Our masters say we have to follow the ‘rule of law.’
Where is the proof?
I’m having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around this. There just doesn’t seem to be any proof a regular human being (individual) has to follow any law made by the government. Let me just say, I’m from Canada. Maybe your country has some physical proof, I’m not sure. Did you sign a contract or give an oath of some sort agreeing to follow all laws? I’m guessing not.
I’ve been doing a little looking around for some form of evidence. It turns out, things get even more confusing the more you look.
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
What the fuck does that mean?
Canada is founded upon principles. That’s great but, certainly not any proof that every individual has to follow these principals of God or the rule of law.
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Okay, so this charter guarantees that the following rights apply unless someone writes another rule saying these rights don’t apply. This is complete nonsense. A right is not something that can be given and take away with a stroke of a pen. These rights are supposed to be outlined so people know what they are and that they can never be taken away. Otherwise, it’s called a priviledge and that would make us all slaves with a master.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
These rights seem to make sense. An individual cannot be detained unless they have broken the fundamental principles of justice. Wait a second. I have tried to look this term up, it does not lead anywhere. It’s just a fancy term saying if you break a law, we can remove your rights. This is still not proof that we have to follow the law.
The search and seizure right is complete bullshit to me. Again, everyone has the right against unreasonable seizure. So, paying 48% taxes is reasonable? I wouldn’t say so. Right now in Canada, people are paying more towards their taxes than they are towards their basic necessities of water, food, shelter, heat, etc. You can read this article for more info on that, but this is not reasonable.
There was also a new law passed that gives permission to private banks to take its customers money if the bank isn’t doing well. This “bail in” completely violates the rights of unreasonable seizure. Great article here from Press For Truth on that. And I know, we can take our money out of the bank; but until there is another way to carry around large sums of money safely, what choice do we have? Hopefully, cryptocurrency will be the alternate choice for purchasing everything imaginable in the future. Right now, it’s stuck on cash and the banks until more companies adopt alternative payment methods.
Finding anything among the thousands and thousands of laws we are supposed to follow as an individual is nearly impossible. I’ve noticed the start of most bills, acts, codes, or whatever you want to call them, have something saying, “every person shall do (this).” This writing on a piece of paper doesn’t give anyone authority to impose these rules on anyone else without their consent. Where is the contract before this, saying we will agree to follow these?
I’ve never voted in my life and I don’t plan to. I would consider that implied consent because there is no threat of force if you don’t participate. But, paying your taxes because the law says so is not consent. We are being threatened and forced to pay our taxes by men with guns. We are being threatened by force for nearly every law we must follow, except voting.
I’ve found most other things that might imply consent are enforced by threats of violence. Anyone caught doing something without the proper license will be fined and eventually it will escalate into violence if the fine is ignored. So applying for any license from the government is not consent.
Not consenting to these laws doesn’t mean we should be able to run around committing mass murder, either. In my opinion, there are only three rules we need to follow that can encompass every aspect of society.
- We can’t harm anyone or their property unless necessary for the protection of our own life and property. This would include things like forcible confinement, harassment, and abuse. It would also cover things like pollution, deforestation, and hunting. Unless we are doing these things for the preservation of life, it is wrong.
- We can’t steal and;
- We can’t commit fraud.
Using driving as an example; there could still be posted speed signs to show people what a safe speed might be. If someone chooses to go faster than that safe speed, it’s their own choice. There would be no consequence because there is no harm being done. If someone chooses to go faster than the safest speed and kills someone, they made that choice and there would be consequences for that. They chose to act recklessly and caused harm. But, if they were following the safe speed and following all other safe traffic guidelines, maybe it was truly an accident and that person did not do anything wrong. Accidents happen! Threatening someone with the use of violence by giving speeding tickets before there is a victim is complete bullshit. It amazes me that most people can’t see it’s simply revenue collection.
What are your thoughts?
So, I want to hear other people’s thoughts on this. Is there something I’m missing? Can you show the proof? Obviously, I could go on and list many different laws from many different legislations but, they all hold no real weight unless there is proof that we consent to them.