"The constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law & order." Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616.
"Citizenship is a membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other." Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22.
If governments have no duty/obligation to provide "services" of rights-protection/defense (and those "services" that are provided are rights-violating), then there can be no reciprocal "duty of allegiance" imposed on any person; if there is no "duty of allegiance" for any person, then there can be no "citizens", whom are those who have such duties; if there are no "citizens", then there can be no body-politic composed of "citizens"; if there can be no body-politic, then there can be no government of that body-politic and if there is no government of the body-politic, then therefore, there can be no states.
[Rhetorical question:] But, there IS a "State" isn't there? There IS a "government" isn't there?
If this reasoning is valid; what we see in observation of "governments" and "citizens" is not in contradiction of this reasoning, it is a faulty premise, where-which there has been a substitution of what has been observed, analyzed, and evaluated as a "government" or "citizen", which are concepts which does not conform to our observation.
What is actually observed by "governments" is persons, claiming to represent the "government", acting as if they had legitimate authority to act, based on a voluntary/consensual reciprocal obligation of protection/defense of rights/liberties with no violation of rights/liberties, with the duty of the consenting "citizen" to have a duty of allegiance. Yet the former party ("government"), having failed in nearly all respects to the duty to protect/defend the rights/liberties of individuals (indeed, as representing the most constant and predictable violator or rights/liberties), there can exist no person, who could have the slightest obligation of allegiance to a party which, not only fails in their obligation to fulfill their part of the reciprocal relationship, but represents the institutionalization of domination of those individuals.
Post a Comment