[Secret Master]

There have been some very interesting points brought up in the "MI: Possible Armed Standoff In The Making" thread, namely revolving around the question of legitimate government authority. Most High Roaders seem to fall into one of three camps 1) You should always follow the law and obey authority. If you don't like it, go through the system. If that doesn't work, tough. (about 20% of you) 2) At least go through the motions of looking like you respect authority and obey the law. Then, when nobody is looking, do whatever you can reasonably get away with (i.e. California Gun Law - nobody follows it, often including LEO and military. This is about 60% of you, including me) 3) Down with the man! Tear down the bastille! Burn baby burn! A Democrat from every lamppost except where we've strung up Greens! Etc, etc. (the final 20% of you crazy kids).

Now, I don't have a lot of respect for authority, although I think that the po-lice have a grade-A crappy job that make them uniquely bitter and cynical.... even more than me, an accomplished crank. <edit> Still, I have an enduring belief that enough of the population of any given group has at least the capacity for exceptional behavior. Correspondingly, absolutely maximum personal freedom should be the general rule in a free society, as the merits of the exceptional few counterbalance the sloth of the mundane multitudes.

When I was a wee lad and the educational system wasn't totally shot out, I had a history teacher who drew a diagram of America's political spectrum. First he drew a circle on is chalk board, then he drew six opposing points on the circle: socially conservative vs. socially liberal, authoritarian vs. anarchist, and capitalist vs. socialist. Then he motioned at the circle and said:

"By the time each of you reaches thirty you will fall somewhere within this circle."

Well, here we are in the 21st century and my question for all of you High Roaders is twofold A) Where in the circle do you fall? and B) When is the authority of the state (please don't quibble - local, state, fed, I don't care) no longer valid? Where, so to speak, is your line in the sand really? No name calling people, I am genuinely curious.

[Chris Rhines]

A.) Socially liberal, anarchist, capitalist. On the edge of the circle (actually, with three axes, wouldn't it be a sphere?), or close to it.

B.) The state has no moral authority beyond what each individual chooses to give it. Since I think that the government is unethical and corrupt beyond redemption, I choose not to give it much authority at all.

Someone once said that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. This is true, and not just for government but for any authority figure.

Now as for my line in the sand, that's really more a tactical question than an ethical one. Ethically, the government crossed the line a long, long time ago. From a 'fighting and winning' standpoint, we're not quite there yet.

- Chris

[TheeBadOne]

No name calling people, I am genuinely curious.

Secret Master
"No name calling" ??????
Now, I don't have a lot of respect for authority, although I think that the po-lice have a grade-A crappy job that make them uniquely bitter and cynical.... even more than me, an accomplished crank. I have learned the hard way that most people (especially gummint employees) are a) my intellectual, moral, and physical inferiors b) are lazy and c) are hopelessly short sighted.
Too late, seems the name calling started with this thread... :(

[Secret Master]

TheeBadOne:
I live in Richmond, Ca buddy - murder capital of California. Calling the local cops "uniquely bitter and cynical" is an extremely friendly way of describing them. <edit>

[mercedesrules]

What Chris said. :cool:

MR

[Secret Master]

Ok, I must have had too much coffee today; all I can say in my defense is "walk a mile in my shoes." My sincere apologias to everyone - moderator, please remove thread or modify to remove offending posts.

Secret Master

[Intune]

Just hit the "edit" button at the bottom right of that post. I found nothing offensive about it but then again, the shoe didn't fit me! ;)

[Secret Master]

Ok, folks, all (or at least most) offending material edited out. Now, TheBadOne and mercedesrules, about my questions....

[Intune]

Just hit the "edit" button at the bottom right of that post. I found nothing offensive about it but then again, the shoe didn't fit me! ;)

[mercedesrules]

Now, ... mercedesrules, about my questions....
A) Where in the circle do you fall?
Anarcho-capitalist.
B) When is the authority of the state (please don't quibble - local, state, fed, I don't care) no longer valid?
Any time I, personally, don't consent to it.
MR

[bountyhunter]

Well, here we are in the 21st century and my question for all of you High Roaders is twofold A) Where in the circle do you fall? .

Depends on the issue. I always apply common sense and make a choice which always infuriates both republicans and democrats. Repubs generally call me a "liberal" to insult me, and democrats usually call me a "republican" to insult me. I'm not sure which is the bigger insult, but I know they are both really bad.


When is the authority of the state (please don't quibble - local, state, fed, I don't care) no longer valid? .

Take your pick:

1) When they follow a course of action detrimental to the well being of this country or it's citizens.

2) When they commit crimes and lie through their teeth to cover them up.

I like the people on this board so I am not going to start a flame war by detailing exactly how and where those two things are currently happening. You decide.

[bountyhunter]

TheeBadOne: I live in Richmond, Ca buddy - murder capital of California. Calling the local cops "uniquely bitter and cynical" is an extremely friendly way of describing them. <edit>

Hey, at least you don't live in Oakland.

BTW: I heard the jury is finally going to come in with a verdict in the "Riders" case about the Oakland cops who were kidnapping and beating people and planting drugs on them. Should be interesting. The city is already preparing for a riot in case the cops get a walk (the evidence was overwhelming against them, but you never know with juries).

[Secret Master]

Bountyhunter:

Yeah, things are pretty rough in the East Bay: lots of crime, tons of violent kids, police aren't (maybe can't be) much help most of the time, and the local governments are working hard to strip what's left of the 2nd Amendment so that people can't legally defend themselves.

But, hey, at least the restaurants are top notch! :)

[Hkmp5sd]

The right of any government to exercise its powers over a people can be obtained only with the free and unfetted consent of those people. Any government that does not rule with the consent of the governed fails the test of legitimacy and therefore has no legal right to rule and shall be regarded as a tyranny. When government removes itself from the category of responsible government and establishes its own arbitrary will as the sole judge of its own powers - that government has by its own actions renounced any claim to a legal right to govern. The people then may use whatever measure necessary to remove that government and to establish, once again, responsible government. The people are limited only by the exercise of prudence. Extreme measures must not be employed unless lesser measures have proven ineffective."

The South was Right! by James Kennedy and Walter Kennedy

The very reason the Second Amendment was considered so important by the founding fathers and the very reason socialist liberals are determined to undermine it.

[telewinz]

"When is the authority of the state (please don't quibble - local, state, fed, I don't care) no longer valid?"

When you or "they" have have been declared the winners of the revolution 20% of THR'ers seem to desire. You will never win because I am part of the 20% (law abiding sheep) that will join with the establishment to protect my legal rights and the rights of the indifferent 60%, that you (the 20%) are so intent on ignoring. A rebel becomes a patriot ONLY if and when he wins the revolution, he is nothing but a criminal until then.:barf:

I have found that most of the American citizens that hate there country really have themselves to blame. They have shown poor judgement in the past and believe their life is harder than it should be and that they are victims. Going your own way is your choice (freedom) but it often leads to an unhappy way of life.

[dog3]

Authority is no longer valid when it steps outside of the law.

Fact.


Now, you can stretch that skin pretty thin. There are those
who claim that we have not had a valid federal government
since Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to go stuff
it's self with his "John Marshall has made his decision.
Now let him enforce it."

In short, on that point, we still had a legitmate government, but
all acts pertaining to that event had no force of law. Andrew
Jackson broke his oath of office, and should have been broken
on the step for it and tossed in prison. However, the "authority"
in this case, was the authority of having the military in his
pocket, and it in essence was a military coup. However, this
horrific little bit of our history is kinda a side line, and most
everything else continued to function. We really don't have a
good legal mechanism for dealing with a rogue president.
The current mechanism is impeachment, but that is a highly
political thing, and all in all, it's real dodgy at best. Folks
like to whine about other presidents, but in reality, no one
defied the supreme court in quite the same bald faced manner
as Jackson before or since (Nixon came reeeeealy close), so
we haven't had to address. But it is a hole in our system.

It's that "pick yer fights carefully, if you have to fight" thing. Good
advise, says I.

If you read your law. You'll see that that law allows for what folks
call "civil disobedience". The law further allows for lethal defense of
yer self, your family and your property. This RIGHT extends to
others if you come to their aid. All these "convenience" political postureing
laws like gun control, like "no avenue of retreat" like they
have in Virginia and garbage of that kind would be struck
down as if by lightning if they ever saw the chambers of
supreme court. They are not only unconstitutional by
"common reason" but also simply illogical in light
of "the pursuit of happiness" clauses of our social contract
with our lawmakers.

Civil Disobedience for those of you who may not know, (it gets
tossed about pretty casually) allows for a situation wherein,
A law exists, you don't like it. You think it is a wrong headed law,
you openly break that law, are taken into custody, have your
day in court and let the chips fall where they may. This
used to work, believe it or not. Now, with the "crime bill"
and the federalization of nearly everything, that which isn't
a federal felony is at least a felony, you can ruin your life
testing the law very easily. This is a horrible miscarrage
of law. This evil idea that only the rich can get a fair
trail of this kind. That one faces certain financial ruin if they dare try
to fight city hall. It's gotten very ugly.

Wanna go to federal court? A basic private criminal defense
can be pieced together with 70 grand as an ante. It goes
straight up from there. Not exactly a great way to try and
prove a point.

So, byde yer tyme.

Self defense is an issue you all are already quite familiar with.
It's much simpler than this legal morass that the politicos
have turned it into. It's an easy jump to get to the "first,
hang all the lawyers" point of view. But even this is somehow
a cop out. I've had it tossed at me in discussions over
the years that "People get the government they deserve"
over and over again. I don't like that saying. It really makes
me nuts. It's a great button. However, there is truth in it. As
long as people require their politicos to make convenient
judgement calls in their favor without regard to the effect
on the country at large, there will be a real problem.

It's funny, folks like to harsh on the Libertarians because the
only way the libertarian way can work, is if folks treat each
other with respect. Guess what? The only way for society
to work at all, is for folks to treat each other with respect.

Okay, to get back to the original point. As stated above
authority is no longer valid when it is in opposition to the law.
Since the law is often in opposition to itself. What law
do you follow? Most folks follow the law most convenient
for them at the time. This brings out the "government we
deserve" like flowers in the spring time.

As a society, first we have the social laws of interaction. Seems
even these are getting worn pretty thin. Drive around the
DC, or just about any eastern US metro area for an afternoon. It's
amazing that folks don't just kill each other, everyone is so
bloody rude while behind the wheel! Anyway, when social
interaction gets off kilter, we have the "LAW" as in the man
behind the badge. Behind the man behind the badge is the
state constitution, and behind that is the US constitution.

Now here I get really fuzzy, because it involves atheism. I was
once an atheist, but I can't even relate to that mindset anymore
at all. Don't know what I was thinking. But for an atheist, I guess
the highest law is themselves. That's a really really really really
big problem on the societal rules of interaction level. But for the
God fearing, behind the US Constitution in the higher law which
bades us to render unto Cesear. But nothing is simple. At some
point, a God fearing person may have to be asked to swallow an
act so outrageous that they believe they can lay their disobedient
action before God with an explaination of "I had no other conscionable
course of action." This is true without regard to ones belief.

This is where the dark murky area of "cold, dead fingers" kicks in.

One has only one life to give for a belief. Choose carefully grasshopper!

So, in summary, your first 20 percenters are pretty much right on the
money. You obey, don't like it, work on it. Go to court, don't like it,
move it up the courts,(that's why they are there) get to the top
and still don't like it? suck it up, there are other things in life. *OR*, , , , ,

Atheists, please chime in. I know you are out there and have
some feedback to offer.


(believe it or not, I've actually cut paragraphs out of this)

[bountyhunter]

A rebel becomes a patriot ONLY if and when he wins the revolution, he is nothing but a criminal until then.

Actually, by today's vocabulary, he would be considered a terrorist until he was on the winning side. After the "victory", he would be promoted to a freedom fighter.

Never forget: "history" is the particular set of lies that the victors agree to set to pen.

[Moparmike]

Never forget: "history" is the particular set of lies that the victors agree to set to pen.More succinctly: History is written by the victors.

Unfortunately, its also rewritten by blissninny sheep bleating away "for the children" or some such nonsense.:rolleyes: :mad:

[tyme]

If the executive has to obey the judiciary, what checks the judiciary? Oh, I get it. Lincoln should have honored the Taney court's decision in Dred Scott. And hey, if the SCOTUS rules that all guns should be illegal, Bush should send the BATFmen and the FBI and anyone else he can to confiscate our guns at 3am.

[telewinz]

"If the executive has to obey the judiciary, what checks the judiciary?"

Depending on the level of the court (county, state, federal) they are elected and/or appointed. The President recommends, and the Senate must approve the appointment to the higher federal courts. It is possible for Congress to remove a federal judge if they so desire although its very rare.

[NewShooter78]

There are those who claim that we have not had a valid federal government since Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to go stuff it's self with his "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

Don't get me started on Andrew Jackson. :fire:

When is the authority of the state no longer valid? When it flies in the face of its own contract with its governed.

[hammer4nc]

Most government institutions follow the 90/10 rule: 90% of their actions are to support and expand their power, 10% related to their core mission. Basic human nature. If you accept this premise, its not difficult to find examples of invalid authority. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives. Unfortunately, as these govt. agencies have grown, that becomes increasingly difficult.

So, many (this board is a good example) choose to retain the ability to take action of some kind, should it come to that. Likewise, govermment is expending more resources on law enforcement, prisons, security, not to mention attempts to disarm the public. In general, the trend is not positive.

A lot of speculation on exactly what form a confrontation might take...what spark might set it off. These discussions are colorful. However, I think the genesis for any large scale societal change, is the one we least expect. While some will decry the possibility of a general revolt (i.e., the result will be worse than the present situation), I like to put forward the example portrayed in the novel "Unintended Consequences". IIRC, a very small number of activists took targeted action against the offending agency. Most importantly, they managed to wage an information war, which won (at least tacit) support of the 60% indifferent bloc. The authorities realized they were going to lose, and capitulated, reigning in the worst rogue agencies, and quietly granting amnesty to the activists.

End result, the worst elements of abuse are discarded, and the best aspects of present-day society are retained. Anyone else think this scenario has legs?

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - pdmoderator

[Secret Master]

hammer4nc:
Man, I hope so! That sounds like a pretty good outcome, abet one with a good deal of suffering and harship involved for those on the front line (not that I would mind too much.... until they took my house). Still, a more realistic scenario is one where our proud nation deteriorates into some sort of second rate police state. Or breaks up into a looser sort of federation without American shooting American, which would be a nice solution.

[telewinz]

If you research the claimed "abuses" cited by a very few of the colonists (New England) you will find that our taxes were less than half what a British citizen had to pay and our total tax revenue wouldn't support the British troops guarding our frontiers. All the British wanted was for us to pay a small portion of the expenses incurred in our own defense. HOW UNREASONABLE CAN YOU BE!:cuss:

When Ben Franklin went to England to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the British, he was secretly instructed that under no condition was he to except any compromise no matter how beneficial it might be to the colonies, the colonial powers that be were determined to have war. It is an historic fact the British bent over backwards to avoid war with us, it was a small minority that (tricked?) lead the rest into an bogus war.

I guess when the US "won" their freedom, we never had to pay taxes, right? BTW, we did have representation in Parliment and we were offered even more seats to express our opinions. The Yellow Press was alive and well in the late 18th century.

[Secret Master]

Telewinz:

"....our total tax revenue wouldn't support the British troops guarding our frontiers. All the British wanted was for us to pay a small portion of the expenses incurred in our own defense. "

That isn't really accurate. We paid for are defense both in taxes -- and blood, plenty of which was shed for defense of the British Empire during the French and Indian War. Also, though we paid lower taxes overall as a population, those who paid, such as plantation owners and merchants, paid a great deal indeed, which is why they funded a revolution. If you're going to bash grandpa at least list all the facts!

[telewinz]

I am talking about taxes not blood, however, the British shed just as much blood fighting the French and indians and probably more than colonials since we only had militia to carry our share of the load. Regardless of how you slice it, the AVERAGE colonist paid less than half in taxes compared to ALL other British subjects. Our Plantation owners paid a great deal less than any speer in jolly old England. BTW...why is my stating the historic facts considered bashing grandpa? You do know that 2/3's of the colonists were either indifferent or against the war with England don't you?

[keederdag]

When I feel I have to, I break the law. otherwise I try to color between the lines. In the matter of personal protection, I will allways have a weapon, as long as I still have breath. Even as a prisoner; most of them do you know!:D

[Secret Master]

telewinz:

I generally make a point of not feuding with senior members of this board; but if you are going to take the Anglophile position on this matter that leaves me to defend the integrity of the #cough# Framers. Let's start with an overview of the aftereffects Seven Years War, of which the French and Indian war was only a small portion. My quotations are from Countdown to Independence: A Revolution of Ideas in England and Her American Colonies: 1760-1776 by the incomparable professional historian Natalie S. Bober,

Let us examine our statements so that we might compare them to the facts:

You said: "All the British wanted was for us to pay a small portion of the expenses incurred in our own defense. HOW UNREASONABLE CAN YOU BE!" and also "I am talking about taxes not blood, however, the British shed just as much blood fighting the French and Indians and probably more than colonials since we only had militia to carry our share of the load."

I said: "We paid for are defense both in taxes -- and blood, plenty of which was shed for defense of the British Empire during the French and Indian War."

The Facts: "The struggle with France had lasted over fifty years. It had been a costly battle – at sea and in Europe, Asia, and North America. Now Britain possessed, along with one of the largest empires in the world, the largest debt – one hundred and forty million pounds, half of which had been incurred defending the American colonies from French and Indian attacks. Great Britain was close to bankruptcy."

Ok, point for you; defense of the American cost seventy million pounds, which must have been a lot of money back in 1763! Of course, it was part of a larger war which wasn't exactly of the colonists creation; the French and English had been fighting for half a century straight. Not all of those troops were there to protect the colonists, either. They were also there to preserve the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade further settlement west of the Allegheny Mountains and west of the Ohio river.

"They [the colonists] felt entirely capable of handling any Indian assaults themselves.... [but] In order to enforce the Proclamation of 1763, the British needed an army in America to police the frontier and protect the colonists. Accordingly, ten thousand British soldiers were immediately sent to the colonies to perform this task. Part of considerable cost of this protection, the British decided, must be born by the American colonists."

So, grandpa didn't want or need them, but that was too damn bad - he got them anyhow. Plus that "we only had militia to carry our share of the load" stuff doesn't carry a lot of weight historically. We beat them, admittedly slowly and painfully, with that same militia some ten years later. Point for me.


You said: "BTW, we did have representation in Parliament and we were offered even more seats to express our opinions."

The Facts: "Late in 1764, the House of Burgesses in Virginia.... formally petitioned the king and both houses of Parliament concerning the proposed stamp tax....Taxation required their consent, and their consent could only be given if they were represented in Parliament.
But Parliament refused to consider any colonial petitions."

We didn't have any seats in Parliament, nor were we offered any. We had sympathizers in the Parliament, sure, but no actual representation. Even if we had been represented, though, it wouldn't have been very effective due to the distances involved. "A representative should be....well acquainted with the internal circumstances of the people whom he represents," Sam Adams commented, "....it would not be possible for men, though ever so well acquainted with them at the beginning of a Parliament, to continue to have adequate knowledge of them during the existence of that Parliament."

For the previous 100 years, before the resulting wave of heavy taxation produced by the Seven Years War swept over our nation, colonies had been given the right to tax themselves as they saw fit. Parliament set the amount, but the colonies did the taxing and collecting. When the British government sought to change that without giving its colonial citizens the "liberty and the privileges of Englishmen," as New Englanders would put it, they caused a sort of state's rights vs. federal government crisis. The British government was being heavy handed, and paid a terrible price for it.

To summarize my point: we weren't equal, voting citizens of the British Empire; which was fine so long as taxes were light and we were given the right of self government. When, however, that same empire chose to violate its social contract with us by raising our taxes, appointing colonial governors, and still not giving us a voice in Parliament (not that it would have practical, mind), then we were no longer obliged to obey as its authority was no longer valid.

[Ryder]

we weren't equal

Yup, equality is a key word but it goes a lot deeper than taxes. I watched a show "The History of Tools" the other night. They were talking about shovels. They said American colonists were forbidden by law to use shovels with metal blades. They could only use shovels made with wooden blades! That floored me. I think this is a good analogy to the AWB. There certainly is a similar inequality written into that law.

What is the breaking point for tolerating government imposition? When the imposition becomes intolerable. Americans currently have too much of value to lose. As these values become too little left to lose outrage will rear it's ugly head.

The governed are the oversight branch of government.

[spartacus2002]

There is an ancient tradition in Anglo-American jurisprudence that is forgotten today, called "The Rule of Law." It is a term that is much-abused today, thrown around by politicians and bureaucrats who demand that the people bend to their legislation and regulation.

The Rule of Law had the following central elements:
1. Known general rules of law, equally applicable to all (including public servants)
2. Certainty of law, enabling people to plan their activities with understanding of the law's predictable impact (includes the concept of "knowability" of the law, meaning that people could expect to know what the law was)
3. Absence of wholly arbitrary or discretionary government power over the lives and acts of individuals
4. A broad sphere of individual freedom protected from other individuals and from government
5. Reviewability of the law's application to individuals within a legal framework that assures independent review of government officials' actions.

(above from Dependent on D.C., by Prof. Charlotte Twight, as well as several other sources)


In addition to these elements, the Rule of Law distinguished between "Laws" and "Commands", the former being the norms of human conduct enshrined in the Law, the latter being the edicts from the rulers. People were allowed to and even expected to disregard commands that did not comport with the Law.

So, compare and contrast The RUle of Law with our modern legislative state, driven by money and special interests, and with our administrative agencies, who create, interpret, and enforce their own regulations, with nary a bit of oversight from Congress or the Courts.

Oh, and with the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, anti-smoking propaganda, etc., can somebody please show me where that private sphere of individual freedom still exists?

I believe a society functions best when the individuals in the society know that their rights to life, liberty, and property -- and thus their economic interests -- are protected from each other and from government. It simply doesn't work as well any other way.

[suijurisfreeman]

>When is authority no longer valid?<

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America was the Colonies justification to the world as to why they were no longer under the lawful authority of England. In the document it's stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their jCreator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Does that phrase, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" have any meaning whatsoever to Americans today?
Check out this website: http://www.presenceofmind.net/GSW/Steak.html

A brief quote from John Locke's "The Second Treatise of Government", "Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it."

Some brief quotes from the "Lysander Spooner Reader", "If government requires the consent of the governed, then a legitimate government must acquire the explicit consent of every person in its jurisdiction." "Legitimate governments must rest on consent, a social contract, and even that contract 'cannot authorize government to destroy or take from men their natural rights; for natureal rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government - which is but an association of individuals - thand to a single individual.' The only 'legitimate and true object of government' is to protect natural rights. Even a majority, however large, cannot agree to a contract (a Constitution) that violates 'the natural rights of any person or persons whatsoever.' Such a contract 'is unlawful and void' and his 'no moral sanction.' The whole Revolution (American Revolution) turned upon, asserted, and in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he lived."

"Whoever lays a hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant, and I declare him my enemy." P.J. Proudhon

"The authority of government ... cn have no pure right over my person and my property but what I concede to it." Henry David Thoreau

"When I meet a government which says to me, 'Your money or your life,' why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do; I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do ... I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society." Henry David Thoreau

"I resigned, I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own." The Prisoner (Patrick McGoohan)

"I am not a number. I am a free man." The Prisoner (Patrick McGoohan)

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be understood; or if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that noe man knows what it will be tomorrow .... Frequent changes give an unreasonable ad advantage to the sagacious, enterprising, and the moneyed few, over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people." James Madison

"Because I am not a slave. What I earn belongs, by right, to me. I may gladly purchase government services if they are offered on the open market. Or I may reject them if I find them useless, inadequate or offensive. But no institution on this earch has the authority to claim my labor, my time and my life as its right. These things belong to me, now and forever." Quoted from Claire Wolf's book, 101 Things to Do 'till the Revolution.

Non serviam - I will not serve you any longer! I will live my life despite you. My freedom does not depend on your actions!

[gunsmith]

Don't worry to much about the sensibillities of us ,uh, senior members.
I never posted on TFL and am a real new comer here...some how got the senior thingy by my name...don't ax me how,the computer knows all...
now.bout yer question,I allmost forgot it cause all the innerestin points made all ready.
Here in urine soaked frisco the gubmint is plain crazy.
I know a bunch of cops and they aren't cynical or bitter...they just dont give a flip,which is great for me cause I am allways violating CCW law.
I have noticed if I do not involve my self to much in obvious criminal behavior the cops leave me alone.
In fact last year or so I chased a crackhead down the street hosing him down with pepper spray cause the local LEO said (basically) I am on my own when I asked what could be done with the loud junkie outside my window night after night...
So I blasted him with pepper spray saying real loud GET AWAY FROM ME,
some cops drove by and looked at me-I looked at them...and asked "How ya doing?" they said "just fine,you?" I said great ...they laughed and drove on...
So here in SF,CA at least in some "hoods" the gov't authority is completely invalid.
Civil Disobedience is my only recourse....
great question BTW...

[vi9er]

It's really quite simple. When a law violates the constitituion, there is no authority to that law.

Law says I can't own an M-16. 2nd amendment says I can. That law is now void. The question is whether I am willing to risk many years in jail, and many $'s to ignore an invalid law.

Now to those who say that the second amendment is unclear, or applies to the State Militia, Thomas Jefferson, who was largely responsible for the US Constitution, also wrote the Virginia Constitution, and Sec 13. states,

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe
defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing
armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to
liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under
strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

So, in addition to laws regarding what I can carry, that also negates laws dictating WHERE I can carry. Have I gone against un-lawful decrees? Yes. Have I broken the law? No.

And I am really tempted to get into the police being able to carry anywhere in VA, and the lack of authority of that law, at least in VA, due to Sec. 4 of the Constituion.

Ed

[whoami]

Simple question, simple answer.

Q: When is the authority of the state no longer valid?
A: When the state lacks the means/ability to enforce it's authority on the populace. Any other answer is just wishful thinking.

[suijurisfreeman]

One of the most fundamental principles that this country was founded on was the concept that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". Obviously this concept has little meaning in America today, but nevertheless it was a fundamental principle in 1775! Throughout most if not all man's recorded history government equals force, the force to make everyone comply to the dictates of that government. If the consent of the governed equals being governed justly then any government that does not have the consent of the people is nothing less than tyranny! It would be a de facto government, the opposite of a de jure government! To me it is not wishful thinking that my consent is required before any lawful authority exists over me. "When is authority no longer valid"? For any authority to be lawful over me, it must first have my consent! If my consent was given, but the government violated the "social compact" that my consent agreed to, then my consent would be withdrawn and that government would no longer have lawful authority over me!