Episode 8 - Please spread this - Law is voluntary - www.BenLowrey.com

[JohnWilliamCornett]

I recently tested my sovereignty in my home town of Forest Grove, OR...and discovered that what you say is true. More will be revealed and Humanity will be free at last. As for the criminals, I can protect myself & my family much better than any "dial-a-cop" BS ever could! PEACE

PS: Great interview with our friend Jason Verbelli. Keep up the good work Brother! PEACE OUT!

[freesmithy]

cont..... have to work together to survive!

No being has destruction built in, all nature does is try to survive and thats we will do!

People are brainwashed into thinking their would be anarchy but who exactly would be causing it if we all made sure everyone else was ok!

I'm certain 99% of people in this world are good people and are doing what it takes to survive in a broken/fascist world!

Peace & Unity!

[BLACKOP162]

@freesmithy

Ben Lowrey makes good money out of morons like you.

[freesmithy]

@BLACKOP162 How exactly???

[BLACKOP162]

@freesmithy

Check out his website, moron.

[freesmithy]

@BLACKOP162 Thats a modest amount. I doubt he gets that much out of that. Besides the need to know stuff is completely free. Would you do a job for nothing in our current system??

You can call me moron dude. I care not. Its how you peoiple try to argue!

Everyone can tell who the decent people are just by you saying things like that!

You are making our job easier!

[freesmithy]

If someone commits a crime we deal with it as a society, publicly humiliate them!

Those crimes should be:

1) Not causing harm or loss to any other human being!

We don't need a huge army, if we was all armed. We would protect our country from being invaded!

If we lived for each other rather than for money, we could experience a whole new world!

If the whole world done away with their governments, there would be no more wars!

Humans would evolve a new mindset, we would.......tbc

[FLDanNnc]

@joeking257 where did you here ben acting like he thought he were Caesar? Have you actually listened to him speaking?

[D4nD4n1]

im sure that next week you'll find another answer no doubt!!

[MsBPunk]

This is like my old fifth form debating club.

[philipsmovies]

Exactly. We don't need no governments. We don't need no Royal Family. We don't need no EU. WE DONT NEED NO EDUCATION......

[bergweg]

"There is no freedom of choice unless there is freedom to refuse"

[wisdomtrek]

Law is NOT voluntary UNLESS you have a commensurate, or greater, force then those trying to impose their will upon your person. To wit YOU CAN HURT OR OTHERWISE KILL THOSE PEOPLE. Law is not voluntary, it is mandatory.

[Baptistlove]

The common law court is the best form and forms of commercial affidavits. That is what we have look up negative averment" in accordance with Federal. Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(a). Understand consent must be given but there are ways to stop them from wanting to ticket and imprison you through executive and diplomatic means.

[ceedav]

What a wonderful young man you are, Ben!

[garfield6767]

absolutely, thanks Ben.

[Riaining]

Also another thing to realize, is you DO have that choice to not be subject to those rules, and i'm sure you are already aware of that, because there are two places that occupy the land we think is 'the united states', one as a United States Citizen, and one as an American Citizen. One is subject to billions of statutory jurisdiction, and one is bound by common law, or the nature of competency of 'a' common law; which is the same thing as whatever you decide as lawful yourself. That is freedom.

[Riaining]

There would probably be a lot less violence in the world if what you say is the way it is.. you have to notice that most violence that occurs, is generally from 'acting' officials. I love freedom, and for the freedom of choice to be mine. If someone makes choices that are self destructive, so be it, it is their free-will-choice to do that. It is important to make 'you' happy, before all else. I like this video, ben. I'm glad you take initiative with your videos, keep it up.

[GalaxyHorse]

I thought there was something very wrong with the setup the second day I went to primary school, I did not want to go back to that place, I wanted to go and play in the woods, get back to my business-but no i was forced through the gates-ever since I have been fighting the unseen force behind the whole stinking deal....

[SCOTTDAVIDSON32]

I think we already have a voluntary govt

[xert20]

patterns are noticed, once forced / its a psychological turn off. a cohesive community would far output.

[drcz666]

We were given up by our parents with the birth registry. We ratified that agreement of slavery when we begged for a SIN card, Drivers licence, bank account and so on. We were led to believe that these contracts were mandatory. Well I'm personally ready to abandon ship. This Admiralty Law that we have been hijacked by sucks. We need to band together, force the government back into "its" box, and reclaim our Common Law rights, all without violence. Gonna be hard.

[LoveVanillaRose]

@drcz666

Bravo!! We need to remind government that "The People" are the authority.

When "public servants" clock out, and take off the suits, they are one of us.

But when they clock in to "work" as a "public servant" the are there to listen to the rest of us and do what we say.

When they are clocked out, they too, may tell the "employees" who are clocked in, what to do.

Period!

[TheHolySpirit]

"If we didn't have law then it would be chaos, society would degenerate, you'd have gangs & mafia running the show,, People would be breaking into your house"... Hang on, that's EXACTLY what we've already got and it's the Government who are the mafia gang!

[LoveVanillaRose]

@TheHolySpirit Exactly Right!!!

[MrDefiance000]

@TheHolySpirit Government is crime which takes many different shapes and forms and is not always visible at first glance until you look behind the facade and understand what is truly going on. With the amoutn of suffering that is happening beyond the borders of those who are lucky the system we have is a FAILURE and CRIME of epic proportions.

[wobbers99]

The answer only applies to adults who can conduct their selves in a manner where you don't need Law.

Brain deads who cause another physical harm need Government. The rest need ONLY arbitration by consent.

End of.

[bergweg]

@wobbers99 What is scary is that there are no safety filters to block psychopaths from getting into positions of power.

[wobbers99]

@bergweg You are absolutely correct.

Psychopaths are not screened and there is no Legal statute or Law to identify such individuals.

This is because it would put 1000's of "leaders" in the loony bin.

[bergweg]

@wobbers99 Yep, there is a need for something similar to a diplomatic passport for responsible people.

[wobbers99]

@bergweg That is a Brilliant idea.

[maria3626352]

force = slavery

[bergweg]

No one has the right to force YOU (Ben) to do what you don't want to do. Let's assume you are renting the place where you live, now, you're out of money, can't pay for the privilege of using something that the "owner" does not personally use. The owner want's to initiate force to kick you out, how do you deal with that?

[VerifiedNews]

@bergweg you weren't forced to move in and agree to the rent. If you breach you are liable.

[bergweg]

@VerifiedNews 1)What if the apartment stood empty for years and I just moved in? 2) A roof over the head, especially in cold climates is a necessity. Profit for the owner is not. 3) Now imagine same example but with land, you find a piece of land not being used by anyone and start using it for your livelihood, all of a sudden someone comes and claims he owns that piece of land and wants to kick you off 'cause you ain't paying him rent.

[Arashmickey]

@bergweg

Hoi sjef. Hoe gaat 'ie?

There has been lots of discussion on the topic of NAP and property rights, including what constitutes abandonment, etc. I haven't studied up on it properly but this is the bottom line as I understand it:

So long as both accept the NAP, neither party can logically be in the position of initiating force, either directly, or indirectly in any foreseeable manner. What actually happens with regards to property and survival is circumstantial.

[Arashmickey]

@Arashmickey

So if the guy who moved it owns it because 50 years is a reasonable time to call it "abandonment" - then maybe he can offer a meal and call it even. If the guy who came along has a really valid claim - eg. state regulation doesn't allow him to use it for some reason and he has gotten people to petition a change - then if he doesn't accept that kicking you out is a death sentence, he's wrong. If he does, the two can work out a deal. It's as voluntary as man vs the elements gets.

[Arashmickey]

@Arashmickey

So as I hope you can see and imagine, so long as there is a will and the elements/the world/god/the dao/et-ce-terra allow it, there's always a way to not be evil. :)

[bergweg]

@Arashmickey I just don't see how one can claim ownership of land, meaning the right to buy, sell or extract profit from land. Continual possession for personal use is ok. You know like building a house for yourself/family, or cultivating food. 2) I think the initiation of force to enforce a contract that will endanger the livelihood of another is not justifiable.

[Arashmickey]

@bergweg

1) What's wrong with it?

2) I said that :) There's no need to enforce contracts so long as both parties are willing to (re)negotiate.

[JaceJohanson]

@VerifiedNews Actually, you're both missing a crucial point: where's there mentioned a contract or otherwise in this scenario? If something truly is abandoned or unclaimed, then it's fair game. It's possible you could be mistaken about this, in fact, but that's another scenario. Assuming you weren't, and then someone just shows up, he has no greater fact or evidence than you do. Less, even, because you've been there, taking care of your place yourself. Look up homesteading.

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson 1) What about the land registry? Does that prove a legitimate claim to land? 2) I think it's not a matter of whether or not something is claimed or not claimed but on the nature of the claim. If I claim a piece of land as livelihood and another claims it for profit or for any other purpose other than livelihood, doesn't matter if he had the claim before me, my claim is superior. Not even talking about claims by legal entities.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg Then why did you bring up the land registry? Look, profit and livelihood are not as separate as you're painting them, here. All livelihood is a function of drawing a net profit in existence, because a net loss is called: death. So, your argument is specious, although I know what you are trying to communicate besides. You are entirely right that it's not a matter simply of making a claim, but substantiating a claim. But, you did not actually set a consistent standard, yet.

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson My definition of profit is income without input of work. I just brought up the land registry because many use it as the basis to "substantiate" their claims that land is theirs.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg Well, that's all well and dandy for you, but you're not communicating with the rest of the human race then, are you? Too many people do this, they enter a debate with a secret personal definition of a pivot-word, then reveal it halfway through, and you all think you've somehow scored. That is not the definition of profit. And if you're going to go by what others use, don't secretly hold your own definition of a word. Good lord, does no one understand the basics of discussion?

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson Hey sorry man, I thought that's the definition of "profit". What word would you use for income without work, e.g. dividends from shares, or interest on saving accounts?

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg I don't know that is is an exact word for your meaning, because you're actually swaying across different concepts within one thought. There's infinitesimal profit; one example is like finding something unclaimed by luck that you turn and sell, but that still requires effort on the selling part, if not the acquiring part. There's passive income, which is income that is thrown off of such things, as return for wise investing done previously. You may be looking at it wrong.

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson "passive income", that sounds more like it. I would not use the word wise when talking about business, but rather smart or clever.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg Well, "wise" would not necessarily be correct in everybody's case, that is, they may just be lucky or intuitive. But I surmise that you're main concern is more in ethical money and business practices, rather than just definitions. Correct? Definitions make it clearer, but you seem to be trying at figuring out the ethics of economics and business. What's your big concern?

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson Ownership of land, but that's just one of the big concerns, and it's kinda off-top from this video, although we have to keep in mind that when we change to a stateless society there are going to be a lot of ownership related issues to be resolved. Another thing that bothers me is the feeling that the merchant mentality (in different forms) has (to put it roughly) taken over the minds of the majority of people, at least in the west, that ain't good at all.

[bergweg]

@bergweg Talking about definitions, .... I'm a bit "obsessed" lately with definitions, maybe because I have to deal with courts quite often, and these people will use ambiguity to their advantage. Or maybe because I studied linguistics a bit in the past, and it's an interesting topic to me, specially how language shapes our world view.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg Definitions are always good to know, as we've covered. It's also good to understand etymology of a word, as well as be able to boil down to the common meaning under all various usages of a word. Language is indispensable.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg There's an idea about that which I had had enough time to delve into, called homesteading. It's a paradigm and methodology for how that sort of problem can be addressed peaceably and expediently. watch?v=qeZe_ToSk80 Skip to the end of this video and Adam Kokesh talks a little bit about it. If you have 2 hours, it's worth watching the whole thing. I think I know what you mean, but to be clear, elucidate on "merchant mentallity." I can't infer your whole meaning yet.

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson One aspect of the "merchant mentality" is e.g. when someone looks at something (a scientific discovery, or maybe a discovery of a new source of some raw material, or maybe an event) and sees an opportunity to construct a business around it.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg Ok. And... you see this as a bad thing? Under the current system of monopolizing, that's valid, but remove the violence of the state, and you cannot have corporations or limited liability in business, therefor keeping anyone from shifting responsibility in resource use and market value. The entrepreneurial spirit is a great thing. But, stupid things like "Intellectual Property Rights" are used to stagnate building upon recent ideas to create the next idea.

[joeking257]

@JaceJohanson Ben likes his laws... he doesn't want to give up the one where he thinks he is Caesar and everyone should give him a share of their wages.

[bergweg]

@joeking257 Could you elaborate on that? Which law do you mean? In what video is it mentioned?

[JaceJohanson]

@joeking257 What are you talking about?

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson I just see the trend of conducting a business just for the sake of business as dangerous, especially if it is aimed at growth for the sake of growth, especially if it needs raw materials and land.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg Ok, but that's not really getting to the root of "why?" Your surmise may be accurate, but right now it's not proven as such by your presentation. It makes your point list towards tautological. Proper economics and ethics takes care of wisely managing resources and land. Certainly those who don't bother with either are dangerous, businessmen or not.

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson Can post the whole "why" question. It's hard to follow the thread of discussion here on youtube.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg Send me private message about your whole idea, and we can talk in segments longer than 500 characters.

[JaceJohanson]

@JaceJohanson watch?v=qeZe_ToSk80  Skip to about 1:40:00.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg prof·it Noun: A financial gain, esp. the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

Profit is ENTIRELY defined by a ratio of input:output. There's a difference in "defining your terms" and whatever it is you suppose you're doing. You don't discuss something by, in the middle, claiming a personal definition for a key term that is antithetical to the actual meaning and common usage of that term. Good God, man..

[bergweg]

Is government and the state the same thing? Can we we have one without the other?

[benlowreyhimself]

@bergweg

same thing

[bergweg]

@benlowreyhimself Maybe in the transitional stage to a no-state world we could have states but with more than one government, e.g. government dealing with roads, government dealing with railroads, gov. for air travel...?

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg That's actually what is there now. Take the U.S. There are over 3,500 individual governments, just counting from municipalities up to federal. All distinct, with their own "laws," but joined in purpose. As well, every different bureaucratic agency also has it's own rules and regulations. It's what you have already. All that needs change is the manner in which products/services are provided and paid for: from violently to peacefully.

[bergweg]

@JaceJohanson True that there are ****loads of municipal governments, but they encompass more than just one purpose. e.g. I have not heard of a highway government with jurisdiction limited to a specific municipality.

[JaceJohanson]

@bergweg No, you wouldn't have, because highways are dealt with on the middle-plane of bureaucracy, above municipal size. But you shot past the mark, here. Every bureaucracy is a government. Municipal, county, States, Federal Government, DMV, TSA, NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS....... every bureaucracy is a government, with it's own scope of controlling people, but they all share that single purpose of CONTROL. Again, what you have is a question of service method: violent or peaceful.

[texme]

Thumbs up if "YOU GET IT".

[STOPPUCKNOW]

if i was in charge i would force everyone to be free....

[truthwilloutallways]

Yes, that point 'without the government to protect you.....' line - Well they don't do a great job as it stands, e.g. the HMRC take at least 50% off most of us by threat of force. As someone once said, 'if someone from the government comes and says "I'm here to help" - RUN!'

[mrichards55]

You will not be allowed to be a loner cut off from society. The authorities will soon be busting down your door and forcing you to spend money and become a social animal.

[hazeee123]

Ben instead of saying "it doesn't give you the right" you should more accurately say "it doesn't give you the moral justification" makes arguing your point much easier once you strip away all the illusions of rights, laws and the state and you just stick with objective morality. Btw IMO we need an anti-initiation of force agency to start protecting people from initiation of force.

[yammynid]

how do we get them to fuck off and leave us alone! ?

[bugsz1]

Exactly! Well done Ben.

[A1nitak]

I guess the only thing that would work in the end is the argument in court and ask them to provide fact that they have the right to enforce you, and show you consented.

[johnosstreeter]

i agree, i like everything stefan does too, he changes life`s .....to the better !

[RogueDust]

it's all so true!

[demented669]

governments use passive aggressive cause if they violated the people's will for to long well, Mussolini knows what happens.

and the sheep that are scared out of there mind will defend this unjust fraudulent system.