violation of the 8th amendment. While we are on this course we know that no state is capable of defending the 9th, and 10th without the branch of Senators or any legislative participation. If my paper highlights much to the reader, it should be recognized that people are unwilling to defend even their most natural rights guaranteed to be protected under the Bill of Rights. This is the danger which follows mutable policy, you will create a society so discussed with the laws which govern them refuse to dedicate any patriotism toward learning their rights. Every time I turn the T.V channel to CSPAN I get moans and groans, yes its boring, but its the most important channel our mind control boxes are allowed to broadcast. America has become slugs as our apathy begets more apathy. If it is not tyranny I do not know what is. When the law is made thick and coercive it helps the people to forget their individual rights, a Tyrant has made his victory. No one was killed and the people are completely subservient to the state. I know this opinion is as extreme as Thomas Jefferson himself, however I see no path toward a free America, without control of our laws. Judicial Review enables mutable policy, and when mutable policy pushes out the last definition of our liberty, we can be certain we have been conquered internally. This is the most embarrassing problem to occur in a nation, to lose the definitions of their language, law, and means to resolve conflict. What an utter shame, that a once free people, can continue bickering over our leaders as if some form of legislation will not be mutable. He is my challenge for those who believe my position is too bold. Name me one important piece of legislation which has not been considered for reform every election. Our education departments slide millions of pages of paper work, the health care mess, immigration reform is a constant, renewals for more military spending every session. Madison said “A LAW WHICH IS LESSER KNOWN IS LESSER FIXED. Which President in your memory has implemented a program that has not either proven a complete failure, or has been the topic for massive reform for the past 5 or 10 years. Our Congress doesn't pass bills to fix a problem and never return to it again, they prefer to purposely leave loop holes to insure the problem is reoccurring and a vital piece for their re- election.1 7. Legal Plunder

There are two kinds of plunder. One is against the law and produces a great sense of alarm by all of the people. The second perverts the law and is recognized by only a few. People who seek to obtain property and wealth must do so through labor. Labor and knowledge require patience and repetition; therefore those who covet the products of a more experienced person often tend to resent their toils of trial and error. It is not always a bad thing to seek short cuts for it is natural to want more achievement with less effort. Some find cooperation, exchange, and agreement a suitable alternative to figuring everything out for one ‘self. Others avoid seeking such counsel as it requires competition, which can damage the ego of the insecure by showcasing their inadequacies. Thus, many people resort to plunder in all occasions where it requires less effort than work. Citizens throughout history have been aware of this type of character and rightly provide defense against it. Americans reserving the right to bear arms have done particularly well in this regard. A criminal bent toward blind greed must risk their life to steal from a fellow citizen therefore those who would otherwise resort to theft have been forced to live within the limits of natural law and justice. Criminals can however adapt. By recognizing the charitable tendencies of their fellow citizen they may seek to have things stolen on their behalf. This is the premise of legal plunder. The law whose practice of force is only justified in defense, would now share in the violent aggression of the criminals. To determine whether the law participates in plunder you must only find a law that takes from some people what belongs to them, and gives it to other people whom it does not belong. In other words, “see if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” If I were to travel door to door with a gun in the face of each home owner, demanding money, they would only feel compelled to turn over their property in fear of being injured. My action would not be justified by my reassurance that I was only robbing each person to give it to those in more need of it than they. Victims also would not be further comforted if I gave them pamphlets describing some sick and elderly who would benefit from this theft. Upon my departure each victim would notify the authorities that a crazy person with a gun was robbing the neighborhood indiscriminately and must be stopped. When the government attempts to disguise similar acts of violence under the public’s perception of legal benevolence and virtue, they will find it is much easier pull off. The public who cannot pay taxes in accordance to their preferences must pay for both proper government programs and the legal plunder hidden within it. Legal plunder should not be confused as an argument against all taxes. Some programs of the government are necessary and do not benefit certain citizens at the expense of the others. For example, by establishing universal weights and measures to currency the government may provide a mint. The people could bring their gold or silver to have it processed into easily recognizable currency. They could not refuse services to any portion of the public, and they cannot offer special privileges to another. However, the cost of establishing the U.S Mint is considerable; Buildings must be made, machines ordered, and salaries must pay those who work there. Thus, taxes are the inherent mechanism for payment. Citizens are not given the option of only paying taxes to those programs of the government which provide neutral services, therefore the programs of legal plunder continue to be financed by the coercion of taxes. Those who pervert the law into an agent of their theft realize that the public is often compassionate and charitable toward the sick and hungry. Therefore they publicize the idea of forced fraternity in all areas, such as, welfare, education, morality, agriculture, industry, etc. The people who support these programs act with false philanthropy, for by supplying payment, they simultaneously speak for all others. True philanthropy on the other hand, cannot be given except by individual will. Even if someone chooses a welfare program to be worthy of their charity, they have no right to speak on behalf of anyone else. Therefore, False Philanthropy invites violations of ownership. People generally believe our tax system through the income tax guarantees a portion of our earnings to the government, however combined with false philanthropy we have simultaneously agreed to give up all of our earnings and to keep only what the false philanthropy doesn’t consume. Who is to decide the limitations of this plunder, if there is one? On what criteria to we justify forced charity, and which causes are exempt? Who will speak for the victims, and how will they respond? Any person upon recognizing their victimization of such plunder only has two realistic options. First they may wish to rebel. “When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.” They might denounce the crime and refuse to participate in it. If this is the case, they should expect ridicule as an unpatriotic tax cheat. If they continue to standby their morality they can expect to be imprisoned or killed depending on their perspective of live free or die. The government doesn’t make exceptions for non compliance. If a person chooses to continue payment into the plunder but refuses to reap it’s rewords they have declared themselves to be a willing victim by default. Woe to this person who does not participate in legal plunder, for they will forfeit their independence, and become the slave class to their fellow citizens. The only other alternative for victims of legal plunder is to share in it. Early in the inception of legal plunder the few take from the many. Upon recognizing the plunder they have been subjected to, victims will seek reprisals. Further, when such a large tax base exist by coercion, each victim will make appeals to the greatest portion of booty as possible. Left with no other options victims, “emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interest.” Many believe that legalized plunder could somehow remain only for certain necessary causes. However, when the wealthy classes realize they have been victimized by the law, and that theft has been made appropriate for certain classes, they will use legal plunder for the same purposes as those with blind greed who initially perverted the law. They will no longer seek to avoid labor through cooperation of other companies and a loyal customer base. Now all they need is find favor from the government. They will not appeal to benefit from legal plunder directly for themselves; instead they will propose charitable government programs for the needy, which might so happen to benefit their company. It is a fundamental law of economics that when businesses no longer have to compete for their customers they will become careless and corrupt. They will take the money redistributed to them by the government, stuff their pockets, and feed the poor with the scraps. Legal plunder programs are initially sold as a Robin Hood theories of take from the rich and give to the poor, however they do just the opposite. The rich are not so stupid and lazy to sit idly as their earnings are forced away from them. They not only become participants, they seek to control the government in their favor. Does anyone believe Congress has an interest in funding the poor? The poor cannot fund a campaign, against the funding of a corporation. They don’t write legislation to benefit the people who did not help elect them. The legislation is meant to grant monopolies. Still liberals blame the corporation as if this end result began by corporate greed. This is not the case. Companies will always be forced to deal by cooperation and agreement, until they recognize that the only way to stay in business is by sharing in the plunder under the law. The choice we are left with No body plunders anybody. The few plunder the many. Everybody plunder everybody. 1 8. Vices Are Not Crimes

To provide a consistent pursuit of justice we must make known to all people which actions are criminal and which actions are not. Logic will tell any intelligent person that institutionalized vagueness in the pursuit of justice can only result in more injustice. Many will be falsely imprisoned or in real terms kidnapped. On the inverse many criminals will continue unnoticed in their destruction, while the justice system continues to exhaust resources searching innocent citizens for crime. When I witness this tragedy within our current justice system, I am reminded of my poorly trained dog. Being a servant similar to the justice system, it brings me pleasure to see my dog guard my property, to take alert at any intruder be it a squirrel or the mail carrier. It provides me with a sense of security and justification for having purchased the animal. Also I am vindicated for having put for the effort in maintaining my dog's health and well being. My dog however, is not always so efficient in its guarding practices. For instance, sometimes my dog will chase it's own tail passionately until it collapses with exhaustion. Meanwhile, squirrels, and other natural invaders breach my dog's perimeter without challenge. I wish I could communicate to my dog that tail chasing is a waste of energy, and the guarding of the yard which I have faithfully entrusted to her has not been achieved. While noticing this silly nature of my dog, I cannot help but draw a strong correlation with our current justice system. One which cannot tell the different between a criminal and it's own back end. Determining how to correct my dogs behavior and that of the justice system are also similar. My dog is scolded and spanked for chasing her tail for it is inappropriate for a guard dog further the confusion. The law enforcement, however, is often rewarded. While my verbal limitations may continue to be a barrier to my dog's interpretation of her job. I cannot use the same excuse when observing the same example in the justice system. While others may become cheerleaders of our justice system by giving them treats and rewards, I will attempt to restore our security with the same methods used on my dog. First I will scold with this paper to show them the error of their interpretation. Next I will attempt to spank them with all my bravery can muster through civil disobedience. This will no doubt be a challenging task because dogs don't listen to human logic and bad mannered dogs will bite their owner when spanked. Although our justice system has much bigger teeth than my dog I will not be fearful, for it is better to be bitten, than to let our hired guardian believe they are to our master. This section to follow is my interpretation of the work by Lysander Spooner called Vices are not Crimes. His critic is vital to anyone who dislikes a nanny state government in the affairs of individuals, or who fiercely oppose the welfare state as a destroyer of family values. He attempts, and in my opinion succeeds in describing the true nature of crime and which of them are most dangerous to a free society. A crime cannot occur without a victim. Any action taken against oneself should not be granted any consideration of any court system provided by society. Those actions which may be harmful to one's self are not a crime but instead are a vice. “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.” Each decision a person makes is in pursuit of virtue or viciousness. We always base our choices in pursuit of our physiological, emotion, and mental desires. The results of each action leaves us either happier or less happy on a relative scale. Thus, no action may be deemed indifferent. Even the event of sitting idle with no particular action is a result of our desires. While some may view it as meditation, others may see it as a waste of time. It is from this distinction that we may also determine that what may tend toward one person's happiness, may also leave another less happy. Also, a person who was once made happy by a certain action, may find in a different circumstance that the same action now brings them pain. Those who claim to know which actions are virtuous and which are vicious are liars. It is more complex than any one person, let alone string of generations can determine. There is not an invisible line which one must not cross before entering into the actions of the vicious, except to the degree each individual perceives as their results. This is to say that actions are not black and white, and the thin imaginary line between good and evil has at best a large portion of gray mixed throughout. Also since our perception of right and wrong are subject to change with circumstance and time, each of us is likely to have an abstract mural of variant shades between black and white. Therefore, to create such an ability, to see which actions will result in happiness and which in sadness, would require the ability to observe the future. Those who claim to know which of your actions are a vice and which are not, forget that vices are usually pleasurable. They do not advertise their ill effects initially, if ever. The person with a vice of chocolate eating would defend such an action as bringing them happiness. However, upon eating too much they may find that their stomach disagrees entirely. In this example even the individual's body cannot reach an agreement. Imagine at chocolate eating fan club, where participants brought hoards of chocolate to the an event pot lock style. Were the leader to declare that the maximum chocolate limit was say 10 pieces, the club would dissolve into an angry mob. They cannot expect to accurately determine where chocolate eating becomes a vice within their own body, not to mention a whole group. However fundamental this lesson may be people, most notably government, still attempts to do just what the chocolate club leader did by setting a limit. They claim, “we have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it. We have determined it, not only for ourselves, but for all others. And, as to all of those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion. We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by anyone.” Besides the coercive nature of this method, no intelligent person should defend this tyranny as achievable. Notions such as this insult the intelligence of the citizenry, and the failure of such programs will be made obvious by innumerable acts of disobedience. The alternative is a natural one, and will always prevail. No one of us is exactly alike in our opinion or knowledge, therefore lessons of virtue and vice cannot forced upon another person. “Each must learn it for one's self.” To really learn from experience each must be allowed to experiment in all situations which require our judgment. When an experiment succeeds one would call it virtue, and, when they fail will call it vice. It is impossible to gain knowledge without both, for no person would truly know joy if they had not felt pain and the reciprocal. The freedom to experience the depths of triumph and failure is the foundation of knowledge. The practice of coercion in the decisions of others is the foundation of mind control and the first step toward slavery. It is because of this danger that we should take great alarm. No one should base the direction of their actions on the will of another, yet our culture trains children from their birth to submit not to their own reason, but to the all knowing authorities. Even parents who generally have better motives subject their children to this pattern of ignorance. When parents attempt to force their child to be virtuous it is often through a method of making them at the same time ignorant of vice. They want their children to prefer truth without knowing falsehood. They want their children to seek light without exposing them to darkness. By these examples, can you see that they want happy children by keeping them ignorant of everything that could make them unhappy? No parent wants an unhappy child, however it is impossible for a child to retain a feeling of happiness if everything in the world terrifies them. A child that does not experience darkness it will continue to fear it as it grows and matures. A child held in ignorance will never experience what nature would provide. Nature provides knowledge through experience which no parent can provide. For example, how could a parent explain the nature of fire? Before the child really knows it, they must be free to experiment with it, and be burnt by it. I am not advocating that parents go throw their children into fires to experience natures lesson. Parents should share their own reasoning and experience with their children, but allow the child to experience any situation which they are capable of judging for themselves. If a parent truly wants their child to value their advice they will let them free. It is only a matter of time before the child seeks experiences of their own, and when they do they will judge for themselves. Better a child that finds by experience that their parents advice was truthful than one who decides they have been lied to. They will no longer trust their parents tales of reasoning or experience and will venture forth on a more painful path of experience without parental guidance. These methods of coercion will not produce wise or virtuous children instead they will become weak and vicious. It will be repeated and perpetuated, passing down the superstitions of the parents. Should this pattern be continued, the perception of the nature of man will go with it. Ignorant children will be born into the world cautious of others. They will suspect that all those different than they will seek to do them harm. Never has a pattern been more dangerous to the youth than this; they will eventually become so fearful that they will reject the humanity around them rather than embrace it. It should now be clear, the impossibility of determining the quality of another human's actions as they relate to the human's personal well being. No one can truly determine for anybody but oneself. Such a feat is surely difficult however should anyone succeed they may truly claim happiness. It should not be forgotten that to achieve such happiness each must be guaranteed the right to pursuit it. Although declared as a right of existence, along with life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is under attack. I have often wondered why Thomas Jefferson did not just right the word property instead of the pursuit of happiness and now I know. The pursuit of happiness is the right to wealth, both through property and knowledge. To gain knowledge one must not be limited in their exploration. Taboo and superstitions have held entire generations to silly limitations of intelligence long enough. Vices are a bothersome effect upon each person. If happiness were inherent we would have no difference in opinion and we would be identical in our advantages and disadvantages. However, in the real world happiness is a journey and we must recognized our strengths and weaknesses. Each person has vices and a great many of them. A person who is overweight will notice they may have health and social problems, thus their gluttony, lack of exercise, or both comprise the vice which is the culprit. A sad person may experience anxiety and a lack of ambition to which their emotions comprise the vice which is the culprit. A less frugal person may act wastefully with their wealth which causes economic problems to which their inability to save money comprised the vice which is the culprit. A person who smokes marijuana too much may find a loss of ambition to which idleness is the vice which is the culprit. It should now be obvious that government would be completely absurd to pretend cognizance of vices and punish them as crimes. We would cast blame at every person we knew who was, in our opinion, not living to the standard of perfect human existence. Next we should all join hands walk into a prison like complex and shut the door and begin to rot. The only dilemma remaining for human kind would be figuring out who would remain outside to lock us in. At least this system would be fair, and in recognizing each of us has faults we would be treated equally under the law. Although we are very good at recognizing the vices of others, the same cannot be said when looking internally. Perhaps our biggest vice could then be described as hypocrisy. Comprised from a large misunderstanding of freedom, we seek protection from witnessing the vices of others, while at the same time no person wants protection from their themselves. What supreme right has been granted to say “The vices of other men we will punish; but our own vices nobody shall punish? We will restrain other men from seeking their own happiness, according to their own notions of it; but nobody shall restrain us from seeking our own happiness.” No person within this nation or any nation granted equal protection under the law should obey such a tyrant. What I say next may disturb some but I challenge any reader to refute me. I honor and praise many people locked away in our prisons. It is a testimate to the ideas of Henry David Thoreau and all Civil Disobedience after him. Many of those in prison, although full of vices, prove the aggression and evil of the government. Is it not surprising to find that by systematically removing the inherent right to pursuit happiness, that we would eventually imprison a greater portion of our population than any civilized nation in the world remaining. This cannot be America, not the one I have been told so many stories of honor. While listening to the national anthem I hear the land of the sheep and the home of the prisons. It is not difficult to determine criminal actions, yet we have become terrible at it. I will reserve some respect for the citizenry for they are merely naïve, but for the justice system I cannot spare any sympathy for an institution which would pervert justice. While they continue to subject the poor, weak, and desperate portions of our citizenry to rot on our dime, they conveniently turn a blind eye to the major injustices in the world. I want my fellow people back, to share my freedom with them, and I want prosecution for the most sinister and designing criminals remaining unscathed. Upon repealing all laws punishing a vice as a crime it becomes simple and easy for a government to recognize a crime. Every person wants to be protected against injury of their person and property. If such an act occurs against an individual's will they have been injured and should rightly appeal to the courts for reciprocity. However, should the individual agree to a fight and either party become injured they can no longer make an appeal as a victim. Similarly if a person willing gambles money and loses they cannot claim that any theft occurred. This is a maxim of the law, “To the willing, no injury is done.” The only remaining exception is in the case where an individual was purposely deceived at the time of consent. This is the foundation of fraud. In no other situation no matter how government officials may appeal may be considered a crime in accordance with justice. 9. Money Doctrine

The Human race has proved to be persistent in their pursuit of cooperation. We have expelled much of the hatred which has kept us fearful of each other. People of every possible kind have become capable of sharing ideas and creating a better world. This portion of my study concerns the historical pillars of human cooperation from my perspective. Justice has been felt throughout human existence, far before the development of sovereignty and government. Our ever evolving human race has maintained elements of cooperation in even the most dire occasions. Each successful event becomes a legend to live after, a shining moment upon history whereby compassion prevailed against the enemies of cooperation. (russia example matt ridley-first chapter) At some point each person walking this earth will contemplate the legacy of their life. Who will wish to be remembered as hated and alone? No person will, because it is our nature to seek cooperation. It allows ideas to flourish and spread. Thus, each life is made easier and more enjoyable. If another human is pleased by your cooperation they may seek to work with you again. Eventually, it will be known to the community around you, that cooperation with you as an individual is highly beneficial. Therefore, your legacy in life can be filled with respect and friendship. Upon understanding the natural incentives for cooperation, we must develop it's form. To spread cooperation to different types of people would require a general procedure. When a human is in trouble, and is helped by another, an emotion of gratitude is often felt. Thus one person may find favor with another. Upon doing so, a relationship of mutual help can be established. When one man gives a another his lumber, and finds he was given a supply of fish in return, what shall it be called? A favor or a trade? The favor is the emotion, while the trade is the action. For a person to seek trade they must first find favor. Once established, they seek to trade items,time,ideas to diversify their property. Upon receiving trade, each will feel added gratitude toward the person of their favor, naturally increasing the possibility of a repeated transaction. Therefore it should be agreed that trade is an essential component of human cooperation. We do not wish to always receive nor do we wish to always give. The most which natural cooperation wishes of us is to trade graciously with those who find us in their favor. We do not seek to trade with those are not gracious towards our cooperation, no more than we would trade an hour of labor for a punch in the face. Trade has held our race together during the darkest hour, anytime something was needed and favor had been established, trade would pull us through. Today is also a dark hour. Many are in need and trade is suffering. No matter what triumphant tales of trade we share, it remains a pillar of cooperation under constant attack. Trade brought about the greatest discoveries on earth, and it continues to banish the plague the slavery from our hearts. By trade we can be honest, and put down our guards. We can finally live without coercion from any sovereign entity, and can live completely in agreement with those of our choosing. Yet, attacks on this way of life are increasing. People often disagree when it comes implementing universal trade. Governments have attempted a variety of economic strategies of trade ranging from, protected favor of few, to mandatory universal trade. Yet, whenever people seek natural universal trade it is demonized as evil. For example, if I trade lumber to my community I am limited to shopping for supplies only from those who need my wood. If I want to buy a woman a silky dress it may be difficult to trade my lumber for something favorable to the dress maker. My trade is still honorable and my transactions consist of a proven many agreements, however my attempts to trade with all is an utter failure. My only natural alternative left within a free society is to use a token of honor system. A universal object to document trades achieved and used by all. This of course is the nature of money. Although money merely establishing a universal symbol for trade, it also creates an enemy of cooperation in envy. My lumber company no longer limited to the association of mutual need can now produce for any customer regardless of their trade. Each consecutive trade provides a new home within my community, and my tokens of honor have provided enough capital savings to start a family. However, if my ambition for trade produces a large surplus for my family, I am liable to be called greedy. Thus, with all the blessings established within the creation of money, comes the envy of the lazy. Those who would resent your individual trade or cooperation before the establishment of money, now seek your cooperation by coercion of the masses. They deny my supplies of lumber for a home, when I sought to trade favors from their market, and now when I have built a great many houses with the favor of others, I am greedy for using money as my means for achieving universal favor. This distinction could not be more historically important, for if trade makes cooperation possible, proper money makes innovation universal. Both trade and money have existed long before any government. Many rulers and governments have sought to pervert money and trade to favor their own cause. Nearly every attempt would bring their downfall. This section will attempt a long awaited treatise, to recognize the benefits to human cooperation through the invention of trade and money. An invention of our natural evolution as vital to our survival as language, math, science, and law. Money is only of tool of exchange or a means of facilitating efficient trade. It could not have been invented without trade before it, nor could it continue to exist without goods produced or the people capable of producing them. It establishes a form of payment for those wishing to trade their effort for the effort of others. When using proper money, payment is accepted with the intention of exchanging it for the products produced by others. When people are denied the use of money, innovation slows to a halt, because money allows people to use synergy to combine ideas. It is essential as the root of production, imagine the computer from which I am typing without the trade facilitating electricity from birth to global communication. Money creates an even opportunity to each person to sell their talents and abilities to those who find them valuable. It provides incentive for the ambitious to cooperate, as an army of do gooders, whose entire purpose is to produce effort worthy another persons reason. People are not rewarded when creating junk, but are rewarded for showcasing specialized talents. By this natural process, money establishes cooperation designed to outlast any coercive body. Money makes certain demands of people who have been made aware of it's benefits. The first of which is to abandon all attempts of coercion. It will only go to those who cooperate at the expense of those who do not. It will provide for the hard working at the expense of the lazy. Money can set no price of its own, and your money will only reflect the amount others are willing to pay for the products of your effort. Therefore all it demands of each person is to offer value to others, to advertise your willingness to cooperate based on the needs and desires which you are capable of providing. Where trade had once established growing populations flourishing with cooperation, money would follow to further distance generations from the dangers of poverty and death at a greatly accelerated rate. Parents can now leave their children with means for happier life with each passing generation. Money will not,however, bring happiness to those who do not know what they want. It cannot provide a sense of purpose, nor buy friendship, nor respect. It is only an effect of progress and cooperation, it cannot replace the individual as the source. Yet for all the opportunities money provides for those who know what they want, others despise still despise it. Money existed long before nations, and it specifically played a vital part in our nation's independence and legacy. Our nation was the first to witness the effects of a free mind and an honest money. The results of which changed the face of history. We created the wealthiest place on earth in a short amount of time. We went from horseback to the moon and back in a matter of a couple centuries. This breakout in innovation cannot be compared to any other civilization to roam this earth. Before our nation fortunes were obtained through conquest instead of cooperation. We established the idea that fortunes are made by working together, using money to increase the efficiency of our trade. Money was previously considered a static quantity, which was to be divided in portions amongst the people, however our country proved to the world that money and wealth is something to be created. We declared prosperity to be our destination and money to serve as our chariot. When the founders established our government, it was a major issue of importance to use a money that would meet all criteria of the best forms of money throughout history. The British had denied the colonies the issuance of their own currency, which bound them to the perpetual debt owed by the British to Bank of England. The currency was loaned at interest to the British Empire and the colonist felt they were being robbed of their property through taxation. The British continued to fight wars and increase their debts, while simultaneously requiring taxes to be paid by the colonist in specie payment. Therefore it became a popular sentiment of the colonist to revolt against paying for the debt of the British Imperialism. The colonist soon became aware that they would not be able break away from British while continuing in labor to the economy and money system of the Bank of England. They would create visible opposition by tar and feathering tax collectors, and to fund the establishment of a new sovereignty they were forced to create the currency called the continental. This currency would prove highly vulnerable to abuses and taught our founders an important lesson. Benjamin Franklin served as a magistrate to the crown of England and he originally supported the 1764 currency act, which denied the colonies the independence issuance of money. Upon recognizing the harmful affects Franklin worked to have the bill repealed but was without success. When the colonist made void the currency act by developing their own money, the British attempted to ruin the new currency by devaluation through counterfeit. Ben Franklin explains, “Paper money was in those times our universal currency. But, it being the instrument with which we combated our enemies, they resolved to deprive us of its use by depreciating it; and the most effectual means they could contrive was to counterfeit it. The artists they employed performed so well, that immense quantities of these counterfeits, which issued from the British government in New York, were circulated among the inhabitants of all the States, before the fraud was detected. This operated considerably in depreciating the whole mass, first, by the vast additional quantity, and next by the uncertainty in distinguishing the true from the false; and the depreciation was a loss to all and the ruin of many.” (counterfeiting in colonial america 259)This lesson of the nature of money would not be easily forgotten because it defined our nation from it's inception. When the British surrendered sovereignty to the 13 nations of America, it became the paramount goal to establish a money which would never again leave the people vulnerable to instant bankruptcy. Before discussing the money system developed by the constitution, it is important to determine how money can best serve an economy. Money must serve four necessary functions. The first is that it must serve as a unit of account. A barter society must constantly determine how many chicken eggs would equal a winter coat. Perhaps more would be exchanged in winter, and less would be necessary in warmer months. When all goods hold a value in money, that can be related in value with each other. Furthermore, when people have a recognized unit of account people spend more time being creative and less time seeking customers to argue with about relative values of goods traded. The second function of proper money is to serve as a medium of exchange. To be capable of using money universally certain types of money make it much easier. For example money must be able to be transported. The harder it is to move money the less likely people will travel to trade. Societies which traded cattle as money have found it difficult to venture out in search of trade for risk of killing their type of money. Money must also be divisible. If someone wants to divide their earnings into separate accounts, their money must be divisible. A giant rock of gold could buy a mansion but not a lunch. Therefore mints have enabled coins to be made representing a portion of a unit of account. Next money needs to have high market value in relation to volume and weight. The value being concentrated into a small area allows people to carry a large amount of purchasing power in small lightweight items. This is one reason precious metals have been used successfully as money for thousands of years. Money must also be recognizable, if it cannot be recognized as a uniform money it will not be accepted as payment, thus it follows that money should also be resistant to counterfeit. When people cannot recognize real money from fake money all money loses it's ability to make payment for purchases. The founders having felt the devastation of this error with the continental were very suspicious of establishing a similar money in the future. The third function of money is that it must serve as a store of value. The money which is not spent immediately can be saved or stored for later use. When money holds this quality savings is encouraged. When a society saves money they have created capital. Capital is the only proper source for credit and society can use credit as loans to entrepreneurs to produce an expansion of quality goods and services. When savings and credit are used properly prosperity can only be limited by the availability of natural resources and the ingenuity of ambitious class. When the money is not an efficient store of value, money will not purchase in the future what it will today. Therefore savings becomes economically harmful to the individual and all sources of credit for investments will dry up. Similarly money must serve as a deferred payment. A sound money creates enough prosperity to where each citizen whose consumption is less than their production, can lend their excess to others in more immediate need of it. The lender expects to be repaid with money which holds the same purchasing power as when they lent it. The lender must choose an interest rate based upon the degree of inflation. If the money lent loses it's value through inflation, the lender must raise the interest rate to compensate for the loss in purchasing power. For interest rates to remain low over long term lending agreements the value of the money must remain stable. Should the value of money continue to vary, so to will the interest rate, thus making it nearly impossible to secure long term financing. This information was known to most of our founders because several types of money were traded and the advantages of each were better known. Today our currency is incompatible with any of these considerations and is generally believed to be better left to the interpretation of the private Federal Reserve System. Before our founders, governments did not so easily create money, they merely recognized the official forms of money that were functioning in the marketplace. Money was allowed to compete without the coercion of a national currency as many forms of money were functional to service trade. In these times it was the people who determined what to use for money not the government. The founders were particularly concerned about their money eventually being used as an instrument of debt. John Adams said, “All the perplexities, confusions and distresses in America arise not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from want of honor and virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” Thomas Jefferson particularly feared our money being issued as debt to the government from private banks. He said, “"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks),will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Were these two crazed conspiracy nuts or did they hold merit in their concerns. Today the management of our money is held under the control of a private bank, who has just recently witnessed a housing collapse caused first by their inflation and destroyed by deflation. Millions have defaulted and are now homeless. How would Jefferson feel to know that two hundred years after his presidency Americans were less secure in their property than ever before. Allodial title was gone, and each generation was expected to sign into servitude to a bank for 30 years at a time through a mortgage. The property which was intended by their ancestors to hold the land for hundreds of years is now nearly entirely owned by private banks in gross collusion with the government. When the Constitutional convention was held the issues of money and trade were considered some of the most important issues in need of resolution. The colonies had just removed the tyranny of the British in these two areas and were not about to settle into a new coercive state. They were fearful of being undone by foreign influence and the possibility of falling back into servitude. The constitution provides a specific enumerated power in article 1 section 8 of the constitution dictating how Congress will address the matter of currency. An enumerated power is one which should not be easily removed, it was the founders way of saying that this certain responsibility should remain with Congress under all circumstances. This power describes to Congress that they shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. This needs to be clarified to be accurately compared with the money system of today. To coin money simply establishes the minting of gold and silver owned by the people. To regulate simply means to provide uniformity and make recognizable the coins circulating amongst the people. Following the ratification of the Constitution, one of the first acts passed by Congress was the 1792 Coinage Act. This act established eagle coins with specific weights of gold, and dollar coins with specific weights in silver. Therefore, any money owned by the people could be brought to the U.S mint to be made into coins and money was brought into existence primarily by the people. The most important distinction made by the coinage act was that it established full bodied money. This type of money holds a value of metal in correspondence to the value on each coin face. Money cannot hold full bodied status if the potion of metal becomes diminished, fractionated, or removed. In this manner, congress clarified real money from counterfeits, which provided the collapse of the early Continental money. The weight to face ratio might be, “.5 grams of silver regulated to fit a $.50 coin.” This money is distinguished from its counterfeit who might only use, “.25 grams of silver passing as a .50 coin.” In this event a counterfeit has occurred. “Counterfeit – forged; false; fabricated without right; made in imitation of something else with a view to defraud by passing the false copy for genuine or original.”(biggest con 20) Our economy was given hope by the Coinage Act, because it made the clarification that any money brought into existence by the people would be made into full bodied money by the U.S Mint. In section 19 of the Coinage Act, Congress would also declare that any person who would debase the currency would be put to death. If only we could hold this true of the Federal Reserve System, and the IRS. Our economy flourished under this sound money system and our wealth grew to become the envy of the world. We broke class structures left over from our European culture, and Americans took pride in showcasing the products of their freedom. The counterfeiters have always followed the government's monetary legislation and our nation was no different. I could divulge into a drawn out description of the monetary and banking battles throughout our history, but for time sake I will simply keep my negativity towards the counterfeiters and praise to full bodied money. It is less important to know when counterfeit has struck and more important to know how it will come to being. By the end of the Continental currency it was clear to all that it held no purchasing power, however no person could describe when specifically, the money lost it's value. The trick of the counterfeiters relies upon circulating money substitutes. This method creates a piggy back affect whereby the full bodied money in circulation becomes mixed with counterfeits. The money which creates wealth and pride becomes indistinguishable from it's worthless counterpart. “The peoples inability to differentiate between money and money substitutes is a game governments never tire of playing and citizens never seem to catch on to.”1 The United States has circulated two types of money substitutes throughout it's history. The first type is receipt money. It is a piece of paper which is guaranteed to be redeemable in gold or silver. These usually say certificate near the top, and lenders are required to keep 100% reserves to ensure it remains redeemable. If citizens needed to travel a long distance it is much easier to carry a stack of papers instead of gold. Also, the money is categorically numbered so that it specifically corresponds with an amount of gold held on deposits. Should the money transfer to another citizen, so to does the bearer whom payment is available upon demand. Money remains safe as full bodied money under receipt money for two reasons. The first is that in the event that the money becomes ripped in half, the citizen may bring the bills to the depository and prove that these bills even in terrible form still correspond to money in the bank. The second reason is that a receipt cannot be issued without a deposit of full bodied money being made. Therefore the bills can either be transferred or destroyed without any change happening to the supply of full bodied money. Many who fear paper money do so, because only while banks remain honest and do not loan out any portion of their reserves, will the supply of receipts remain equal to the metals on deposits. It is difficult for any society to overlook the reserve percentages of all banks, therefore it is vitally important to reserve the issuance of receipt money only to the U.S Federal government. The second form of money substitutes is a more treacherous form called promissory notes or bank notes. A note is a paper I.O.U, it simply makes it official that a debt has occurred. A promissory note creates a debt only with the promise of repayment according to pre determined terms. In modern terms we might think of these as checks. These notes are only accepted because of the lender's supply of real money relative to notes outstanding. These notes differ from receipt money because banks realize they can be more profitable if they only retain a fractional reserve of real money relative to the paper receipts they issue. Since the paper certificate proclaims a specific hard money value payable to the bearer on demand, people disregard the amount of hard money actually on deposit. The best way to describe this distinction is to explain it in terms of volume. When I have a check bounce, it is due to insufficient funds, which is usually punishable by a large fine. The financial burden of writing checks I cannot pay is designed to prevent my folly from happening again. Often I fail because my account is small and is comprised of only my money. The banks have a much larger account comprised of many thousands of people's money. Therefore they do not always hold the a specific deposit for each check they write. They realize that it is seldom all depositors will withdrawal all of the money at once, so they seek to make profit with a fraction of deposits which usually remained unclaimed. As banks continue this process they compete not with honest reserves, but by increasing their leverage and lowering their reserves. Historically when money substitutes take forms of notes or check they become intrinsically worthless, either because they have been backed by empty warehouses or bankrupt creditors and government. Banks and governments get caught often, the recent financial meltdown and the great depression are examples of miraculous simultaneous bankruptcies where the public is made to believe their deposits disappeared. The fraud and the devaluation exist long before the bank’s collapse, however just like with the continental it is impossible to pinpoint the exact moment counterfeits have been issued. The government can prop the banks back up over and over until the people are convinced that their money with the help of the government is once again safe. America has suffered from this lesson before but our currency held enough reserves to battle through it. Our currency no has no reserve s of capital, instead it is only backed by government bonds and debt. Therefore we are made vulnerable as governments avoid prosecuting the fraud, and we might suffer the same consequences a great many nations have felt. One example portraying the end result of this pattern is, “During October 1923, German were still trading marks even through their value had fallen to less than 1.5 millionth of a penny.”2 10. Foreign Policy(not done)

11. Alternatives(not done)

12. Bill of Rights