Take a word that describes a natural condition, reassign your own meaning while retaining the original defining aspect of the word. This is how the State manages to brainwash so many people.
Example, Law. Gravity is an immutable Law, as are all natural Laws. In the minds of the people, Laws are absolute and therefore can’t be broken or subverted. Make up your own rules, label them Laws, always refer to your rules as Laws and the people will start to believe that your rules are actually immutable laws instead of what they actually are, which is a series of contrived rules given authority by consent.
Another Example, Crime. A crime is an act of injustice where there is some form of injured party. The State refers to every breach of it’s rules as a crime, even though there may be no injustice or injured party. So all the State has to do to maintain absolute power is convince enough people that a breach of it’s contrived rules is a crime and the people will not only surrender their free will to the State’s dictates, but even bite the ankles of their fellow man for lack of subservience.
Rather than ask if an act is illegal according to government rules, ask: am I causing an injustice where the rights of another is being violated.
Do I have the right (just claim) to impose my will on you without your consent?
Do I have the right to delegate such an act to another?
Does being part of a majority of people give me the right to impose my will on you without your consent?
Do I have the right to impose my will on you without your consent by delegating that act to an institution?
Do I have the right to impose my will on you without your consent if I, along with a majority of others, delegate that act to an institution called government?
Asking the questions in this order to someone who dogmatically believes in coercive governance may induce cognitive dissonance. Be prepared for emotive responses such as: Libtard, Conspiracy theorist, If you don’t like it move, and the old classic: if you don’t vote you can’t complain.
First they came for the Whistle Blowers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Whistle Blower.
Then they came for the Independent Journalists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an independent Journalist.
Then they came for the Activists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Activist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
Miko Peled was born in Jersusalem into a famous and influential Israeli Zionist family. His father was a famous General in the Israeli Army, of which Miko also served his time. When Miko’s niece was killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, you may have expected the family to put Palestinians at fault, but surprisingly they blamed the state of Israel, and their violent torturing and persecution for driving people to such sadness that they would take their own lives.
Through his father’s deep knowledge of the Israeli war of terror, together with his own research, Miko Peled ruins the myths surrounding the Israel and Palestine situation, and delivers a truth so damning that many Jews and Israel supporters will not be able to bear it. He reveals facts such as the original expelled Jews are not the ones returning, and they are not their descendants either, covers the double standards regarding the right of return, which doesn’t apply to Palestinians, and dispels the myth that there has been a conflict for ages by producing proof that it was peaceful up until 1947 when Israel launched their illegal attacks.
Miko is just one of the many modern day Jews against Zionism and the state of Israel, and with the information he delivers in this astounding talk, it is not difficult to see why more and more Jews are rejecting Zionism and calling for the dismantling of Israel. It is a true eye-opener for anyone who has for too long been blinded by the fake misinformation given by the mainstream media, and the truths come straight from the heartland where he has spent many years documenting the real story.
One can consent to authority but authority, by it’s definition, has no legitimacy outside of that consent. The use of force against the will of another, unless in self defense or the defense of another, is neither legitimate nor lawful, it is merely the use of power without authority, which is criminal.
Power is the “ABILITY or STRENGTH” to do a thing.
Authority is the “RIGHT to exercise powers”, and the “JUST CLAIM”, i.e. right, to exercise powers over others can only be acquired by their individual, voluntary “permission”.
An individual, or some group of individuals, may have POWER over you, but they can only gain lawful AUTHORITY to exercise that power via PERMISSION, i.e. CONSENT, from YOU.
 Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
] Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.199), page 133 [Emphasis added]
 Ibid., page 1324
 Ibid., page 133
 Permission. A license to do a thing; an authority to do an act which, without such authority, would have been unlawful. An act of permitting, formal CONSENT, authorization, leave, license or liberty granted… Ibid., page 1140 [Emphasis added]
Larken Rose explains the inherent flaws in voting that the average voter refuses to acknowledge.
“The “rulers” actually don’t matter. They are vastly outnumbered by the people like you and me. The problem is those who legitimate the “rulers” with their votes, remaining silent when the “rulers” commit evils in their names.”
“Most of them do not feel bad about that. Many of them even cheer and applaud their “rulers” while defending the crimes they commit.”
“In The Law, Bastiat says “each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property”. The State is a “substitution of a common force for individual forces” to defend this right. The law becomes perverted when it is used to violate the rights of the individual, when it punishes one’s right to defend himself again a collective effort of others to legislatively enact laws which basically have the same effect of plundering.”
“Justice has precise limits but philanthropy is limitless and government can grow endlessly when that becomes its function. The resulting statism is “based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator”. The relationship between the public and the legislator becomes “like the clay to the potter”. Bastiat says, “I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law – by force – and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes”.
The full essay can be read here: The Law by Frederic Bastiat
“The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it.” ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
I am a natural man/woman, defined as, “Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations, formed by human laws for purposes of society and government.” Wharton. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), pg. 802
Each of us has a natural right [a “just claim”] – from the Creator – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. ~ The Law by Frederic Bastiat
Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. ~ Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
“The natural law is defined by Burlamaqui to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature…” ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), page 69