By Plutonius Tiberius
from: Marc Stevens‘ Adventures in Legal Land (Paperback)
For all those who believe that “we must have government,” this book will convince you otherwise. The basis of government’s power is the “justice system;” anyone who controls this can do virtually anything they want. Stevens shows how the “system” is a hoax and indeed, how all of government and politics is nothing but rule by violence. No, I don’t mean that if “we” just vote in Party X or Candidate X, “government will be more responsive.” Government, by its very nature, will never be free of corruption; in fact, governments must be corrupt. If you can’t face this fact, you can’t face reality. This is a book that no politician, bureaucrat or anyone who derives their power from the political system will even address.
The bottom line is this: governments make their money by violence or threat thereof; they admit that they’re not obligated or have no duty to do anything for you or anyone in return for this money. Why does anyone tolerate this?
from: Marc Stevens’ Adventures in Legal Land (Paperback)
If you prefer not to learn the truth about our lives today, don’t read this book.
But, what if your life were nothing more than a lie rammed down your throat since you were a child? Using absolute logic and common sense, this author completely – and both honorably and rightly – demolishes our current system of laws and courts, showing how it is nothing but violent persecution.
If you ever wonder whether a bureaucrat (including government/congress/judge/lawyer) has a right to do something, just ask yourself whether your neighbor would have a right to do it to you – and vice versa. If you “decree” your neighbor’s car belongs to you and then take it without their consent, you are a car thief – even if you state it is “necessary”. So, if you cannot do that, how can you authorize anyone else, even a congressman or policeman, to do the same thing?
What’s the real difference between that and passing laws forcing you to eat only certain kinds of foods? If your neighbors have no right to force you not to eat pork rinds, how can they authorize government to force you not to ingest herbs or plants (like marijuana or magic mushrooms) or alcohol (as in Prohibition)? If your neighbor doesn’t have the right to do any of this, then his pretended delegates, deputies, agents, commissioners, governors, presidents, kings, ministers, secretaries and servants don’t either. It’s that simple.
Our legal system is irrational. And that’s why they have to threaten violence – it’s the way the irrational get the rational to act. Ask yourself WHY do they need someone in a costume (uniform) with a gun giving traffic tickets and guarding courts? If you refuse to cooperate, even peacefully, they will use whatever physical violence is necessary to reach their end goal.
If you don’t stop your car when the “cop” flips his lights on, he will eventually use his car to stop you. Having done so, he’ll run up to your car SCREAMING at you to get out with his firearm pointed directly at your head, ready to murder not a peaceful human being but what he now believes is a “criminal” or a “perp”.
See the sick IRONY in such a situation? The “cop” is the violent one and the guy minding his own business, not harming a soul, is somehow the criminal. Yeah, I can hear it now, “You should have stopped your car…” That’s right, blame the victim. Just like the lawyer argument that the rape victim should not have dressed a certain way. I guess you had it coming to you.
Don’t you find it incredible that “cops” use violence to stop your car, violence to search your vehicle, violence to take your property and violence to put you in a cage (called prison) but, if they fail to read you your “rights” before putting you in a cage, THEN they’ve done something wrong? Maybe it’s just me but it appears to be rank hypocrisy to read someone their “rights” while callously DISREGARDING every one of them.
Actually it’s cruel. To make matters worse, these violent individuals then promise you a “fair trial”. This is an example of where the words used are not congruent with the actions. If they can take control over your life and property, it’s clear they do not believe you have any rights, except whatever rights their mercy wants to extend to you.
The point is, because the relationship is based on violence (or the threat of violence), there is no actual limitation on what they can do to you except what they feel is needed to maintain the illusion of legitimacy. For, if you accept that a “cop” has the right to control you without your freely given consent, then you are in no position to complain if he orders you to shine his shoes. The only reason they don’t is that, if they start going too far beyond the accepted “norm” on a regular basis, their illusion of legitimacy would suffer and then disappear as more and more people withdraw their pretended or actual support.
Bureaucrats go to a lot of trouble trying to convince people that what they do is legitimate. Like magicians, bureaucrats give you a “trial” to distract you from the truth while they conceal the violence underlying it all; the true and sole basis for their pretended “authority”. (If you doubt this, just ask any simple but fundamental question in court – there are many in this book – and watch them threaten you with contempt.)
Their BS public relations scheme is why they “give you” a trial, whether you want one or not. It’s political sleight of hand that distracts you while they perform their “magic”, concealing the true basis of their so-called “authority”. Then they can say “you had your day in court, your equal protection, and your due process”. (Most cops don’t know this, by the way. They don’t know more than they’ve been told by “authority”. But the higher up the political pecking order you go, the more of them seem to know.)
The bottom line is: don’t expect fairness and good faith from those doing business at the end of a gun. Don’t expect fairness from the agents of any coercive “state” because to them we are cows to be milked.
The above are all excerpts from this excellent and worthy book. The author claims – and proves – that bureaucrats don’t create value, they only take it; bureaucrats never ask permission to attack someone or their property yet political words and opinions are used so there is a perception that bureaucrats are a wonderful, benevolent group “protecting” people and their property; their real purpose is to steal as much property as possible, using the least amount of violence; bureaucrats think valid obligations are created by violence and organized coercion.
The author logically backs up everything and explains it in great detail. However, it can be dangerous to try out the challenges suggested in this book without a lot more research and commitment. The 2 books by The Antiterrorist offer highly intelligent information on this aspect and if you watch Winston Shrout’s DVDs you will learn why Stevens usually fails in court. (However, it is trailblazers like him, heroes who are willing to fail and fail and fail in their determination to find a way, who blaze the path for the rest of us. Thank you, Marc Stevens.) Plus, Robinson’s “Commercial Redemption” followed by “Hardcore Redemption-in-Law” are the best so far in explaining how to take back the benefit of the millions raised (without your knowledge) via your birth certificate so that you never again have to pay taxes or fines.