 In the early decades of the 20th century, we experienced the growth of organized crime. Entire corporate organizations had existed in an environment of lawlessness, unregulated by government and existing through anti-social and criminal conduct. Even with that, it was valued by people. Gambling and protection were two services generating great wealth for criminals. These were not authorized corporations and were accordingly unburdened by government interference in their service contracts. They enforced their own contracts so that their customers could rely upon the services they promised to provide. In the numbers bracket, people could bet on random numbers that matched the ticket they bought. Some of the service income from sale of tickets was reliably delivered to the winners. The mob used their own extra-legal approaches to assure that the customers received what they wanted. This flourished as there were no records where winners could be taxed and no taxes paid by organized crime groups that provided these services. People supported this. The business of numbers was valued by its customers. In the protection bracket, people were set upon to pay a portion of their business income to assure the mob didn't allow criminal damage to their organizations. It was payment to the mob to assure that criminals, both working for the mob and others, would think twice before they interfered with customer commerce. It was a service that was valued by the customers to the point where they paid. Again, there was no regulation and no taxes paid by organized crime groups. It was other extra-legal practices of the mob that assured that the numbers were paid and the protection was maintained. These commercial efforts were criminalized. Those who took part in the service as service providers were prosecuted and subjected to criminal punishment. Gambling is no longer illegal and the numbers game is still supported but only as government regulates it that promises to prosecute any who would abuse the customers. The only difference is that the government has intruded on the obligations of contract between gambling institutions and citizen gamblers and is taking taxes from both providers and customers. Selling protection from wrongdoing is still permitted in the medical and legal professions with providers paying insurance companies for their protection from legal consequences of their professional actions. Insurance providers are harvesting income from taking on responsibilities for provider misconduct and for reducing provider liability for any wrong suffered by their customers. The big difference from the mob effort is that the government has intruded through regulation supporting the protection services that are provided to the medical and legal professionals. Government has been getting their cut in taxes on the transactions of these businesses. The mob businesses were commercial successes but depended upon extra-legal support systems. Service contracts were not burdened to pay for government interference. The public is not a party in interest. Government interference was to legally ban unregulated protection businesses, denying support for the obligation of their contracts. The result was official violence against those citizens who owned and worked in these banned businesses and those who received and died what they provided. Was there a nonviolent alternative? There was a potential for protection of the obligations of contract so that public was served in obtaining what the public valued. This alternative is service to the public instead of regulation. Where our leadership was convinced of government sovereignty, the idea of not collecting taxes was interfering with the obligations of contract. It was a challenge to be met with force of law. There was no effort to provide the services that people would value. The appropriate rule is that public purpose is domestic tranquility and that what the people value as a product is what has value to the public. Value is not determined by passing laws. Regulating people is always expensive and rarely serves a public purpose. Through supporting our malpractice insurance industry, we have government interfering with the obligations of contract by protecting professional providers from responsibility for their actions. The government through legislation has replaced the mob and it is harvesting much of the unearned income of the business efforts that would be criminal for any common citizen. The rule is simple in concept. If it is illegal for the citizen, then the people cannot authorize their government to take action in their name. Our government acting as a sovereign is not going to tolerate other organizations that would harvest wealth from the people. In simple terms, the wasteful practices of our government cannot stand the competition. If you borrow money from a loan shark and do not pay it, you may be subject to beatings and losses visited upon you until the debt is paid. If you owe the federal government taxes and do not pay, then the government may send you to prison, take your valued property seized upon your earnings or otherwise do you damage until it is paid? The only difference is the loan shark is an illegal business and the government would be a sovereign corporate enemy. The damages from failing in contract obligations is much the same and just as real if the loan shark sends out a few enforcers or the government sends out its enforcers. In either case, the purpose is to harvest the wealth of the customer without having to do anything to earn it. George, with reputation as a bit of a scoundrel, marries into a mob family. His new brother-in-law, Tony, takes him aside and tells him frankly, Dalia is family. If you are untrue to my sister, I will see you walk on crutches for the rest of your life. Tony is not entering into the marriage contract, but has just promised to support that contract by insisting that George remain true to his obligations. There is no new obligation in the contract of marriage, just a promise that if George violates his agreement, it will have unwanted third party consequences. I would address this as a service that Tony is providing. Without any significant cost, he is providing it to his sister and brother-in-law. It supports greater reliance upon the success of their wedding agreement. It raises the trust that the parties have in the marriage, then they will fulfill their obligations. Just that quickly we have one key to supporting obligations instead of regulating the contract. It is through setting consequences upon any breach of the contract, not on adding consequences for performance. It is providing support for what people value, instead of banning what other people do not want. Fred has a gambling addiction and has gone broke twice from being unable to stop. One government service might be to publish that the courts will no longer accept cases based on his gambling losses. The providers would then refuse to serve it. The business of gambling would then be able to provide its service with government support for its contracts, and be protected from feeding those addicted to its services. Lucy is injured from Dr. Cleck's treatments. Courts would refuse to allow any insurance to interfere as that would be criminal maintenance of the lawsuit. The very purpose of interfering in the obligation of a medical provider's relation with a sovereign citizen is banned. Government is to prevent this, not to support it, and certainly not to take part in it. So where is the service for the people? How does government support the obligations of contract? The tort law does address this. If a service provider does provide the agreed service, there is no provider liability for the results. Easing the courts to address damages should be refused unless there is a medical mistake that causes damages. The courts would only address provider-based damages where the service is not being effectively provided. If there is to be a shared risk, it should be for those who are damaged. It needs to be a service provided instead of supporting criminal maintenance. The professional provider would be liable only for official misconduct, not for poor results from rendering service. Better still, the patient can be given the opportunity to buy the insurance for the amount of protection they wish to receive. If they are the ones being insured, their contract with any insurance pool would be honored in court as a separate agreement from the contract for services with the provider. Both service contracts could then receive legal support on behalf of the citizens. The citizens would have a choice and their coverage of costs would be as agreed with the insurance carrier. Commerce is the lifeblood of our nation, and it is also the source of citizen prosperity. The challenge of sovereignty being exercised in government is that this is also the source of aristocratic resources. If those who rule are to accomplish things, it will be through the use of resources that would otherwise serve citizen purposes. We, the people of the United States, through our commercial commitments are the ultimate source of wealth. What we earn through our commitments is what our national economy earns. What we value also becomes the wealth of the nation. The obligations we make to one another and the trust we have in those who live up to their commercial agreements is the foundation for America's prosperity and the prosperity of we the people. Whenever and wherever our government acts to administer our obligations or to add new obligations, it is assaulting we the people. Wherever it acts to support our obligations, increasing our ability to trust each other's commercial commitments, it supports our prosperity. Every interference in the obligation of contracts should be seen as an investment, a cost incurred only to gain some other greater value. Our representative leaders should only be interested in interference where we the ones they represent would invest. For example, we should only regulate our food industry to assure the supply of valued food, increasing our ability to rely upon farmers, handlers, restauranters and brochures to deliver food we can trust to serve our needs and wants. Regulation should be a cost for a service that we support. Government acting as sovereign administrator instead of service provider has treated our commerce as a productive activity by people who are peasants. The US government has been harvesting its internal wealth from its own people. For interference in service contracts, type 1 waste is the burden that government puts on those who enter into service contracts. It has any government requirement for work or resources that does not contribute to the performance of the party's commercial agreements. That is type 1 waste. Type 2 waste is redirection of commercial results from these contracts to benefits of those who are not parties to the contract. Our effort will be in eliminating wasteful government interference in contract obligations. Our purpose includes seeing and understanding the costs of government interference in the obligations of service contracts By this, we can come to agreement on a best approach for directing our government to its service to we the people. Our purpose includes minimizing any necessary costs placed on those who enter into service contracts. We the people are the nation. Government is to see to the welfare of its citizens by and through its impact on service contracts. It is our prosperity that can bring us together in agreement on how our government is to serve our needs and our wants. As with performance contracts, the challenge is not finding areas in need of improvement or direction. It is in the multitude of the damaging behaviors pursued by our leaders as they assume their own sovereignty over us commoners. Our challenge is prioritization and coming to agreement on what is most important and most in need of specific action. It is avoiding the scattering of competitive efforts of correction by realizing the value of what we can do. It is in our willingness to support one another in coming to agreement that we can start making differences. It is our nation. It is your nation as a citizen owner. The question is what you can come to agreement upon with other citizens. It is only where we find such agreement that we can speak as the owner to our public leaders. But when we speak as we the people, we will be addressing those other citizens who happen to be in office. They are also empowered when we are agreed and will then have authority to act on our behalf.