Bitcoin Forum

Why not go further and make the atomic unit of sovereign power the individual at that point? It would be much more beautiful, and it seems highly likely that the collections of people, and collections of collections would still develop.

That doesn't address the issue of families, and the question of whether or not a 12 year old is a sovereign individual with the same rights as a parent. For those who would scoff at this notion being an issue, listen to some of Stefan Molyneux's ramblings on the "family cult."

That doesn't address the issue of families, and the question of whether or not a 12 year old is a sovereign individual with the same rights as a parent. For those who would scoff at this notion being an issue, listen to some of Stefan Molyneux's ramblings on the "family cult."

To claim that one would eventually control them all is just as inane as saying somebody will eventually rule the entire Bitcoin network.

Each of these states would eventually gather enough force to hold their own.

1. (a) Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. - This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject: for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign. Ligeantia est vinculum fidei; and ligeantia est quasi legis essentia. Ligeaalia est ligarnentum, quasi ligatio mentium: quia sicut ligamentum est connexio articulorum et juncturarum, &c. As the ligatures or strings do knit together the joints of all the parts of the body, so doth ligeance join together the Sovereign and all his subjects, quasi uno ligamine. Glanville, who wrote in the reign of H. 2. lib. 9. cap. 4. speaking of the connexion which ought to be between the lord and tenant that holdeth by hone saith, that mutua debet esse domini et fide litatis connexion ita quod quantum debet omino ex homagio, tantum illi debet dominus ex dominio, præter solam reverentiam, and the lord, (saith he) ought to defend his tenant. But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his subjects, [7-Coke-5 a] regere et firotegere subditos: so as between the Sovereign and subject there is duplex et reciprocum ligamen; quia sicut subditus regi tenetur ad obedientiam, ita rex subdito tenetur ad protectionem: merito igitur ligeantia dicitur a ligando, quia continet in se duplex ligamen. And therefore it is holden in 20 H. 7. 8. a. that there is a liege or ligeance between the King and the subject. And Fortescue, cap. 13. Rex (b) ad tutelam legis corporum et bonorum subditorum erectus est. And in the Acts of Parliament of IO R. 2. cap. 5. and 11 R. 2. cap. 1. 14 H. 8. cap. 2. &c. subjects are called liege people; and in the Acts of Parliament in 34 H. 8. cap. 1. and 35 H. 8. cap. 3. &c. the King is called the liege lord of his subjects. And with this agreeth M. Skeene in his book De Expositione Verborum, (which book was cited by one of the Judges which argued against the plaintiff) ligeance is the mutual bond and obligation between the King and his subjects, whereby subjects are called his liege subjects, because they are bound to obey and serve him; and he is called their liege lord, because he should maintain and defend them.

How are you going to deal with citizenship/borders? I'm sure that plenty of the cities will take a stance against "illegal immigration". If all of the cities have different regulations for consumer goods that will make trade very problematic.

How are you going to deal with citizenship/borders? I'm sure that plenty of the cities will take a stance against "illegal immigration". If all of the cities have different regulations for consumer goods that will make trade very problematic.

God damn it THERE ARE NO CITIZENS YOU BRAINWASHED FUCKS!

The gov't proudly claims that it has no duty to protect. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html)

That is the obligation of the sovereign. The US disclaims it expressly. You have no recourse for the governments flat out refusal to protect you.

There is no state , there are no citizens. It's a relic from feudal times reinstated in a new and devious form to enslave us.

Border agreements can allow areas as large as the United States or the whole of Europe to be border free. Suppose there are 2 adjacent countries. The people of both countries would like to be able to travel to the other country freely, so they allow membership cards of the other country to enter freely into their country. They could do this by entirely removing the border between them, much in the same way you can drive from France to Italy today.

First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects which oath he taketh in his natural person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man...

4. A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrases has entirely resulted from the change of government The sovereignty has been changed from one man to a collective body of people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the state. "Citizens," under our Constitution and laws, means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress. United States v. Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 7S5, 788 (citing 1 Kent, Comm. 292, note).

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States

It's a great thing the AoC are still in use today (hint: they aren't).

Let's say sovereign power was divided up at a city level. Every city became its own country and there was no higher power than said city. The laws were determined by whatever means and if you didn't like them an countless selection of cities could be chosen from.

Wouldn't this be ideal? Wouldn't this enable improvement by enabling true competition-by-choice on a political level?

Now, some are going to say it would scary to go from city-to-city because of highly diverse sets of laws. Well, if it becomes too much an inconvenience, don't you think the natural desire will be to ease such a scenario? As individuals, we adapt to social norms and I am sure the electing populaces will meet in the middle on issues as well -- but still be different enough to retain their sovereign power.

Cities could merge, secede and so forth but c'est la vie. To limit such things is only a hinderance to the competitive process. To claim that one would eventually control them all is just as inane as saying somebody will eventually rule the entire Bitcoin network. Each of these states would eventually gather enough force to hold their own.

I am essentially advocating an entirely decentralized network of sovereign powers.

Do you think it would work? How would we achieve this?

Do you think it would work? How would we achieve this?

The County Sheriff is the LAW in his County.  Above ANYONE else.  State, Federal, whatever.  If Sheriffs had the knowledge or the balls to realize and act on this then we would have a situation like what you describe, where Cities, Counties, and even States would say Fuck You!  to being abused by those outside.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide,94 in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.