Constitution and Contract [Was: CIA & FBI]

[jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Strong cryptography renders moot the Statist's arrogant pretense that
every person is a national of some nation.  With it, the determined
individual can make good his wish to be part of no nation.

Why would a person want to do this?  Read on.

> > Summary: Unicorn thoughtfully underscores the need for the defense
> > afforded by strong cryptography and other means.

> > He writes:

> > > The federal government rules by the sword, but proports to due so under
> > > the Constitution.

> > Thank you.  It's good for a freedom-loving person to be reminded of the
> > nature of the threat.

> Are you being sarcastic here or...?

(Sarcastic???)

You made a fitting assertion which I believe to be true and worth
reemphasizing, and I thanked you for it.  That's all.

> > The appeal of strong cryptography is that it may help to defend against
> > those who embrace this deceitful attitude.

> Which deceitful attitude, mine or the federal government's?

Government, deceit and all, is sustained and nourished by willful
participation, as you have previously pointed out in the passage
immediately following.  If you participate, it's your conscience you
have to live with.

> > > The continued acceptance of the process, the
> > > participation in elections, the oath that high officials take, the
> > > amendment process, the continued existence of the three branches of
> > > government, all lend themselves to the assumption that if not accepted, 
> > > the Constitution is at least tolerated by the populous and the rulers.

> > It is for _exactly this reason_ that the freedom-loving person forbears
> > from willful participation.

> I think that's difficult to do and still live in the United States, or 
> most nations.

Keep in mind that the United states is a membership association, not a
geographical region, so to ``live in the United States'' means to
willfully be a member of the United States.  So, yes, to ``live in the
United States'' is certainly to be a willful participant.

But if you're saying it's difficult for a non-member to avoid
participation, I agree; it's difficult.

Where participation is unavoidable, it's not willful.

> While I don't find this justifies the abridgement of the constitution, I 
> do think it stifles the argument that one is not willfully participating 
> or partaking of soceital benefit.

Except nobody's arguing about willful partaking of societal benefit.
The issue is willful participation in _government_.

The benefit of society results from voluntary association among people.
Imposed relations, as institutionalized in government, benefit only
their perpetrators.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLcMSesDhz44ugybJAQGDeAP8CUpBpQkAPNQda3iHBcpOZ+B8qU2rP1+x
TDh229mhBVWShMbnXIaA6idLBRine+zfvHtH52XFRUx5ehE88AzGxV+oQIhUczi4
lFOkSr5M9ogMbKeWmISrFcnXeiDxqJoMM/xR1bp+qiY8JZnBdvDDisGPt/Aq022l
cF+EjKt3DEk=
=8Tbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----