What is the definition of "the Legitimate State" ?

[JUDGE MENTAL]

thereisnostate.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1104237684

In the aforementioned"Christian Nation" thread,Kevin said:

Simply because the "State" is tresspassing against its inhabitants doesnt mean the "State" doesnt exist - it merely means the Legitimate State has now been overcome by the Illegitimate State in its application of its basic duty - to protect the people from harm (without threat of a gun in your/my face). This is the fraud Marc's AiLL speaks of.

Kevin,here,makes a number of HIS OWN assertions,but he also speaks for Marc;or,at least,attempts to quote him assertively.I say attempts because I can only find Marc`s AiLL speaking of "The State" as "a state of mind" (see page 128).

So does Marc want to clear up this (apparent) contradiction? And,for that matter,does anyone else have a/(THE ;D) definition of "the Legitimate State" ?

J M

[kevin]

For starters, I never attempted to speak for Marc.

If/when I put forth an opinion...it is mine and subject to dissection just like anyone else's opinion. I dont consult w/Marc and he doesnt consult w/me.

Perhaps the "real State" is just a state of the mind. I said this because once you understand the fundamentals of the market - the market is nothing more than people. It doesnt matter what buildings they conduct their business in: it is still people doing what they want to other people using little words written in books. Words and books are fictions. Fictions can not rule over non-fictions, EVER! This is why I say it is a state of the mind.

I would say the assumption that a legitimate state exists only remins valid if they, the State, follows their own rules. There was a short while in the history of our nation where the rules were followed, not a very long one - but it did occur. The State rarely follows its own rules - therefore the implication is that there is no legitimate state.

IMHO, to understand the true definition of the "State", as we Americans are led to believe exists - one would have to grapple with a number of issues: such as the Market for one, Spirituality for another. How did the Market begin? Yes the old "Politics and Religion" debate once again. Within the "Market" we find the distinctions between Private -vs- Public.

As I understand it, once the 13 colonies ran the British armies out - America became free (as we are led to believe). Unfortunately - during this time of freedom there were a number of local, inter-colonial, and international contracts already in force that affected the 13 colonies: so what happens to them now that the British were gone? These contracts couldnt just dissappear, so someone (something) had to "rule" over those disagreements.

This "rule" was the public courts. The jurisdiction these courts ruled over was "public" law (contractual law) and had no jurisdiction over the individual who chose to remain private (no contracts w/anyone). At that time the Public Courts acknowledged their limitations and did not tresspass against the private individual....until greed once more motivated "government" to do so.

In a legitimate State, the State will acknowledge its limitations and not tresspass against the "Private" individuals not involved in Public Commerce (no contracts other than bartering).

Man was never suppose to be able to take advantage of other men - so this is where the "Public" side of the ledger came into practice. It was suppose to regulate the "advantage" into being minimal. Its jurisdiction was limited to Public Commerce ONLY.

I still am not sure if I can put forth a definition of "Legitimate State" as the American Govt killed thousands, if not millions, of Indians in order for "America" to exist.

If might does not make right - then how can America, at the death of thousands of Indians, proclaim to be a legitimate anything? After all, they were here before anyone else!

Kevin,

[weishaupt1776]

kevin said:

how can America, at the death of thousands of Indians, proclaim to be a legitimate anything? After all, they were here before anyone else!

How? You say, "how"? By Extinguishing Title either by consent or decree, that's how, buddy.
Also, was this land a state, before the 1700's ?

[marc stevens]

There is no legitimate state or state for that matter. A state is supposed to be a body politic (voluntary association) united under a government that occupies a certain geographic area.

From my understanding, you can have the voluntary association that occupies a certain geographic area. The problem is the government part. Govern is control. People who do business as governments control other people without their consent.

Men and women providing the service of protection (i.e., Brinks) on a voluntary basis are not governments.

There is no such thing as a legitimate government and it follows there cannot be a legitimate state, city, nation or country.

[sagas4]

weishaupt1776 said:

How? You say, "how"? By Extinguishing Title either by consent or decree, that's how, buddy.
Also, was this land a state, before the 1700's ?

Stand Watie Surrendered . . . I DIDN'T!

[JUDGE MENTAL]

Kevin,
I suppose that I`m a bit of a nit-picker when it comes to words.The words I was referring to was the final part of the quote,namely....

"This is the fraud Marc's AiLL speaks of. "

IS usually implies a statement of fact.You seem to have explained your position,so my confusion on this point is dispelled.I`ll switch my attentions else where....

I would say the assumption that a legitimate state exists only remins valid if they, the State, follows their own rules.

Martin Luther King is often quoted,as follows :

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal".

The "state",known as (Nazi) Germany,followed it`s own rules.Should we label it "legitimate"?

This same question could be asked of other "states" referred to as "authoritarian" or "totalitarian".

Getting back to "the rules" ,which rules are acceptable ? Isn`t a/any so-called state obeying the rules(of the State`s game) by passing laws(new rules) that add to,delete,or distort any previous laws (rules) ?

J M

P.S. Those who are following this thread may find Wikipedia`s definitions interesting,found on this thread:thereisnostate.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1104971759

[Candy]

Stand Watie? Is Sagas4 a Native American?

I don't get Weis's argument, either.

If I understand the premises of this board, "legitimate state" is a contradiction of terms.

[JUDGE MENTAL]

Candy,
I had that very thought when I read it on the thread from whence it came(see my original post).That is why I asked the question.

J M

[Darren Dirt]

Guest-JUDGE said:

P.S. Those who are following this thread may find Wikipedia`s definitions interesting,found on this thread:thereisnostate.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1104971759

...and that thread has had a total of zero replies; sad, considering how many LegalLand-related entries there are, and how much a know-nothing potential AiLL-buyer who reads a bit on here could actually verify on their own simply by visiting Wikipedia.

[sagas4]

Guest-Candy said:

1. Stand Watie? Is Sagas4 a Native American?

2. I don't get Weis's argument, either.

3. If I understand the premises of this board, "legitimate state" is a contradiction of terms.

3. Yes I would agree legitimate state is a contradiction of terms.

2. Weiss, please correct me as necessary here as I am taking some liberty with your comments). . Weiss was using their terms to illustrate how they think. To extinguish title simply means STEAL. Native Americans although not possessing a piece of paper claim title to lands by thousands of years of occupation and use. This fact was not lost on the Government of the time as it would have more meaning than a mere piece of paper. In order for the paper title used in europe called patent, grant, etc., and copied by U.S. gov., to be issued and even presumed to be valid; previous titles must be extinguished. It is done through treaties (which the U.S. never upheld their end), through War and murder of native inhabitants, or by declaration and forceable removal of native inhabitants.

Kevin said, "If might does not make right - then how can America, at the death of thousands of Indians, proclaim to be a legitimate anything? After all, they were here before anyone else!". In a sentence Weis gave Kevin the answer he would get from the people DBA govt. as Weis demonstrates a good knowledge of history. My reply to Weis was to illustrate how the stealing was justified. i.e. One person or a small group of people agree to do something that affects many others without the others concent yet everyone proceeds as if concent was obtained. My comment was meant to enhance and be the exclamation point on Weiss's comment; however one must have a good knowledge of history to get what we said.

1. I have a european name, educated in public and private schools, am integrated into society such that one would not know by looking at me, (cropped hair etc.), but my grandmothers family has lived on a reservation since they were forceably moved there in the 1800's.

Does this answer your questions?

If y'all don't like my land then take your government and go back whence you came ;D

*Edited for clarity*