John Locke Was Not A Man For Freedom
John Locke was Not a man for freedom. In fact John Locke was head of the British Board of Trade, cited in my book that controlled the colonies for the King in their money control of the colonies.
An Excerpt from the Source: Locke vs. Leibniz: Two Conflicting Conceptions of Human Nature
“From this bestial view that the human mind consists of only sense certainty, pleasure and pain, Locke developed an equally bestial theory of the nation. Man originally existed in a State of Nature of complete liberty. If he was attacked by another, he was justified in seeking retribution. Men, however, being filled with self-love, extracted more retribution than they justly deserved. The community or state came to be an umpire, by setting rules for the proper amount of “just retribution.” And thus, the commonwealth came into existence to set just punishments and to defend itself against outsiders. It follows, that Locke’s conception of freedom, was no more than the right of each man to follow his hedonistic instincts in all things, where not prohibited by the umpire’s rules. Not surprisingly, when Locke wrote the “Fundamental Constitution for the Government of Carolina,” in 1669, he established a feudal system which included both Black and White slavery.
This is why the Royal Governor of the King eliminated the quitrent tax and applied what we have now an ad valorem property tax. Thereby ensuring complete control of all corporate (republican) citizens under contract.
Yes COMMONWEALTH is a corporation that John Locke created. And the Feudal system of North Carolina and all states are still feudal systems, the same as is the United States Corporation. That the Pope really had Locke and Vattel by the short hairs is very evident when reading the entire Source documents. But read who created the Declaration of Independence and supposedly the Constitution, which is not true. He wrote it under the direction of the Pope, if at all. Everyone forgets about the Pope. This is why the Pope is so shrewd in remaining way in the back ground pulling the strings of others. I will bet that secret man that appeared in the convention hall, as stated on the History channel Secrets of the Founding fathers, could have been Leibniz.
So now we go to an excerpt on Leibniz.
Now, where did the founders of the United States learn the Leibnizian natural law which was the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Certainly not from Locke or any other of the spokesmen of the Enlightenment. Not from Grotius or other writers, who based their law on the fixed conceptions of man contained in Aristotle, Roman law, or Sarpi. At the time of the American Revolution, England ’s North American colonies had a literacy rate and productivity twice that of England, as the result of the efforts of republican circles. Philip Valenti and others have written about the substantial direct influence of Leibniz in the American Colonies. We will now look at the role of Emmerich de Vattel in the transmission of Leibnizian natural law to America ’s founders.”
So now we go to definitions of legal rights and natural Rights to see how people are controlled by a corporation, A.K.A., a republic, A.K.A. The United States and of course States.
Source: the free encyclopedia. spelling cannot be corrected
Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.
The question of which (if any) rights are natural and which are merely legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that the only rights that exist are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights say that documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights. The focus of natural rights in the United States Declaration of Independence is expressed in the legal philosophy known as Declarationism.
The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government — and thus legal rights — in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty
Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty
The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law.
The idea that animals have natural rights is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century and as such, even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.
The Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition juxtaposed to the internal freedom of the soul (sui juris). Seneca the Younger wrote: “It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man’s whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined”
These corporations of States and United States, NOT formed by the COMMON MAN, but by the elite, under control of the Vatican's Popes, think they can and have done so, by the ignorance of their subjects. This is done by presumption of legal Statutory law. If you believe it then you are bound by the law of presumption and that's how all corporate states and United States operate today. Yes, all US or State citizens are presumed SUBJECTS. The same as the King's subjects where under his control in the "Divine Right of Kings" To day it is the divine right of Congress. They write a statute telling their SUBJECTS to Jump. The subjects ask, "How high?" And now by presumption you are their slave having NO natural Rights at all. BUT, an Alien does retain all his Natural Law Right of Travel, Speech, Health care, gun possession, etc. All under the Bill of Rights for Aliens. See Bait and Switch article this atgpress site.
Likewise, the notion of inalienable rights was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.” Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that “they become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter.” These ideas may have later influenced John Locke’s concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.
I inject just such a court decision from English and American Courts on this showing you a law hidden from you where by the corporations have to back off if you invoke the right Choice of law and it is this.
"Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him and from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff'd. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham's case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin's case.)
Any social contract or compact allegedly alienating these rights would be non-binding and void, wrote Price:
“Neither can any state acquire such an authority over other states in virtue of any compacts or cessions. This is a case in which compacts are not binding. Civil liberty is, in this respect, on the same footing with religious liberty. As no people can lawfully surrender their religious liberty by giving up their right of judging for themselves in religion, or by allowing any human beings to prescribe to them what faith they shall embrace, or what mode of worship they shall practise, so neither can any civil societies lawfully surrender their civil liberty by giving up to any extraneous jurisdiction their power of legislating for themselves and disposing their property.
Now there is a way out of Presumption you are their SUBJECTS that are bound by their corporate statutes and their corporate by laws called a constitution that never was signed as a contract binding them, let alone you. That can be found in William Whiting’s book on War Powers, since he was the US Solicitor General, that all come under that are corporate US or State citizens who are residents and artificial persons to whom all statutes and constitutions address.
“An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government, or to our constitution, laws, or proclama tions. A citizen subject is bound to obey them all. In refusing such obedience, he is guilty of crime against his country, and finds in the law of nations no justification for disobedience. An alien, being under no such obligation, is justified in refusing such obedience. Over an alien enemy, our government can make no constitution, law, or proclamation of obligatory force, because our laws bind only our own subjects, and have no extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Over citizens who are subjects of this government, even if they have so far repudiated their duties as to become enemies, our constitution, statutes, and proclamations are the supreme law of the land. The fact that their enforcement is resisted does not make them void. It is not in the power of armed subjects of the Union to repeal or legally nullify our constitution, laws, or other governmental acts".
This is how you are a controlled subject by their presumption because you did not contest their Presumption, YOU are their SUBJECTS. Since I am a Native American Alien I now have proven to be not subject for any revenue laws of the corporations that you all pay every April 15 under the Presumption of civil law. If you like all the civil statute laws so be it. If you don’t, then it’s your choice of law you want to be under. Natural law of unalienable natural rights or civil law of the corporation called presumptive legal rights that eliminate all natural law rights.
The Informer March 2010