Nice analysis.

Do not confuse "LAW" with "legal." True laws are in force at all times and applied to all equally.
The highest Law in the Universe is "Natural Law," which meets the criteria above.

Most are familiar with "legal" or "legislative laws," which are man-made and subject to fiat change for any reason. This system is based on "Admiralty and Corporate law," which has no jurisdiction over matters unless the individual contracts to be bound by them. This is the system that allows the powerful few to abuse and control the many.

Religious laws also require individuals to grant jurisdiction.
Religious law refers to ethical and moral codes taught by religious traditions. Examples include customary halakha (Jewish law), Hindu law, sharia (Islamic law) and Canon law (Christian law).[1]

The two most prominent systems, Canon law and Shari'a, differ from other religious laws in that Canon law is the codification of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox law as in civil law, while Shari'a derives many of its laws from juristic precedent and reasoning by analogy (like in a common law tradition).
This is also a system that allows the powerful few to abuse and control the many.

Common Law is the closest to Natural Law as it is based on living men and/or women bringing claims in a public courthouse, wherein the "judges" are the jury of men and women, not an Agent of the State or Bar (a private organization).
Common law is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. Common law influences the decision-making process in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on existing statutes or written rules of law. The U.S. common-law system evolved from a British tradition that spread to North America during the 17th- and 18th-century colonial period. Common law is also practiced in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Common law, also known as case law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts.
Common law draws from institutionalized opinions and interpretations from judicial authorities and public juries.
Common laws sometimes prove the inspiration for new legislation to be enacted.

Natural Law is not as simple as most would have you believe. If you are interested in the Highest Law of the Universe, a great resource is -

[onegreatworknetwork.com]

@Heresiarch

OK, good start, thanks:

"Do not confuse "LAW" with "legal.""

LAW: Help someone and someone may be inspired to return the favor a.k.a. Golden Rule (the law governing humans) see also; Poke someone in the eye, see what happens.

Legal: someone is a criminal who does onto someone else that which he himself would defend against were the same thing to be done to himself by his targeted victim.

Legal opinions are either derived from LAW or they are derived from something other than LAW, in the same way as Scientific opinions are either derived from LAW or they are derived from something other than LAW.

"True laws are in force at all times and applied to all equally."

Example:

U.S. Constitution : Article I
"7. Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law."

Example:
“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

So...what is this:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."

Whoever signed that dirty deal, obviously, self-evidently, confesses criminality.

George Mason did not sign it, by the way.

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."

Therefore the Constitution of 1789 was both unlawful and illegal, or someone is playing with words, so as to turn the word "legal" into something criminals often do, then turn something lawful into the opposite meaning of the original meaning of the word.

"Most are familiar with "legal" or "legislative laws," which are man-made and subject to fiat change for any reason. This system is based on "Admiralty and Corporate law," which has no jurisdiction over matters unless the individual contracts to be bound by them. This is the system that allows the powerful few to abuse and control the many."

RULE by criminal means, is precisely what it is, every time , without fail, just like any scientific study of the law of gravity.

Example:
"When the constitutional procedures of the common law were applied, there could be few convictions for smuggling by juries of ordinary people, who shared in the common interest as sufferers from taxes and monopoly, and hence in the common enthusiasm for smuggling. To circumvent the constitutional courts of common law, the prerogative High Court of Admiralty was established to absorb the jurisdictions of the maritime courts of the seaports, which had administered the traditional sea law and law merchant. Page 10, Conceived in Liberty, Murray Rothbard.

If I can find other references of the original causes for the creation of so-called Admiralty or Equity, then I can post those for anyone who cares to know. The Summary Justice (JUST-US) Courts have been, universally, (false) DEBT COLLECTION procedures, in a word: extortion. There have been, for example, Exchequer and Chancery Courts pre-dating Admiralty. These were counterfeit versions of common law courts. Not until recently have the English words Court of Law (meaning exclusively common law courts) been confused with the counterfeit False Debt Collection Courts such as Admiralty, Equity, Family, and even Traffic (human trafficking?) Courts.

"Religious laws also require individuals to grant jurisdiction."

That is an interesting claim. My first response is to quote Mathew 7:12, and my second inspiration is to ask what were the pogroms called The Crusades, and then one more inquisition I have is to ask what was the pogrom called The Spanish Inquisition, and finally a quote from Thomas Paine:

Mathew 7:12 (on religious law):
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"...derives many of its laws from juristic precedent and reasoning by analogy (like in a common law tradition)."

I think that there are at least two ways to look at this claim of "...precedent..." "...in a common law tradition..."

A. Past mistakes and past successes help people who are confused about present conflicts.

That, to me, is the common law tradition of precedent. All the Trial Transcripts of today can be compared to the fact that the common law predates the practice of writing things down in English. The common law predates the English language. Precedent is just a fancy word for MEMORY.

B. A Summary Justice Judge can arbitrarily pick from a laundry list of past decisions made by Summary Justice Judges, to then declare that the cherry picked PAST decision rationalizes the Arbitrary Edict of the present Dictator.

Take your pick, if you think you have a choice.

"Common Law is the closest to Natural Law as it is based on living men and/or women bringing claims in a public courthouse, wherein the "judges" are the jury of men and women, not an Agent of the State or Bar (a private organization)."

Your use of the word "judges" in place of "jury of peers" or members of a jury chosen by lot, is an interesting statement because of the missing terminology. I am very interested in this type of discussion because the word State itself can have two meanings, where one meaning is a convenient way to list all the people agreeing to join and fund a Voluntary Defense Association, while the State can also mean a Consolidation of Power and Profit into the hands of an "Elite" group of dictators. So a member of one State is every single volunteer, and a member of the other State is divided into masters and slaves.

With that in mind:

"Common Law is the closest to Natural Law as it is based on living men and/or women bringing claims in a public courthouse, wherein the "judges" are the jury of men and women, not an Agent of the State or Bar (a private organization)."

A juror is an agent of a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, or State, acting as a judge of fact, and therefore a judge of the fact that the law ought to be factual, and things legal ought to be factual, and if the juror didn't lie about his or her criminal insanity, then the law, things legal, like the State, follows moral paths rather than immoral paths.

A Summary JustUS Judge has to lie to be one, every case, every day, while the Legal Fiction State in place to create and maintain Human Trafficking continues, because a "Judge" worthy of the name must know the clear and present dangers to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all of the above, have to be published in some fashion to The People, The Public, failing to do so leaves them clearly in the dark, powerless, defenseless, and ripe for all the Human Traffickers eager to make a killing while the State exists in its current Criminal Form.

"Common law is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts."

Wrong. Common law is a procedure based upon moral principle. The Legal Fiction Dogma above is clearly the work of the Human Traffickers who counterfeit The Law, or, I am mistaken.

I can ask for clarification. Which Court establishes "legal precedents" and how is that done exactly, what is the procedure by which these "legal precedents" are established by these Courts?

Is there a presumption of innocence used by these Courts as these Courts establish "legal precedents"?

"Common law influences the decision-making process in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on existing statutes or written rules of law."

Why are you using two words for one thing?

What is a statute?

What is a law?

If you claim that both Statute and Law are "written rules," then how do you explain the fact that the common law pre-dates the practice of writing things down?

Such as the presumption of innocence, or a judgment isn't cruel and unusual, the judged are not destroyed by the judgement, etc.

Like, in practical terms, the accused is not threatened with even more rape, so as to extort a false confession called a plea deal.

"Common law influences the decision-making process in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on existing statutes or written rules of law."

Speaking of Plea Deals (extortion):

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

Once the case moves from a private argument to a clear and present danger to the entire group of people known as The People, there can no longer be any "plea-deals" or extortion used by one against the other. If The People are in danger because the accused may be found guilty of a serious crime, then the matter has to move before a jury according to the common law, and the matter has to be vetted by a Grand Jury representing the accuser in a criminal case.

"Common law is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts."

What is described by those unwritten laws, exactly, and who decides which of those unwritten laws are useful in any current civil or criminal case?

In common law the accuser is the prosecutor, or in charge of choosing a more capable prosecutor. The grand jury works for the accuser, who is the prosecutor. None of the people involved so far are paid members of the Voluntary Mutual Defense Association or State. If the grand jury, having all jurisdiction criminal and civil, working for the PRIVATE prosecutor, validates the accusation, maintaining the assumption of innocence, then the accused (who is not yet found guilty of anything) is offered to appear in an Court of Law before a Trial Jury.

Am I right here, or do I need an authority to confirm the facts here?

How about this:

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

"Common law influences the decision-making process in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on existing statutes or written rules of law."

OH, now I get it, this outdated common law stuff is a backup in case the Dictates are questioned by one of the targets?

I can be thick and slow at receiving the message intact.

"The U.S. common-law system evolved from a British tradition that spread to North America during the 17th- and 18th-century colonial period."

You mean this:

Conceived in Liberty, Murray Rothbard:
"In March 1677 the proprietors issued the Concessions and Agreements, a document written largely by Edward Bylling, who was assisted by William Penn. It was signed by all the proprietors and freeholders of the colony. The Concessions and Agreements established a frame of government for West New Jersey. This was a highly liberal document – especially for a proprietary decree – that guaranteed no taxation save by consent of the people ( “we put the power in the people” ), a representative assembly, trial by jury, full religious liberty ( “no person to be called into question or molested for conscience under any pretext whatever” ), and no imprisonment for debt.
Page 387
"The West New Jersey Assembly was to be elected by all freeholders, by the unusual institution of secret ballot, and was to be empowered to create courts and levy taxes. All legislation required a two-thirds vote of the Assembly, thus assuring a greater consensus for legislation than under mere majority rule. Furthermore, the colony was to be fully self-governing, with all executive power in the hands of commissioners appointed by the Assembly. Judges and constables were to be elected by popular vote rather than appointed. There were other unusually libertarian features of this constitution. Except for treason, felony, and murder, the plaintiff had full power to forgive, pardon, or remit punishment, this placing the decision to prosecute and punish for a crime in the hands of the original victim rather than the remotely concerned government. Punishment for theft did not consist in paying a supposed debt to a mythical “society” by languishing unproductively in prison at taxpayers’ expense; instead, it consisted in making restitution to the victim for the crime, and in working off this “debt” to the specific injured party. Furthermore, the beginnings of excellent long-standing white-Indian relations in the colony were assured by the provision that any Indian claim of injury would go to a jury of six whites and six Indians."
Page 389

This:

14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

This:
“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

""The U.S. common-law system evolved from a British tradition that spread to North America during the 17th- and 18th-century colonial period."

How did the common law procedures become a "British" (Empire?) tradition?

Here:
"[4] Hallam says, "The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a, vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long-enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects' swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king's authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom." - 3 Middle Age, 240-2."

That pre-dates "British" Empire building.

The tradition above is called a "defiance."

Like this:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

That is a defiance adapted to human traffic targets no longer wanting to pay the protection money.

Defiance, a common law tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, is adapted and becomes a Declaration of Independence. There is also a Solemn Notice of Mixed War, same principle, and there are references in Commercial and Military Lein Rights, and the Bonding Code.

Defiance = common law tradition adapted.

"Common law, also known as case law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts."

Key takeaways:

The English Empire Builders and Human Traffickers had a difficult time dealing with The People who had and maintained their common law, so the British invented a "Court" System to OVERRULE The People. The concept of "case law" is again the Cherry Picking of past decisions (good or bad) to rationalize current decisions (good or bad) by whoever is currently in POWER to PROFIT.

"Common law draws from institutionalized opinions and interpretations from judicial authorities and public juries."

Oh, I get it, the INSTITUTION has an opinion, and the INSTITUTION interpreted, along with these judicial authorities cherry picking for rationalization of DEBT COLLECTING, or last and least those pesky public juries in those pesky Courts of Law, where common law trial by jury may be allowed in part by those in POWER to PROFIT.

I"m slow, but I think I am getting the message louder and clearer.

"Common laws sometimes prove the inspiration for new legislation to be enacted."

Oh, do you mean to say that Magna Carta, for one example, could be a document written because the common law procedures inspired those who publicized that document?

How about another example. How about the guy who declares his defiance? Is that legislation or is it just plain old common law stuff?

"Natural Law is not as simple as most would have you believe. If you are interested in the Highest Law of the Universe, a great resource is -"

Who is most? You appear to be suggesting to me that common law is as you claim it to be, and from my study you are wrong, You have mistaken the British System of counterfeiting the common law that organically forms from grass-roots as people are threatened by clear and present dangers such as criminals who claim to be protecting people, but instead those criminals are enslaving people with falsehoods, like counterfeit versions of Voluntary Mutual Defense Associations which form out of common laws common to The People who prefer not to be slaves by hook or by crook.

"What is Natural Law? Why is is so critically important to understand? Why has knowledge about Natural Law been suppressed throughout all of human history? The most informative documentary ever made on the topic of Natural Law is coming in 2020: "Mark Passio & The Science Of Natural Law."

Trailer?

@Josf-Kelley
After doing much research, most of us usually get down to first principles.
If you've come as far as you obviously have, you'll find this treatise enlightening:

"The primary threat to freedom and justice is not greed, or hatred, or any of the other emotions or human flaws usually blamed for such things. Instead, it is one ubiquitous superstition which infects the minds of people of all races, religions and nationalities, which deceives decent, well-intentioned people into supporting and advocating violence and oppression. Even without making human beings one bit more wise or virtuous, removing that one superstition would remove the vast majority of injustice and suffering from the world. "

[goodreads.com]

Quotes from the work -
“There would be a difference between "rule of law" and "rule of men" only if the so-called "laws" were written by something other than men.”

“In truth, the belief in "government" is a religion, made up of a set of dogmatic teachings, irrational doctrines which fly in the face of both evidence and logic, and which are methodically memorized and repeated by the faithful. Like other religions, the gospel of "government" describes a superhuman, supernatural entity, above mere mortals, which issues commandments to the peasantry, for whom unquestioning obedience is a moral imperative.”

“The truth is that any form of authoritarian control—any type of "government," whether constitutional, democratic, socialist, fascist, or anything else—will result in a set of masters forcibly oppressing a group of slaves. That is what "authority" is—all it ever has been, and all it ever could be, no matter how many layers of euphemisms and pleasant rhetoric are used in an attempt to hide it.”

“To be blunt, the belief in "authority" serves as a mental crutch for people seeking to escape the responsibility involved with being a thinking human being. It is an attempt to pass off the responsibility for decision-making to someone else: those claiming to have "authority.”

“But history shows that most human beings would literally rather die than objectively reconsider the belief systems they were brought up in. The average man who reads in the newspaper about war, oppression and injustice will wonder why such pain and suffering exists, and will wish for it to end. However, if it is suggested to him that his own beliefs are contributing to the misery, he will almost certainly dismiss such a suggestion without a second thought, and may even attack the one making the suggestion.”

“The "lawmakers" give the commands, but it is their faithful enforcers who carry them out. Millions upon millions of otherwise decent, civilized people spend day after day harassing, threatening, extorting, controlling and otherwise oppressing others who have not harmed or threatened anyone.”

― Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition

It might put things in perspective for you, as it did me. I was a Libertarian for decades until I saw through the puppet show.

@Heresiarch

Good stuff, thanks. I'll cue it up, but I have to get through Conceived in Liberty too.

As to any help I may need in further putting "things in perspective," I can throw that right back at you.

I was very well put into perspective with Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, and then I read the Essay on The Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner.

One deals with economic power and the other deals with defensive power, how one can claim to survive without either one is beyond my ability to put that thing in perspective.

These days a larger number of people (compared to 30 years ago) are moving toward Anarchism, either Social Anarchism or Market Anarchism, both rejecting entirely the concept of Voluntary Mutual Defense Association or government in the original form, not in the counterfeit form.

If only, say a very few Market Anarchists, or Social Anarchists, there was a way to avoid capture into the Cult of Might Makes Right or Counterfeit Government!

To me, they have not looked for it, so - of course - they have not found it.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

Micro Level above, and Macro below:

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

@Josf-Kelley
Great stuff!
The flow-chart below is one of my favorite aids for those who are just beginning to see through the propaganda that keeps them enslaved. It's simple, lightly humorous and gets down to first principles. I began collecting Anarchy memes (and others) a couple years ago, and now that I have them handy it's amazing how often they relate to discussions.

@Heresiarch

I'd have to add a few more arrows and blocks, but that one is a keeper FOR anarchists, not for me. I am enslaved by the consequences of more than one bad decision on my part and the parts of many other people who have allowed the current Debt Slave system to start and grow into the present form. I don't want to do harm to moral people who choose not to harm anyone. Those who are harming people must be stopped or they will move to the next victim. If all the victims that are harmed are added up, as to the true cost of the loss of their enslavement or demise more rapidly, that sum total measures my enslavement into a world thereby injured past, present, and until defense is realized, on into the future. Government in true form is merely accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case of controversy, as demonstrated in history with the common law, which predates written forms of it.

@Josf-Kelley
Here's another that I keep handy.

@Heresiarch

Better, simpler: Occam's Razor.

"Definition of equity
1a: justice according to natural law or right
specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
b: something that is equitable
2a: the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
b: the common stock of a corporation
c: a risk interest or ownership right in property
d: a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity
3a: a system of law originating in the English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statute law and are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law
b: trial or remedial justice under or by the rules and doctrines of equity
c: a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law"

[merriam-webster.com]

@Heresiarch

The word can mean anything under the sun?

@Josf-Kelley
In this case, they are referencing the Equity Markets of stocks, funds, etc. They are "equities" because the owner of share has a fraction of equity in the corporation, co-op, etc.
The only thing that's kept equities from imploding is taxpayer responsible bailouts. Which crushes the value of debt based fiat currencies. "Inflation" is not a measure of rising costs, it is a measure of the lost value of currencies.

@Heresiarch

So long as word play is working now, I'd like to ask if that dubious meaning of the word equity is a synonym for another dubious meaning of another word:

Equity = Interest

Is that correct?

@Josf-Kelley If used as in, "I have an interest in a Race Horse," then yes, "interest" would be considered "equity" or a "share of ownership."

The founders were on the right path, they just didn't take it to its logical conclusion.
Paine is one of my favorite Pirates.

@Heresiarch

The Founders have been trade-marked, perhaps.

Actually, the struggle between those who want to live and let live and those who work to enslave included internal battles in that Trade-Marketed Monopoly Group.

The Founders A:

Promoters of common law, as documented with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. These include:
George Mason
Patrick Henry
Richard Henry Lee
Melancton Smith
John Lansing
Luther Martin

The Founders B:
Promoters of Monarchism, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Despotism, Tyranny, Slave Consuming, Slave Trading, Extortion, Rape, Torture, Murder, Mass Murder, Empire, Perpetual War for Perpetual Profit, and the means to maintain it: Central Banking Fraud.

Such as:
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
John Adams

I can add names of people who appeared to change their Coat as the wind changes direction.

James Madison

To group all these combatants into ONE MONOPOLY would be to CONSOLIDATE everyone into ONE.

That is a curious phenomenon.

Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13 Luther Martin

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

Paine:

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property."

In case that was missed.

"To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father's foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control.

"Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters."

If all those "Founders" found the same thing, what is that same thing found by those Founders?

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

A Federation perhaps?

From Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.

"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
"But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national."

The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788.
"There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word."

@Josf-Kelley See my reply above regarding The Most Dangerous Superstition.