Article Image

Who Figured it out?

Written by Subject: Freedom's Phoenix
I'm going on vacation... while I'm away you may ponder this form of Non-Government. And then ask yourself if any one individual or group can take "credit" for this statement? Can you show me where this "originated"? Have fun. Peace.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED witnesses to the lesson of history — that no form of political governance may be relied upon to secure the individual rights of life, liberty, or property — now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental precepts measuring our conduct toward one another, and toward others:

FIRST, each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent;

SECOND, no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual;

THIRD, each individual has the inalienable right of self-defense against the initiation of force;

FOURTH, explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid;

FIFTH, rights are neither collective nor additive in character, and no group can possess rights in excess of those belonging to its individual members;

We hereby declare our commitment to peace, individual sovereignty, and independence


10 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Seems to me that a right only really exists when you exercise it. Nothing goes against the laws of nature. If what you claim as a right goes against the laws of nature, it really isn't a right. That I am aware of, I am unable to fly like superman. Therefore I don't have the right to do so... simply because I can't.

If we have the strength to do something that is considered to be wrong, or illegal, or unlawful by some, really, we have the APPARENT right to do it. And we have the APPARENT right to resist the consequences if we have the strength to resist. The reason for making and obeying laws is not to take away freedom. It is to keep people from exercising what appears to be a right when it is not.

The ability to murder is an APPARENT right for those who can do it. The ability to fend off and even destroy every government that tries to apply consequences to the murderer is an APPARENT right if the murderer can get away with it.

Here's where the distinction between rights and apparent rights comes in. God is stronger than every other strength. He calls some things rights. He calls some things wrongs. Other things are apparent rights. The clearest place where we can see what God has to say about rights is the laws of Moses listed in the first 5 books of the Bible. And I don't only mean the Big 10. But I do mean that we need to be careful that we understand them in the context of today's living.

Why is there a distinction between rights and apparent rights? Because NOBODY has the strength to overcome God. Even if a person has the strength to destroy nations singlehandedly, and he does it, he better have a really good excuse when he stands in the final judgment, or his apparent rights will be proven to be wrongs.

Usually God doesn't let things get as far as destruction of multiple nations. Hitler tried it. He had the strength to have some great success. Yet he failed right here, in this life. And his final failure in the judgment will cast him into the lake of fire that is prepared for the devil and his angels.

Freedom to contract is a right. Freedom to contract yourself into slavery for the rest of your life is a right. After all, isn't that the exact thing that Eve and Adam did when they accepted the devil's teaching over God's teaching? Their contract affects us all. We are all under it... until we use the revocation of contract found in Jesus.

Jesus didn't accept the devil's contract in any way. In fact, Jesus essentially killed the devil. The finalization of the matter won't come into being until the devil is thrown into the lake of fire. But it is essentially done right now.

Make the better contract with Jesus, the revocation of contract from under the devil. Have all your rights restored in the judgement. Don't waste time doing it, because you don't know for sure when the opportunity will be gone forever.

Comment by Randy Lee
Entered on:


Pure Trust wrote, “When talking about rights, one needs to contrast them with wrongs to see what rights really are. You can feel that you have rights. You can sense that you have rights. It seems only logical that you have rights. And there is even at least one place in the Bible Old Testament that says that people have rights. But what are they, really?” 


Rights are simply lawful capabilities that can be exercised by the holder.  Whether something is lawful was most often historically determined by principles derived from a combination of an understanding of natural law and contemporaneous morality of that particular era.  Today certain purported rights are deemed legal by statute and may at their core be inherently immoral.   Even historically, certain legal immoral estates of rights were recognized by the governing classes of the day.  The King’s claim of divine authority equated to a legal estate of right recognized and accepted by most of the population.  Such rights however actually had their origins in sophistry and fraud.


No one has the right to do wrong, as it cannot be claimed that it is ever right to do wrong;  consequently true rights always comprise only the lawful exercise of authority.

Pure Trust wrote, “If times of trouble and poverty befall you, and you voluntarily become slave property of someone else (a right) - BY VOLUNTARY CONTRACT - …..”


One cannot voluntarily become the property of another, as to do so would involve the alienability of human capacities that are in and of themselves inalienable.  One can pledge themselves to serve another to repay a debt, but such a pledge cannot lawfully and morally transfer ownership of that person’s being to another, as to do so would require the alienation of capacities that are inalienable.  Consequently premises concerning the alienation of the rights of children by the actions of parents are equally illogical.  No contract is held to be valid where the conditions are unconscionable.


Even changing one’s political status via contract or acceptance of certain benefits fails to alienate such individual from lawful capacities that are in and of themselves inalienable.  Claims to the contrary are both illogical and unconscionable.


References to biblical accounts of people selling themselves into slavery also fail to logically justify claims of ownership of other humans.  Deities which sanction the institution of slavery should be seriously scrutinized.  It is doubtful that anyone you know believes ownership of another human is moral.  And yet the new Testament instructs slaves to be obedient to their masters.  Where is the godly admonition to the slave-owners to release their slaves? 


Finally, it can never be godly or lawful to initiate violence against another so that alone exposes slavery for the crime it is.  Consequently the right to own other humans doesn’t exist.



Comment by William Cole
Entered on:

It reads like the new Declaration of Independence.  I'm adopting it.

Comment by Ronald Bogner
Entered on:

at the bottom oif this web page it says *excerpted from Chapter XVII of The Gallatin Divergence by L. Neil Smith, Del Rey Books (a division of Random House), New York, 1985, as amended by unanimous consent, October, 1986 copyright 1985 by L. Neil Smith

Comment by Ronald Bogner
Entered on:

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

When talking about rights, one needs to contrast them with wrongs to see what rights really are. You can feel that you have rights. You can sense that you have rights. It seems only logical that you have rights. And there is even at least one place in the Bible Old Testament that says that people have rights. But what are they, really?

If times of trouble and poverty befall you, and you voluntarily become slave property of someone else (a right) - BY VOLUNTARY CONTRACT - because of the poverty, and your new master supports you well, even as you work for him well, do you have the right to assign your children to be slaves of your master as you are? What if your children are born to you by your wife who is also a voluntary-by-contract slave to the same master, would not your children be under similar slave ownership as you and your wife at least until they came of age?

Suppose that your children are never informed about the slavery that they are legally in - 'cause you are an idiot - so when they come of age, they have no incentive to formally cast off their slavery. Remember, they got into the position of being slaves through a voluntary contract made by their parents. How can they cast off that which they don't know exists on them?

Now, let's say that voluntary slaves can be bequeathed to the master's children and descendants to perpetuity... because that was how the original contract was written. If the slaves don't know that they are legally slaves, and if they are beneficial to the new masters, why in the world would the new masters ever inform them that they are in bondage by voluntary contract, and lose all the work that the slaves do virtually for free?

Does such a slave contract exist on Americans in general? In the event that it does, it might be legal and binding on each person until each individual, of-age-American formally states that it has come to his/her attention that he/she is or may be legally in bondage by voluntary contract, and since he/she is not the originators of the contract, that he/she is now of age, and is removing himself/herself from the contract.

When slaves formally, in writing, claim their right of freedom, specifically, against all slave contracts and possible slave contracts that they may be under, voluntary or otherwise, only THEN can the slaves be certain that they are free, legally. Government, and the world, might say that slavery has been outlawed long ago. THEY ARE WRONG. Voluntary contracting into slavery overrides outlawed involuntary servitude.

Now, the terms of the writing that cast off slavery must be carefully written. Why? Because you might get a job in your freeman state, working right next to a slave. And your boss might even think that you are a slave because you signed the paperwork for the job. You better have your addendum of freemanship in your hand when he demands to know why you think that you are different. And you probably should make it part of the paperwork of your job application so that you do not damage him, even in the face of not being able to find a job very easily. If you don't do this, and if you aren't ready to back it up, you just might be volunteering into slavery again.

Odds are that most of the readers of the above will think that it is a bunch of nonsense. And that's the way Government and the rich would like you to feel. They don't want to lose your services.

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:

 I believe the current operative in place is "I'll do as I please until you kill me."

Works for me.

Comment by Davi Barker
Entered on:

The Shire Society Declaration is a derivative work of L Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent. This looks like Smith's original version.

Comment by Robert Anderson
Entered on:

 Shire Society Declaration

Comment by J E Andreasen
Entered on:

I heard of this first from a rough-hewn fellow that lurked around the Cache La Poudre River.  He called it a "New Covenant", or some such.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: