[P2P-F] feasible - legally - to set up an alternative government body in Wisconsin ?

Tue Mar 15 16:44:35 CET 2011

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-states65850
 * *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 <agnucius at gmail.com>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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110315/6df95382/attachment.htm 