Author Topic: Chain of Authority Examined  (Read 272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Chain of Authority Examined
« on: February 13, 2021, 12:31:34 PM »
Chain of Authority Examined

1. A chain of authority has a subordinate end.
2. A chain of authority has a superior end.
3. Which may also be called a sovereign end.
4. The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.
5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
6. For comparison, a plantation owner's ownership of a cotton picking slave was presumed to have had a higher claim on the slave than the slave had over him or her self, property, and labor.
7. Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior authority is by definition: enslavement.
8. The alleged authority of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.
9. Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.
10. This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!
11. There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.
12. For example, I always used seat belts before there were laws (politician's opinions) commanding I always wear seat belts. To properly protest that law, I would have to do something that lessens my survival odds in a collision - Not wear the seat belt.
13. Examination of alleged consent finds that it was never actually given, only usurped or fabricated. I'll come back to this.
14. Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have? Well... If they don't have it...
15. Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else? Claiming you were born with authority over me is a declaration of war with me. You have been warned!
16. The alleged authority of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances is presumed to come from the legislators.
17. This means the alleged authority imbued in the written words of law (politician's opinions) is the authority that the legislators (politicians) are alleged to have over everyone else.
18. Legislators (politicians) are not born with this alleged authority over everyone else, therefore this alleged authority must be delegated to the legislators (politicians).
19. The main source of this alleged authority is presumed to come with the office.
20. The other part of this alleged authority comes from the selection of a person to hold the office.
21. If you do not have authority over me, then you can not select any person to have an authority over me. You can only select a person to have authority over you.
22. Voting for a person to hold the office of legislator does NOT give him authority over me unless I also voted for that politician.
23. Prove I've ever voted for any present officeholder. (You can't because I didn't.)
24. If appointed to an office, if the person doing the appointing does not have authority over me, then the delegation of authority and the appointee can not have authority over me.
25. The person doing the appointing was put into their office the same way... By appointment or by vote. The same failure to have authority over me still exists.
26. Returning to the alleged authority of the office. These offices were created by people who were not born with authority over me.
27. Therefore these offices do not have authority over me.
28. Focusing on the federal level constitution, also known as the highest law in the land, Those long dead authors of the constitution did not have authority over me.
29. Therefore, the constitution has no authority over me.
30. And neither do the offices created by the constitution.
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: Chain of Authority Examined
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2021, 03:56:16 AM »
Chain of Authority Examined

Substituting "a right to control" for authority.

Chain of [a right to control] Examined

1. A chain of [a right to control] has a subordinate end.
2. A chain of [a right to control] has a superior end.
3. Which may also be called a sovereign end.
4. The person allegedly holding a position of a superior [right to control] is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of a subordinate [right to control].
5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
6. For comparison, a plantation owner's ownership of a cotton picking slave was presumed to have had a higher claim on the slave than the slave had over him or her self, property, and labor.
7. Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior [right to control] is by definition: enslavement.
8. The alleged [right to control] of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.
9. Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.
10. This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!
11. There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.
12. For example, I always used seat belts before there were laws (politician's opinions) commanding I always wear seat belts. To properly protest that law, I would have to do something that lessens my survival odds in a collision - Not wear the seat belt.
13. Examination of alleged consent finds that it was never actually given, only usurped or fabricated. I'll come back to this.
14. Can anybody delegate [ right to control] they don't have? Well... If they don't have it...
15. Was anybody born with an innate [right to control] over anybody else? Claiming you were born with [a right to control] over me is a declaration of war with me. You have been warned!
16. The alleged [right to control] of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances is presumed to come from the legislators.
17. This means the alleged [right to control] imbued in the written words of law (politician's opinions) is the [right to control] that the legislators (politicians) are alleged to have over everyone else.
18. Legislators (politicians) are not born with this alleged [right to control] over everyone else, therefore this alleged [right to control] must be delegated to the legislators (politicians).
19. The main source of this alleged [right to control] is presumed to come with the office.
20. The other part of this alleged [right to control] comes from the selection of a person to hold the office.
21. If you do not have [a right to control] over me, then you can not select any person to have [a right to control] over me. You can only select a person to have [a right to control] over you.
22. Voting for a person to hold the office of legislator does NOT give him [a right to control] over me unless I also voted for that politician.
23. Prove I've ever voted for any present officeholder. (You can't because I didn't.)
24. If appointed to an office, if the person doing the appointing does not have [a right to control] over me, then the delegation of [a right to control] and the appointee can not have [a right to control] over me.
25. The person doing the appointing was put into their office the same way... By appointment or by vote. The same failure to have [a right to control] over me still exists.
26. Returning to the alleged [right to control] of the office. These offices were created by people who were not born with [a right to control] over me.
27. Therefore these offices do not have [a right to control] over me.
28. Focusing on the federal level constitution, also known as the highest law in the land, Those long dead authors of the constitution did not have [a right to control] over me.
29. Therefore, the constitution has no [right to control] over me.
30. And neither do the offices created by the constitution.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2022, 05:09:32 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: Chain of Authority Examined
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2022, 09:35:38 AM »
Chain of obedience, errant belief of authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOcOf_UAs20
Natural Law Matters