feasible - legally - to set up an alternative government body in Wisconsin ?
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations. hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government, with support of the hundred thousand and more people converging in Wisconsin, to legitimize the alternative government. this alternative government, even if only symbolically, setting up its own laws. as the police itself seems to be unhappy with the current government, they can also claim allegiance to the alternative government... as for the judiciary, it may be of interest to check to whom they owe allegiance - based on the constitution, and based on the legitimacy of governmental corporations. it may also be possible, in case the judiciary does not want to recognize, in spite of potential constitutional right, a legitimized ( by the people ) government, that an alternative judiciary be set up. a complementary currency, too , may be set up, to back up a government set up by the people, for the people, legitimized by the people. more references about legal frameworks regarding current governments of the US, UK, and Germany, below. It seems like a good way of reclaiming "a" government - "(y)our own" - potentially more legitimate government. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM Subject: artivist project: set up complementary collapsonomics network of governments - as legal framework ... if a government is a legal framework similar to a corporation, it is possible to set one up , and organize ways to legitimize it... elections ? or "give shares of membership" providing access to decision making or delegation of decision making. more below... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM Subject: Legally : what is a nation state ? To: p2p-foundation <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Perhaps some of us know more about this topic. Is there a legal difference between the status of "Nation State" - its constitution, and its potential recognition by other nation states, and that of the legal status governing such nation State ?
From documents I provide below, it seems that some governments and the legal framework related to the functioning of the current operating states may actually legally be "Corporations" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Hence what is the relation between the legal status of a Nation State, and that of legal frameworks assuming control over such Nation State ? And what is the relation between humans and/or legal persons, with the original nation state, or with the entity which controls in the form of a state the nation state ? Also , what does it mean regarding supra / trans-national contracts ? And what is the position of humans in relation to these ? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law ) And what does it mean in relation to "Property" , and the legitimacy of certain laws ? Do they apply ? Or do they only apply if we make a contract - in that case, what is considered as a contract which binds humans to certain of these legal frameworks ? For the United States, Germany, and the UK, I find some of the following documents... ---------------- US : http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm excerpts : *"In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title."* * * *"The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land."* --------------------- Regarding the UK : http://tpuc.org/node/558 http://www.tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters John Harris - 'It's an illusion' talk at the Stoke 'Lawful Rebellion'Conference ---- Regarding Germany : http://vimeo.com/5506711 http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&bi... Vortrag von Hr. Görlitz zur Rechtslage in Deutschland (2. Fassung mit besserem Ton) In diesem Vortrag beschreibt Herr Görlitz die Rechtslage in Deutschland. Die BRD wurde 1990 durch die Streichung des Geltungsbereichsartikels 23 des Grundgesetzes aufgelöst. Das Deutsche Reich existiert nach wie vor und wird wieder handlungsfähig gemacht. Heutige Beamte der 'BRD' sind seit Auflösung der BRD reine Privatpersonen. Das 'Bundesvermögen' und sämtliche 'Finanzämter' werden von der Firma 'Bundesrepublik Deutschland Finanzagentur GmbH' verwaltet. Gültiges Recht sind die Reichsgesetze, die auf der Weimarer Verfassung vom 11. Aug. 1919 fußen. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz_f%C3%BCr_die_Bundesrepublik_Deutsch...
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations.
I think it is worth noting: many cities are actually 'incorporated' - though I'm not sure how that changes their operation.
hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government,
I think this is very doable if we begin on a very small scale. When I think of such things, it helps me keep clarity by realizing government and corporation originally serve the same purpose - to help people co-own some shared assets. So we can begin a government body by simply starting a business, and the co-owners of that business will be the citizens. Notice you can ADD laws to your new government/corporation. For example, you could say "you cannot enter unless you are wearing a purple hat". But you cannot DELETE laws from the 'containing' government if the city, county, state or nation you are within forbids such activity. For example, you cannot say "you can gamble here" if that is illegal wherever your gov-corp is located. On the other hand, once your gov-corp reaches sufficient size, you will be able to become an influence on 'peer' governments and finally be able to CHANGE laws. For example, when you are large enough to declare yourself a city, you can then begin voting in county and maybe state affairs using the procedures those entities have setup.
Thanks Patrick, very interesting. Regarding the "membership" of the "governance corporation", and "laws" applying to such members, based on info about such status in the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, via links given in this previous message https://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!topic/econowmix/pKr2UaIPPEA it seems that , except for the constitution itself ( see notes below - can also be controversial ) to my understanding it seems that the other laws are based on "contractual agreement". What makes us, as citizens, agree to the contracts of these laws ? Our citizenship / membership of the governance corporation ? Or some other form of agreement we make ? ( for uk, see the video : lawful rebellion <http://tpuc.org/node/558> ) It seems that small things, such as, in Germany, sitting ( or is it standing up ? ) at a court , which as I heard may be a code which seems to mean that one approves of the authority of the judge of the the german corporation ( the german corporation is called 'Bundesrepublik Deutschland Finanzagentur GmbH' ), creates a contract in relation to the "contractual laws" ( hence not common law / not the constitution ? ). In the UK, too, certain things one says seems to give power or not to certain contractual laws, or not. I do not have definitive answers and would like to have the opinion of some ( constitutional ) lawyers. I also know this applies in for example public transportation in my city, Brussels : there is no belgian law that says that one has to buy a valid ticket on the subway. there is only a internal rule of the company that says that one is supposed to have such ticket. The only reason the people inspecting users of the transportation network can fine people that do not have a valid transportation ticket, is when these people "make a contract" by showing their ID, in effect agreeing with these private company inspection agents. As long as no other law is breached ( for example, no violence ), one can just ask to leave the privately owned public space, without showing papers. As for property of the country, at least in the case of Germany, there are serious questions as to "who owns germany"... ( or at least, its public assets, in the case the german corporation is not legally entitled to it ? ) a few more notes : What constitution is legally legitimate under what territory !? For example, in Germany, the "Basic Law"<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany> , according to the links given in that message, may technically be argued not to be a constitution , but rather a contractual law ? Hence is the Weimar Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution>still in application , even though it was defined for a territory that does not correspond anymore ? As for the United States, it seems that the Federal Government ruling over the United States is a governance type of corporation for the Federal District - Washington DC - see : http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm excerpt : *"The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land."* One more example regarding US and Hawaii : legally speaking, places such as the state of Hawaii may not be part of the United States : http://www.truth-out.org/sai-v-obama-et-al-hawaiis-legal-case-against-united... * *excerpt :* " **a judgment by the court to declare the 1898 Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States to be in violation of Hawaiian sovereignty and unconstitutional under US law. "* <https://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!topic/econowmix/pKr2UaIPPEA> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations.
I think it is worth noting: many cities are actually 'incorporated' - though I'm not sure how that changes their operation.
hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government,
I think this is very doable if we begin on a very small scale.
When I think of such things, it helps me keep clarity by realizing government and corporation originally serve the same purpose - to help people co-own some shared assets.
So we can begin a government body by simply starting a business, and the co-owners of that business will be the citizens.
Notice you can ADD laws to your new government/corporation. For example, you could say "you cannot enter unless you are wearing a purple hat".
But you cannot DELETE laws from the 'containing' government if the city, county, state or nation you are within forbids such activity. For example, you cannot say "you can gamble here" if that is illegal wherever your gov-corp is located.
On the other hand, once your gov-corp reaches sufficient size, you will be able to become an influence on 'peer' governments and finally be able to CHANGE laws. For example, when you are large enough to declare yourself a city, you can then begin voting in county and maybe state affairs using the procedures those entities have setup.
Dante, don't know much about it, but you may want to check bahai economics and the 'house of justice' concept, Michel On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations.
I think it is worth noting: many cities are actually 'incorporated' - though I'm not sure how that changes their operation.
hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government,
I think this is very doable if we begin on a very small scale.
When I think of such things, it helps me keep clarity by realizing government and corporation originally serve the same purpose - to help people co-own some shared assets.
So we can begin a government body by simply starting a business, and the co-owners of that business will be the citizens.
Notice you can ADD laws to your new government/corporation. For example, you could say "you cannot enter unless you are wearing a purple hat".
But you cannot DELETE laws from the 'containing' government if the city, county, state or nation you are within forbids such activity. For example, you cannot say "you can gamble here" if that is illegal wherever your gov-corp is located.
On the other hand, once your gov-corp reaches sufficient size, you will be able to become an influence on 'peer' governments and finally be able to CHANGE laws. For example, when you are large enough to declare yourself a city, you can then begin voting in county and maybe state affairs using the procedures those entities have setup.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations. hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government,
The only reason to try to set up another government is if your current government's basic principles or constitution are against your own basic principles. Unless you want to be a dictator, this is likely not the case (at least in the U.S.). Consider this carefully. A lot of people have invested a lot of science of political thought over the past 3000+ years. "By the people, of the people, for the people". This is what the U.S. prides itself upon. If it isn't happening and you feel the existing (standard) procedures are too slow or corrupt to make a change, *force* the issue and *take it to court*. Argue your f*cking case. Here's one: make a freedombox that would create an awesome mesh network operating in ranges currently disallowed by the F.C.C. But don't be another failure like Napster: be prepared, do your research, have the economic and social-policitical cases ready when you get a 1 million nodes and start popping up on their radar.... Otherwise, it's best not to re-invent the wheel, because it's very likely you're going to run into the same issue in your "new government" that the old government had. You might check out the pangaia manifesto and pangaia.sf.net. There is it argued that the basic problem affecting most everybody right now is the assumption of "right to property". As it currently stands in most so-called "developed" countries it it placed well above the "right to sleep" -- something that no human can do without. Good luck in any case.... Marcos (Project Lead for pangaia)
Nice to read your reply Mark you say **take it to court** What if the courts themselves are not considered legitimate ? What is the laws they abide by are not considered legitimate ? On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mark Janssen <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations. hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government,
The only reason to try to set up another government is if your current government's basic principles or constitution are against your own basic principles. Unless you want to be a dictator, this is likely not the case (at least in the U.S.). Consider this carefully. A lot of people have invested a lot of science of political thought over the past 3000+ years.
"By the people, of the people, for the people". This is what the U.S. prides itself upon. If it isn't happening and you feel the existing (standard) procedures are too slow or corrupt to make a change, *force* the issue and *take it to court*. Argue your f*cking case.
Here's one: make a freedombox that would create an awesome mesh network operating in ranges currently disallowed by the F.C.C. But don't be another failure like Napster: be prepared, do your research, have the economic and social-policitical cases ready when you get a 1 million nodes and start popping up on their radar....
Otherwise, it's best not to re-invent the wheel, because it's very likely you're going to run into the same issue in your "new government" that the old government had.
You might check out the pangaia manifesto and pangaia.sf.net. There is it argued that the basic problem affecting most everybody right now is the assumption of "right to property". As it currently stands in most so-called "developed" countries it it placed well above the "right to sleep" -- something that no human can do without. Good luck in any case....
Marcos (Project Lead for pangaia)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Mark Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
The only reason to try to set up another government is if your current government's basic principles or constitution are against your own basic principles. Unless you want to be a dictator, this is likely not the case (at least in the U.S.). Consider this carefully. A lot of people have invested a lot of science of political thought over the past 3000+ years.
Well, yeah. The propertied classes, the ruling classes, over the past 3000 years have invested a lot of thought in how to use states to extract a surplus from the producing classes through artificial property rights, artificial scarcities, and assorted subsidies and privileges. If you want to distribute information without paying tribute to the "owner" of a copyright, or manufacture a physical good without paying tribute to someone who "owns" the rights to configure material elements in a particular pattern, you're at odds with the basic principles of the U.S. If you want to produce freely produce a drug which was developed entirely at taxpayer expense, and sell it for your actual production cost, without the permission of a company that owns patent rights and sells it for a 2000% markup, you're at odds with the government. If you want to run a low-overhead microenterprise out of your home, without renting standalone commercial property and buying unnecessary industrial-grade capital equipment, in defiance of local zoning and licensing laws passed at the behest of the big incumbents, you're at odds with the government. Government exists mainly for enforcing the political means to wealth, through rents on government-enforced artificial property rights. That's been the main purpose of the state these past 3000 years: to make sure the people who do the world's work give over their surplus to the people who own the world.
"By the people, of the people, for the people". This is what the U.S. prides itself upon. If it isn't happening and you feel the existing (standard) procedures are too slow or corrupt to make a change, *force* the issue and *take it to court*. Argue your f*cking case.
By way of analogy, it costs a hundred or a thousand times as much to destroy the entire infrastructure of a pipeline system or communications network, on the pattern of strategic bombing in WWII, as it does to destroy a handful of key nodes and render the entire thing inoperable without actually destroying the entire physical infrastructure. The key nodes, in the words of John Robb, are the Systempunkt. Attacking the Systempunkt rather than destroying the whole physical infastructure results in ROIs of a million percent. The effort of actually working within the system to change the laws, in this analogy, equates to the enormous number of sorties required to bomb an entire physical infrastructure to rubble. The state's enforcement capability, OTOH, is its Systempunkt. A law which is not enforceable is as good as a law which is repealed, and evading enforcement is far more cost-effective. Why waste the next fifty years showing up at hearings and committee meetings stacked with RIAA and MPAA representatives, in a process where you're outspent 100-to-1 by industry lobbying efforts and the decision-making bodies are barely concealing their giggling behind their hands while pretending to listen to you, when you can spend a hundredth as much on developing the means of filesharing without the state, proprietary content companies or ISPs tracking you? The whole system is set up to be dominated by the people with the big money. So long as you play by their procedural rules, you're almost guaranteed to lose. Why not play by the rules of asymmetric warfare and nullify their advantages in money and resources?
Here's one: make a freedombox that would create an awesome mesh network operating in ranges currently disallowed by the F.C.C. But don't be another failure like Napster: be prepared, do your research, have the economic and social-policitical cases ready when you get a 1 million nodes and start popping up on their radar....
Napster was a failure mainly because Fanning failed to plan for circumventing government attempts to shut it down, and because its architecture wasn't robust enough to thwart such attempts. The failure of Napster led to Kazaa, a system which was more distributed and harder to shut down. And from there to Kazaa Lite, to eDonkey, and so on. -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Carson <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Mark Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
The only reason to try to set up another government is if your current government's basic principles or constitution are against your own basic principles. Unless you want to be a dictator, this is likely not the case (at least in the U.S.). Consider this carefully. A lot of people have invested a lot of science of political thought over the past 3000+ years.
Well, yeah. The propertied classes, the ruling classes, over the past 3000 years have invested a lot of thought in how to use states to extract a surplus from the producing classes through artificial property rights, artificial scarcities, and assorted subsidies and privileges.
Kevin, there are no "producing classes" -- you have free will. And property is an imaginary construct upheld by those too afraid or too ignorant to challenge it. Take it to court, keep your wits, and you'll find a very frail basiis for its continuance. Watch the whole fucking structure collapse right in front of your eyes. It's the right time, as the era of conquest is over, and now we can look back and assess the moral and reasonable basiis for our past choices and how we will mend them. It will be a sight to see, no doubt.... If you do want to pursue this course, get in contact. I have a *lot* to say about it and would support you.
Government exists mainly for enforcing the political means to wealth,
That is certainly what it has become, but I think it is mostly because people got intimidated, then apathetic, and then sold-out their soul and accepted convenience in place of ideals (a.k.a. the yuppies). I salute all who don't let this happen to themselves.
through rents on government-enforced artificial property rights. That's been the main purpose of the state these past 3000 years: to make sure the people who do the world's work give over their surplus to the people who own the world.
This is an argument by one who thinks they need the property owners to survive. This is one of the means they control you. Get straighttedge, streamlined, and free, then you can push the system from the outside.
The effort of actually working within the system to change the laws, in this analogy, equates to the enormous number of sorties required to bomb an entire physical infrastructure to rubble.
This would be true if the nation-state in question had no values or was constitutionally dictatorial, but the U.S. is not. Either it abides by its principles or it fucking falls dude. There's no way around it, especially now where such cases can get enormous mind-share via the Internet and such. Don't let size intimidate you -- without sound principles founded in universal human values, the beast will fucking drop. If you need some pointers, get in touch -- I can point you in the right direction.
Why not play by the rules of asymmetric warfare and nullify their advantages in money and resources?
Well, I believe that is also a good parallel strategy, but not a replacement for what I'm recommending. Because the issues of creating a stable government will still re-surface and you'll be faced with the same questions as before. Cheers and thanks for the continuing dialog.... marcos
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Mark Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, yeah. The propertied classes, the ruling classes, over the past 3000 years have invested a lot of thought in how to use states to extract a surplus from the producing classes through artificial property rights, artificial scarcities, and assorted subsidies and privileges.
Kevin, there are no "producing classes" -- you have free will.
As a simple empirical matter, there are classes that work harder than necessary to produce what they consume, and other classes that consume more than they produce. And the latter accomplish this through rents on artificial scarcity enforced by the state. And
property is an imaginary construct upheld by those too afraid or too ignorant to challenge it. Take it to court, keep your wits, and you'll find a very frail basiis for its continuance. Watch the whole fucking structure collapse right in front of your eyes.
I agree that challenging the structure will cause it to collapse. I just think the best way to do it is to circumvent it and render it unenforceable.
That is certainly what it has become, but I think it is mostly because people got intimidated, then apathetic, and then sold-out their soul and accepted convenience in place of ideals (a.k.a. the yuppies). I salute all who don't let this happen to themselves.
I don't think it's ever been anything else. The first states came into existence when the peasantry started producing a large enough surplus for kings, nobles and priests to milk them like cattle. And I don't think there's any ideal time in the past where government really worked for the people. If you look at the so-called Progressive Era, as described by the New Left historian Gabriel Kolko, most of the legislative agenda was actually passed at the instigation of the regulated industries, in order to make possible stable oligopoly cartels. Or look at the role of GE chief Gerard Swope and the Business Advisory Council in the New Deal. To the extent that government action has ever made things comparatively better for working people, it was a side-effect of one faction of big business promoting its own interests through government.
This is an argument by one who thinks they need the property owners to survive. This is one of the means they control you. Get straighttedge, streamlined, and free, then you can push the system from the outside.
Huh? My whole argument is based on the idea of demonstrating that we DON'T need the property owners to survive, and pushing from the outside by rendering their property claims unenforceable or by adopting low-cost technologies that render their accumulated capital superfluous.
This would be true if the nation-state in question had no values or was constitutionally dictatorial, but the U.S. is not. Either it abides by its principles or it fucking falls dude. There's no way around it, especially now where such cases can get enormous mind-share via the Internet and such.
I don't think it's ever abided by its "principles." The U.S. Constitution was put in place through what amounted to a Federalist coup d'etat, representing the big financial and land-holding interests of the 1780s who wanted a central government capable of pursuing stronger mercantilist policies. -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations. hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government, with support of the hundred thousand and more people converging in Wisconsin, to legitimize the alternative government.
I think you have in mind something like de Ugarte's phyles or Robb's "economy as a software service." If so, the main problem is that existing governments serve the primary purpose of preventing the very kinds of things an alternative government would be created to achieve. An alternative economy -- as I understand its benefits -- would be created to enable producers to engage in exchange with one another without paying tribute to the money monopoly, to distribute digital information in defiance of "intellectual property" laws, to bypass the corporate state and the taxation apparatus that subsidizes it, etc. The idea is for an economy, operating under cover of a darknet with encrypted transactions, to circumvent all the regulations whose primary intent is to enforce artificial scarcities and entry barriers, so that we don't have to pay rent to the holders of special privileges and immunities granted by the state. So much of what the alt economy would do would be in direct contravention of the laws of the existing state. Local communities are incorporated, but they are viewed as being incorporated *under* the constitution and laws of sovereign states. -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
Interesting replies. Related to another message posted on this list, on a similar topic : https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/2011-March/001030.html - lawful rebellion - see at 7min20 seconds : http://a.blip.tv/scripts/flash/stratos.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2... http://worldfreemansociety.org/blogpost374-Hundreds-of-council-tax-protester... <http://a.blip.tv/scripts/flash/stratos.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2Fflash%2F3237853&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fa.blip.tv%2Fscripts%2Fflash%2Fstratos.swf&feedurl=http://TheUKColumn.blip.tv/rss/flash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http://blip.tv/%3Futm_source%3Dbrandlink&enablejs=true> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Kevin Carson < [email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations. hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government, with support of the hundred thousand and more people converging in Wisconsin, to legitimize the alternative government.
So much of what the alt economy would do would be in direct contravention of the laws of the existing state.
Local communities are incorporated, but they are viewed as being incorporated *under* the constitution and laws of sovereign states.
participants (5)
-
Dante-Gabryell Monson -
Kevin Carson -
Mark Janssen -
Michel Bauwens -
Patrick Anderson