To Serve and Protect

A treatise on the theory of traffic law, and its relation to the social contract By: Marushia Dark, 2012

To Serve and Protect

Since ancient times, man has been free to move about the planet and to go where he thinks will be most beneficial to his survival. Then, civilizations formed and people began to come together to form societies, and then nations until we arrived at the Laws of Nations, which said that everyone ought to belong to a nation, even if that be a nation of one; and those that wont govern themselves internally through self-determination under the social contract must be governed externally by a government of some other nation. But even before the Law of Nations was codified, men of ambition rose up and took power at the point of a sword, establishing their dominion and will over other people, forming dynasties of kings. Through monarchial rule and the leverage of several enforcers, they stripped individuals of their property and claimed it was their own. And who could contest them? Though the truth was on the side of the individual, they lacked power to enforce their will except in coming together to form armies themselves. Among the property claimed by the king was the highway, which he had built because he wanted it and the people needed it, but only the king could build it because only he has the resources to do so resources he took from his subjects by force. As a result of this cost to his treasury, he then required his subjects pay a tax for use of the Kings Highway; and those enforcers of his policies oversaw this. The taxes might not have been such a bad idea in their own right, except that the people had very little say in the matter. And, understandably, they resented being shafted from the front end as well as from behind. The Magna Carta stripped King John of England of certain powers and gave them to the people, such as the right to forage on their own lands and be protected in their own homes. The context surrounding the Magna Carta is aptly portrayed in Ridley Scotts Robin Hood, wherein the nobility class threatened to turn their forces against the king himself unless he restored to them what was rightfully theirs - the property they had earned through their own honest labor. Three centuries later, another great battle for freedom would take place in England, this time over ideologies. King Henry VIII of England was steeped in the Protestant Revolution, which sought religious freedom and separation from the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, Henrys own inability to produce a male heir with Catherine of Aragon threatened the line of succession. Even after forming the Anglican Church and remarrying five times, the throne was left to his daughter, Elizabeth I. Political and religious turmoil in England, coupled with the promise of new opportunity and freedom, saw many English folk set sail for the New World. But the tyranny of the Old World followed them there; and it would take two more centuries before the colonists would rise up and say, Enough is enough, and break free from their English monarchs in a much more permanent way.

To Serve and Protect 2

Marushia Dark

Much has been said about the Founding Fathers those great men who had the courage to be labeled as traitors and defy the written laws in favor of true justice. It cannot be overemphasized just how much they believed in freedom for the individual. Indeed, many of the Founding Fathers were students of the Age of Enlightenment, following in John Lockes understanding of the social contract. Locke believed in a maximization of individual freedom and that governments only role was the collective defense of the people. That people would come together, according to Natural Law, to form governments as a form of symbiosis for their own self-preservation. The proof of this rests in the documents they left behind for us, including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The latter of these professes the belief that governments are entrusted with power and derive that power from the consent of the people; and that the people have the absolute right to overthrow any government that no longer benefits them. Such sentiments reflect an understanding of the philosophy of contract law, wherein all governments become trusts created for the benefit of the people. Eventually, the Revolutionary War and the subsequent formation of the American Republic solidified individual liberty and created a model that other countries would soon copy. A Republic is, by definition, a system of representative government that protects individual liberty; as opposed to a democracy in which everyone does what the majority says, or a monarchy in which everyone does what one person says. The American Republic was founded on the Enlightened principles of maximization of individual liberty and a rejection of tyranny, whether by majority or by monarchy. When asked what the Founding Fathers had formed, Ben Franklin famously stated, A Republic, if you can keep it. Most people do not understand this important distinction between democracy and republic, and we would do well to consider why the Founding Fathers chose this form of government, and why we instead prefer the rhetoric of democracy today. Unlike a monarchy, a Republic is a trust, in which the government is servant, rather than master. Everything the government does is for the benefit of its people, and its actions ought to reflect the desires of those people, both at large and on an individual level. In the case of the American Republic, the government was given power over two main causes: defense and commerce. This comes from Article 1, 8 of the Constitution, wherein the specific powers of government are outlined. The last of these powers is a necessary and proper clause, stating that government has the power to enact any and all laws it feels are necessary and proper, to fulfill its charge over defense and commerce. However, what many overlook is the latter half of this point, wherein the Constitution limits this seemingly endless authority to a section of land only ten-miles square, and to certain military installations. In other words, the government can do whatever it wants, but only within those areas it has jurisdiction (i.e.

To Serve and Protect 3

Marushia Dark

the District of Columbia, military bases, and so forth). This concept is based in two important maxims of law: Every mans home is his castle and The order of things is confounded if everyone preserves not his jurisdiction. The Constitution allows the Federal government to do whatever it wants within a narrowly and specifically defined space, and it must work with the people and gain their consent in all other jurisdictions. The Bill of Rights places further limits on this governmental power. Most believe the Bill of Rights grants them rights, but the wording of the various Amendments suggests the opposite. That we have nearly unlimited rights, which the government cannot infringe upon without our consent. Of course, the American Republic is simply a federation of smaller State Republics. The States were originally considered as nations come together in an alliance for a common purpose, much like the modern European Union, NATO, or the United Nations. But the same general principle applies that government is a trust for the benefit of the people. In many of the State Constitutions, there is a reflection of those Enlightened principles of individual liberty. For instance, the New Jersey State Constitution, Article 1, states: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it. Thus, at both the Federal and State levels, individual liberty was secured and ensured and the people were finally free to do what they wanted. Gone were the days of paying the king for the use of his roads. There were still taxes to be paid for their maintenance and construction, but now at least the roads belonged to everyone equally. And in certain cases, those who used the roads the most would have to pay for the more heavily traveled sections (i.e. tolls). But this was the extent of our original duties regarding the roads. The higher forms of law, such as the social contract of do no harm, applied universally, and so naturally they applied on the roads as well. Now, let us consider the state of affairs in these newborn republics. People paid their annual taxes and periodic tolls and could use the roads whenever they wanted, provided they didnt cause harm to anyone. They could walk, or ride horses, or coaches, or bicycles, or carts, or other vehicles that would convey them to where they needed to go. No one needed anyones permission to use the roads because the roads were public and the people were members of the public.

To Serve and Protect 4

Marushia Dark

And if everyone were responsible in his or her use of the roads and aware of what they were doing, no one would get hurt. If everyone were responsible, only a freak accident would ever cause injury, but that isnt something that one can control or predict. An act of God does injury to no one, because God and the forces of fate and nature are beyond human ability to affect. So there will always be some inherent risk involved in traveling down the road, even in the best of times. Indeed, the very act of walking outside ones door carries risk. At anytime, a meteor could fall on top of you, but to live your life in fear of that is hardly a life at all, as such an action is very unlikely. That is just a part of life we must accept. It is part of the price we must pay to live as free human beings created by God. Now, in such a society, there are no licenses or registrations or insurance policies for drivers. They arent needed because the presumption is that people will act responsibly and adhere to the social contract and avoid causing harm to others. Of course, the reality is that people are far from responsible and sometimes people do cause injury to one another. In such instances, the responsible thing would be for the party that caused injury to pay for the damages. If he pays, then the matter has been resolved privately and harmony is restored. And if he will not pay, there are public civil courts in which the injured party can bring suit against the offender and rely on the governments entrusted power to enforce the wills of the individuals involved. If the aggrieved party proves his case, then the offender will be made to pay a fair amount and justice will have been done. And if the offender cannot pay, then he will owe a debt to the injured party, which will remain with him until he has satisfied it in full, but this is the whole of his obligations. He is still free to go about his private business, provided he works towards rectifying his mistake and paying off what he owes. Now, we said before that government has jurisdiction over commerce and defense. Defense relates to the military, which has nothing to do with driving. There are strict rules regarding the governments jurisdiction over the military and what it can and cannot do. For instance, the militarys jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia and relevant military installations, as outlined in the Constitution. You might think the governments jurisdiction over driving comes from the duty to maintain public safety. Indeed, there is a militant group of armed and uniformed individuals that enforces these policies, but that is not where its jurisdiction comes from. If it did, wed need licenses to do even the most basic of tasks involving anyone other than ourselves, just because there is some inherent risk involved. It would be a slippery slope built upon the intention of protecting us from ourselves. Only children, slaves, and wild beasts need such restraining, and hopefully we are not any of those things if we are driving on public roads. If we cause harm, then and only then will we be brought to court and made to pay, but otherwise they have no jurisdiction over us in that regard. We have the right to ignore

To Serve and Protect 5

Marushia Dark

safety warnings in as much as we have a duty to remedy any harm our unsafe behaviors might cause. That is the trade-off. We are all charged by God with the duty of judging for ourselves what that means, and at least most of us are blessed with the ability to fulfill that charge. Remember that the government is created for our benefit, so everything it does must be for our benefit, both as a whole and on an individual basis. They can warn us that our actions might cause harm, but these are just guidelines. Common sense should tell you that most traffic laws do not apply in all situations, and so why should they be enforced absolutely? Who really cares if you turn on red on an empty street at two oclock in the morning? If a speed limit is imposed with the intent to protect children, do you still have to adhere to it when there are no children present? If road engineers determine speed limits based on what speed most people drive at, and most people drive at the speeds already posted, even though they might feel just as comfortable and safe driving at higher speeds, doesnt this just create a vicious circle? On the National Motorists Associations website, there is a paper that was submitted to the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting in 2000. The full text of that paper can be found here: http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/safety-setting-limits Among other things, it states: All Speed Limits Should Be Prima Facie Prima facie limits recognize that conditions vary during a day and subject the motorists to penalties only when their speed in excess of the limit is a hazard to others under the conditions then existing with regard to the actual and potential hazards. Prima facie limits also acknowledge that even when limits are set at reasonable levels, there is a band of speed greater than the limit that is safe and no one speed is safe for all conditions. Absolute limits are warranted in school, construction and hospital zones, business districts and alleys; high pedestrian or vulnerable activity areas. However, absolute and special speed zones shall only be in effect during specific times of day when the hazard is present and removed immediately when the hazard ceases to exist. A band of speed greater than the limit that is safe, and no one speed is safe for all conditions. Again, this suggests that it is incumbent upon us to use our own judgment and that traffic laws are really guidelines at best. Further into the paper, it states the method by which recommended speed limits are determined by road engineers: There is no engineering basis that requires speed limits. In fact, the opposite is true. The MUTCD admonishes that devices only be used when warranted and when they would have the desired effect on reducing accidents. The MUTCD states, A

To Serve and Protect 6

Marushia Dark

standard device used where it is not appropriate is as objectionable as a nonstandard device; in fact, this may be worse, in that such misuse may result in disrespect at those locations where the device is needed. The MUTCD also recognizes urban and rural conditions may require different determination criteria. [] [The 85th Percentile Speed is] defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. On urban roadways the 85th percentile speed has been found to be the safest speed, where the 85th exceeds 50 mph the safest speed shifts to the 90th percentile. Speed limits established on the basis of the 85th percentile on urban roadways conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and prudent, and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals. Again, these guidelines are derived from what most people are doing and everyone else is made to adhere to them, regardless of individual right or ability. This is democracy in action, wherein 51% can tell 49% what to do; or in this case, 85-90%. And it may well be that 85-90% of people are irresponsible, belligerent children that need Big Brother to keep and eye on them and report them to the Nanny State when they act up. But why should the other 10-15% suffer when we were guaranteed the right to do as we please, provided we dont hurt anyone? Further still, we read: The traffic engineer's speed survey is simply a measurement of the "public's consensus" as to what free-flowing speed they have found to be safe. Each motorist drives at a speed they feel comfortable and safe with. Each driver expresses their comfort level by their actions, taking in to account all visual clues that may be present. Engineers have found this to be a better process than basing the speed limits on the arbitrary judgments of a few. Setting all traffic control devices, turn lane lengths etc. based on this measured public consensus has been the most effective in reducing accident rates. If 90% of people consent to an act, then it ought only apply to those 90%, and the remaining 10% ought to be able to retain their right to refuse. You can apply this logic to anything, really. If 90% of people smoke cigarettes, does that mean you have to as well? No. If 90% of people consent to letting their children sleep with child molesters, should those in the 10% be made to do it too? No. Unless the 10% are causing actual harm, they shouldnt be made to do anything they dont want to. Are we, or are we not, a Republic? If its acknowledged that everyone can and does drive at what they feel comfortable with,

To Serve and Protect 7

Marushia Dark

then why should anyone be made to copy anyone else? This is the ridiculous of the argument of safety, in that it is derived as much from fear and conformity as it is from actual merit. Ben Franklin famously stated that, He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. Traffic code is an attempt at preventative medicine, which is something I am all for, but Im also for personal freedom, and having the courage to live, because anyone can die at any moment, regardless of how safe they are. I could tell you that fluoridated water is killing you, but you still have the right to drink from the tap if you want. I could tell you preservatives are interfering with your immune system and giving you cancer, but you still have the right to eat processed food if you want. I cant stop you. That also doesnt mean Im going to join you, though. No one is going to charge you every time you fail to adhere to a measure of preventative medicine. Your doctor wont send his enforcers to stake out McDonalds in the hopes of catching you eating there; but if you do get sick, you shouldnt complain about how much it costs to remedy the situation. After all, it was your choice. As you can see, most peoples sense of logic is inconsistent between one field and the next. Again, we all have the ability to judge for ourselves what is best for us, and the right to live our lives as we see fit. If the argument is that me speeding is unsafe, but I can and do routinely drive in excess of the speed limit without causing an accident, then doesnt that prove I am actually a very safe driver? Certainly, Im at least safer than the person who drives at or below the speed limit and still gets into an accident. Right? As they say, correlation is not causality. Guns dont kill people; people kill people. Speeding doesnt kill people; belligerent idiots kill people. If speeding were really so dangerous, the cops wouldnt be allowed to drive fast in pursuit of you, because theyd be causing just as much harm as theyre trying to prevent. Think on that for a while. At the end of the day, we still have the choice to ignore the governments warnings and proceed anyway, relying on our own discretion. Maybe their citations are bills of exchange ordering us to pay for the benefit of them providing us with warnings; but that is unlikely, as it doesnt explain certain other of their behaviors, such as arresting us and taking our property against our will. If their warnings were a service, we ought to be able to refuse them with impunity and go about our business, as is our right. It is a maxim of law that we may waive benefits that we do not want, and to reject laws created for our benefit. If someone buys you a drink, you dont have to accept it if you dont want it. And you certainly wouldnt accept it if it came with unfavorable

To Serve and Protect 8

Marushia Dark

conditions attached to it. Right? Consent is one of the pillars of the social contract and so even government must operate with our consent in mind. Its just that, sometimes, they need to be reminded of this. Reminded that they are the servants, and the people are the masters on both a collective and an individual level, as we are citizens of a Republic founded to preserve and protect individual liberty. But if the roads are ours and we arent hurting anyone, where does government get its jurisdiction over us regarding driving? A license is permission to do a thing without which would otherwise be illegal. Who are they that we need their permission all of a sudden to do something that weve had the right to do all this time? What gives them the authority to suddenly make it illegal? Didnt we break away from England over matters such as this? True, it may seem trivial to most that we fight so hard against the social injustice of traffic laws, especially when there are more important things like genocide and racial profiling to worry about. But the fact that this is a small matter means the solution ought to be easy and straightforward. And it is little concessions of personal freedom that lead to the building up of governments ego to think it has the power and authority to take even more away from us. This country was born because a few small injustices escalated to become greater injustices. What started as a protest against taxes on notary stamps and tea became a war for the right to self-determination. Now we have come full circle. So if its not defense or safety that grants them jurisdiction, then what is it? The answer comes from the other half of governments charge: commerce. Government has jurisdiction over commerce. But what is commerce? We tend to use that term rather liberally without actually knowing what it means. Business refers to the value-creating activities of an organization for profit, whereas trade means the actual exchange of goods, serves, and money. Commerce, however, means the whole system of an economy that constitutes an environment for business. To put that into an analogy, if trade is a game played between two teams, commerce would be the field on which its played; and while the rules of the game are subject to agreement between the players themselves (i.e. contract), its the government who is responsible for maintaining and caring for the condition of the field, so that it can be played upon. Of course, this is a public field were referring to one thats open to all and our taxes go towards paying for its upkeep and we have the right to use it as well. However, we again have a duty of stewardship and must do our part to not cause harm,

To Serve and Protect 9

Marushia Dark

and to minimize our negative impact on the field so that others may use it as well. And if, and only if, our actions cause harm, the government can again step in make us pay for the damages. But again, our charges must be consistent with the damages weve caused. We cannot be made to pay for not hurting someone. So as long as were paying our taxes, how might our driving on the road entangle us in the predicament of causing harm to commerce? The answer lies in insurance. In the age of sail, business and trade was done primarily via ship. This is the origin of the term shipping as still used in business today. Goods would be transported across long distances over water and this often carried risk due to storms, rocky shores, or even piracy. If a ship was sunk, the value of its cargo would be lost and a merchant could lose his livelihood as a result. Depending on the severity of the loss, an entire local economy could suffer as a result due to their dependence on said goods. Thus, it was desirable for merchants to create a system that could protect them against such loss and mitigate the amount of damage they personally received. This desire eventually led to the formation of insurance companies. An insurance company would enter into contract with a merchant to ensure that they would be compensated in the event of certain circumstances. In turn, the merchant would agree to pay a certain amount of money to the company. The exact circumstances and the amounts paid were subject to agreement between the parties, and there were often specific actions the merchant had to perform in order to minimize his risk of loss or else the insurance company wouldnt cover him. This makes sense, since the very idea of insurance is transference of responsibility from one person to another. If you know that you can do whatever you want without consequence, even if you cause harm, then what is stopping you from causing harm and making someone else pay for it? Thus, it was left to the insurance companys private army of policy enforcers to make sure these rules were being obeyed, or else the insurance company could claim the merchant was in breach of contract and causing an unnecessary risk to the insurance company, which in turn might result in a loss of their own. An insurance company might have contracts with many different merchants, so that the sum total of what it brought in could be pooled together and used to cover the event of any one loss. And if the merchants were being held to certain standards, such losses would be rare and there would be great potential for profit. Only if many merchants lost a great deal at the same time could the insurance company begin to lose money. Yes, the law of self-preservation applies to all persons, both natural and legal. We tend to think lowly of corporations, especially insurance companies, but at the end of the day, theyre just trying to survive while providing a service, the same as any of us. So what does this have to do with driving? Well, the reality is that people are generally irresponsible and they will often cause harm to others. If they didnt, there wouldnt be a

To Serve and Protect 10

Marushia Dark

need for laws or governments at all, as people would just implicitly do the right thing all the time. Right? If offered a way to cause harm and have someone else pay for it, most would probably take that offer, thinking it means greater personal freedom. But it is actually just the opposite. By accepting such an offer, they are relinquishing personal responsibility and giving it to an insurance company, which means they are not acting as responsible adults, but more like belligerent children that must be corralled and controlled before their stupidity and recklessness hurts someone. Think about how many of these people are on the roads today? On an individual level, a person might be able to drive without rules and avoid causing harm, but the probability of something going wrong increases as the number of people increases. If all of these people are taking out insurance policies, then there is a risk of great loss to the insurance companies and thus great harm to the economy. Here is where the government derives its jurisdiction over driving. The government can only act in our benefit via commerce or defense. In this case, we know it is commerce. The benefit given is not the right to drive on the road, but the right to purchase insurance to indemnify you against harm your driving causes! The government cant compel you directly, so it must compel you through your choice to voluntarily enter into contract. Thus, the government makes it illegal for an insurance company to sell you insurance unless certain strict guidelines are adhered to. This includes such things as a competency exam (written and road tests), permission to purchase insurance and to drive while insured (drivers license), background checks (points of I.D. required for a license), informing them of what car you will be driving (motor vehicle registration and license plates), a record of your policys account history with them (driving record, fines, points against you), and adherence to certain rules to mitigate risk (traffic codes and signs). Such rules, for the uninsured, would merely be guidelines, as they have chosen to take on full, unlimited commercial liability in the event of injury or damage. But for those that chose limited liability in the form of insurance, they must follow these rules. And if you fail to adhere to these rules, the government will send out their policy enforcement officers (a.k.a. police officers) to make you pay the agents of the insurance companies (the Motor Vehicle Commission, states, and towns) who act to provide the benefit of mitigating risk to the insurance companies, so that the companies can minimize losses. At the end of the day, everyone just wants their pound of flesh from you, and we dont even stop to question how it is that we came to owe so many pounds in the first place. We just accept it as part of the way things are. Racketeering is offering a solution to a problem you, the problem-solver, have created.

To Serve and Protect 11

Marushia Dark

The most famous example is the mafias protection racket, wherein you pay for their protection or risk them coming and causing you harm. Racketeering is a crime because it forces a person to choose between receiving physical harm or financial loss when no harm would have otherwise been present. Another famous example is the conflict of interests inherent in companies like Halliburton being hired by the Bush Administration during the Iraq War. The Bush Administration entered into an illegal and unwanted war, created a lot of damage, and then hired Halliburton to clean up their mess. The conflict comes into play in that then Vice-President Dick Cheney had major stakes in Halliburton. Here, government creates a problem for which it has the only acceptable solution. If traffic law didnt have a government stamp on it, we would call it what it really is: racketeering. Again, government has created a problem, for which it is now providing the only acceptable solution to. Consider for a moment, youve probably heard of the ticket quotas that police have. How, at the end of the month, they crack down extra hard on offenses in order to justify why the State should keep paying their salaries. The intent of the quotas is to show that the cops have not been slacking off, but are actually doing their jobs and making the world a safer place to drive. However, as if often the case with such methods, the reality is that expedience often triumphs over merit, and many minor offenses and victimless crimes are given greater weight, just because it happens to be that time of the month for the police. As a result, greater harm is done in the form of financial burden, lost time, and emotional stress than might have occurred if the offender were just given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to carry on with what they are doing. Thats not to say that everyone should be let go, but rather that traffic law is simply another example of expedient and ineffective social justice. Like the TSA, it is reactionary, rather than preventative; putting band-aids on small cuts while leaving huge gashes, and ultimately its not worth the cost it takes to maintain it. That is the real reason we are made to obey the traffic laws to teach children how to become responsible adults. And because most people are irresponsible and dont know their rights and duties, they have contracted with the State to get insurance. And because most have contracted into getting insurance, the police assume that everyone they pull over has a contract with these companies. And we have not acted in such a way that would indicate anything else. No one is going to come out and say that, but as you have read, weve built up that argument from common sense and logic. On the one hand, if enough people knew that, they might cancel all their insurance policies and the insurance companies wouldnt make any money. On the other hand,

To Serve and Protect 12

Marushia Dark

people generally like free meals and abhor responsibility, so it might just be a matter of time before we settle back into the state of affairs that were in now. But this is a choice each of us must make on our own. Taking on unlimited liability is not a decision to be made lightly, and indeed 90% of people are probably not ready for it, or else more people probably would have already arrived at this conclusion on their own. But with unlimited liability comes unlimited assets in the form of personal freedom. Im not telling anyone that they should or should not do this. Again, thats your choice to make for yourself. Im just telling you how I see it and the conclusions I have reached. Responsible people have rights too, as L. Ron Hubbard once wrote. If you choose to be irresponsible and cause harm, then the social contract requires you to pay for your actions. But why should we be made to pay for not hurting someone? That is contrary to the foundations of law. If we put the actual harm prevented by traffic law on one side of a scale, versus the emotional, temporal, and financial harm caused to otherwise well-meaning drivers on the other, which way do you suppose the scales would tip? Surely by now, you can see where this is going. How, like so much else, its all about money and power and control over other human beings. It always is. When you see a cop on the side of the road, most people will slow down. Do you think the cops get off on having that kind of power over people, knowing that they can do so with impunity because the law will protect them? Do you think lawyers and judges look out for one another when they get traffic tickets? We can probably assume they do, because wouldnt most of us do exactly that if put into the same situation? We forgive our friends, because theyre our friends, and give special consideration to those whom we believe have earned it by being down in the trenches with us. Ironically, that sort of forgiveness is closer to true justice than what theyre doing to everyone else. In creating an us-versus-them division, it prevents us from seeing the unity of all people and from treating others as human beings with rights and feelings. We become conditioned to prejudging others and assuming that anyone who isnt us is a robot or a sheep or a monster unlike us, when in reality were all in the same boat together. The cops prejudge that we are all children just because we did what we were told, and we prejudge that they are all assholes just for doing their jobs, when really the truth is probably far from that. So how do we prove that we arent belligerent children? How do we prove that were responsible adults? Well, the first thing we need to do is change our mentality. We need to wake up to the reality of whats going on, and to commit to learning the truth and the law, and to not

To Serve and Protect 13

Marushia Dark

causing harm to anyone. We need to determine whether we want to take on full commercial liability for our own actions and thus be rewarded with the increased freedom and power that comes with it. Again, such a decision does not come lightly and is certainly not for everyone. With the way things are right now, its certainly an uphill battle - one that requires you to know what youre doing quite thoroughly. If you cant reverse engineer laws or apply common sense maxims of law, then you have no business playing with fire and you should go back to playing on the sidewalk with the rest of the children. If you dont want to accept personal responsibility, if you wanna subrogate your duties to an insurance company, then you may as well turn in your rights along with your soul and go back to obeying the men in blue. If, however, you are committed to this, then you have a lot more studying to do. You have a lot to learn about the law, both in theory and in practice. As I said, this will not be easy for you, but to him who overcomes, the rewards shall be great. Im not going to sugar coat this. You will probably spend some time in jail and pay out a fair bit of money at first, but this shall be as a lesson to you. Youll know by how you feel inside whether this is right for you or not. Do you feel freer sitting in a jail cell than you do driving down the road? If you do, it means your heart and mind and soul are on a course for truth and it wont be long before you start to get the hang of it and get a few successes. You may find that you lose friends and family to this course of action, and that will be the hardest part. But again, you have to look inside and determine whether its really worth it. Do you think that you know something they dont and theyre just not seeing it, or do you think that youve gone as far as you can and made a mistake and should go back to living the life you had before? Like I said, Im not going to sugar coat this. Tempered steel has to pass through fire before it can receive a drink of water. If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Once your mind and heart are in the right place and youve studied the theory. Once youre able to explain the law to everyone you meet as clearly and as simply as I have here, in your own words, from your own experience and personal understanding; and made the commitment to do no harm, but to instead help your fellow man be responsible once youve done all that, then its time to start applying what youve learned out in the real world. And here, once again, you will meet a great deal of resistance from people who have prejudged you and who dont understand that the law is all about personal responsibility. Again, you will be frustrated by failure, but you will learn, or you will quit and take your ball home and swear off playing. If you did your homework and truly understand, then will know what actions you have to do. If traffic law is just an insurance policy, then you need to cancel your policy, terminate your license and registration, get private plates, and maybe put something on your car to

To Serve and Protect 14

Marushia Dark

indicate that youre taking control of your own affairs and people should watch out for you. The cops will probably not like you for this and may threaten and intimidate you, but thats ok. Dont fight back. It will be hard and youll want revenge, but remain calm and forgive them. What would Ghandi or Jesus or Martin Luther King do? What would someone whom you consider authoritative do in that same situation? I know its hard to have the courage to speak the truth, but youll get better at it over time. If you only do or say one thing right, then at least you tried and thats better than the other 90% of people out there. Remember, theyre here for their cut of the money. Do you owe them anything? Search your soul and determine whether you really are guilty or not. If you are, then pay up. If not, then ask them questions that will make them seriously think about what it is that they are doing; and be authoritative and confident when you ask. Ask them what grants them jurisdiction over you. Ask them who they are that you need their permission to exercise your rights? Ask them who youre hurting by doing this. No harm, no foul, right? Ask them why theyre trying to make you pay for not hurting anyone. Ask them to produce the law or contract that they think youre under, and what makes them think that applies to you. Ask them what makes them think youre acting in the capacity of anything they do provide. Ask them if theyre public servants. Ask them if they think you are a public servant. Ask them questions that will lead to a resolution. Stand your ground as if you were at a restaurant and being asked to pay for a soup you didnt order! You will fail many times, or at least you think you will because youre still paying through the nose, but its not really failure because youre still learning. More than learning, youre applying. And the more times you do it, the better you will be at this. If you have friends studying with you, thats even better. You can role-play and practice different scenarios. But that still wont matter because the cops are learning too, and even though the truth may be on your side, they wont just lie down and take it. They will adapt and so you must adapt as well. They will try to hurt you, but dont let them, and definitely dont try to hurt them back. Let them be the aggressors, and you remain the example to follow that will inspire others to want to take up the call towards personal responsibility. Remember what many people who have traveled down this road tend to forget: the only law that really matters is the social contract. If you hurt anyone, then youve just broken it and you deserve whatever you get as a result. Keep that in mind. Too many people that start to learn this stuff see that most laws suddenly dont apply to them, and they begin to assume that all laws dont apply to them, but that is untrue. The laws of God and of Nature and of the Social Contract will always apply to you, no matter what you do. Dont hurt them and they will be less inclined to hurt you.

To Serve and Protect 15

Marushia Dark

What constitutes harm you ask? Thats common sense, really. Here are a few examples: Breaching a lawfully binding contract. Attacking someone. Causing harm to their body. Causing harm to their mind. Causing them emotional harm. Murder, which is the unjustified act of taking life, as opposed to killing, which may sometimes be justified and sometimes not. Assaulting someone. Raping someone. Touching them in ways they dont want to be touched. Damaging or stealing property from someone. Taking things that dont belong to you. Vandalism and arson. Brainwashing someone, or trying to control them against their consent through the use of psychological warfare. Making false oaths. Committing perjury. Committing fraud. Intentionally leading people to harm through lies. Causing someone an unjustified monetary loss. Coercing someone to do something that results in them getting hurt. Trespassing against someones property or their person. Intentionally being in places and situations you have no earthly business being in. Letting someone get hurt when you could have done something to stop it. Taking other peoples ideas without giving them credit.

As I said, these are just a few. There are probably more, but mostly the rest are derivatives of these. And remember that intention matters, too. All of this is understood as intentionally causing harm. And what you ought to know is the same as what you actually know. If you cant keep all of that straight, then you dont deserve freedom, its as simple as that. But if you are one of the few that can, I wish you all the best of luck. Have fun, and dont sweat the small stuff. Life is too short.

To Serve and Protect 16

Marushia Dark