|
|
|
The Number of a Man's Name by
This document is approximately 4,668 words long. This essay is LiteraShare. That means that it isn't for sale and that it isn't protected by a formal establishment copyright. As the author, I ask you to extend to me the courtesy that is reasonably due. If you copy the essay, then copy all of it including my name and address as shown on each page, and this LiteraShare Statement. I invite you to provide such copies for other readers. If you quote from the essay, then do so accurately and give me credit. If you care to make a voluntary contribution to me, then I prefer cash. For checks, money orders, or PayPal payments, please inquire.
|
The Number of a Man's Name
|
The Number of a Man's Name
In the U.S.A. today, citizens must possess identification. Such possession of identification is virtually universal. Understanding of its implications is virtually nonexistent. Identification means,
There are thus at least three aspects of identification. It must (1) reveal and (2) prove (3) identity. Identity is a word with many meanings, depending upon how it's used. With regard to providing identification upon demand, identity means the unique designation of one individual that distinguishes him from all others. An individual's name alone isn't necessarily unique and therefore might not constitute identification. An individual's name associated with an address or other appropriate information is unique. Other things, as well, are identification. Examples are Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, employee numbers, and credit card numbers. Each of those numbers, within its area of use, distinguishes one individual from all others. An individual might have many such identities and any valid identification must reveal at least one of them. Whether the identity revealed is a name and address or a number, anything that (1) reveals (2) identity satisfies two aspects of identification. Identification must also prove identity. What constitutes proof?
Thus, the only criterion for successful proof is belief. Anything that induces belief is proof. If I tell (reveal to) someone who I am (my identity) and he believes me (proof), then I have provided identification. For example, I might provide a series of photo-
|
The Number of a Man's Name
graphs and mementos documenting my entire growth from birth to the present. With it I might provide affidavits signed by people who knew me as a child and sworn statements by my parents. Such evidence might be very convincing and induce belief. If so, then it satisfies the above mentioned requirements of identification. However, such identification will not allow me to cash a check, obtain
a credit card, or rent a video cassette. If the identification convinces
the individual to whom I present it, thereby satisfying the requirements
of identification, and if I still cannot cash the check, then there must
be another requirement. The identification is insufficient for some
reason. To understand why, you must understand the legal meaning
of insufficient.
My hypothetical home-grown identification avoids every requirement of insufficiency but one. It's incompetent.
To be competent, identification must be legally qualified
That means that identification must be authorized by statute. Such authorization exists. An example is the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
The DMV is thus authorized to provide identification and DMV identification is therefore competent. Other agencies, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department (passport agency), are also authorized to provide identification. Notice also that the DMV may verify its identification against records maintained by the United States Department of Commerce. The acceptability of identification provided by such agencies clarifies a fourth requirement of identification which is that identification must be attested by government. That enables me to provide a complete definition.
|
The Number of a Man's Name
Identification must be traceable to the government. Otherwise, it isn't identification but is only incompetent evidence. From that government monopoly follows an important consequence that, perhaps, isn't obvious. If an individual claims to be "A" and the government says that the individual is "B", then what is that individual's true identity? The only identity that will be recognized is the one for which the individual can provide identification. The only valid identification is that provided by the government. The answer, then, is that the true identity of an individual is whatever the government says it is. If you doubt the power of the government to dictate your identity then I can suggest a couple of tests. Try to persuade the Social Security Administration to give you the Social Security number of your choice. They won't do it. Remember, you're name isn't your identity but your Social Security number is. Try to get your state driver's license agency to give you the driver's license number of your choice. Again, they won't do it. Ironically, you can request a specific identity for your car, a license plate with your preferred license plate number, but not for yourself. That those agencies use the name given to you by your parents is conventional, but not necessary. If they put a different name on your card and refused to change it, then you'd be stuck with it. Your real name is the one on your birth certificate, a government document filed with the United States Department of Commerce. It's your real name not because your parents gave it to you but because it's on the certificate. If your parents had given you a different name than the one that eventually appeared on your birth certificate, then the one that they gave you wouldn't count. Your real name would be the one on the certificate. Furthermore, you can't legally change your name unless you request and
obtain permission from the government.
Your real name is the one acknowledged by government and, potentially, the one dictated by government. Recall that the California DMV and, I presume, licensing agencies in all states will verify information with the United States Department of Commerce. They don't verify it with your parents. There are many things that you can do only if you have identification traceable to the government. Since you can't do them otherwise, the identification constitutes permission from the government to do those things. Among them are opening bank accounts, buying or selling stock, renting just about anything, making credit purchases, using checks, buying insurance, being employed, buying a house, owning or
|
The Number of a Man's Name
driving a car, owning a business, getting married, and so forth. That the government doesn't always directly impose the identification requirement is a frivolous objection. The requirement is there, regardless of its private sector camouflage. It's a fact that in the U.S.A. today, it's impossible for anyone to legally transact business of any kind without government identification. Permission means control. If you must get permission from the government before you can do something, then you must satisfy any prerequisite that the government imposes upon the permission. The preconditions to obtaining identification continue to escalate and there isn't any end in sight. The identification is a prerequisite to almost everything and you can get it only from government. The accumulation of so much power in the hands of government constitutes the very essence of tyranny. So what about the prophecy in the book of Revelation? I don't believe in the sacred validity of Biblical prophecy but that particular prophecy is in some ways an uncanny description of the present situation. Recall the electronic implants that are being discussed as a method
of marking U.S. citizens. They're already used on animals and in
the packaging of consumer goods. They're even in use in limited circumstances
for people. The technology is well established. They’ll eventually
serve as identification for health care and other benefits , Social Security,
immigration, work eligibility, collecting mail at the post office, ATM
access, banking, driver’s licenses, and so forth. In that light,
consider Revelation 13:16-17.
The prophesy claims that everyone will be required to have a mark. It says that the mark will be, somehow, physically attached to the person. That sounds a lot like some sort of an implant. The purpose of the mark is clarified as being a form of permission to do business. Apparently any kind of business will require the mark. Notice that the statement further clarifies that the mark is the name of the beast or the number of the beast's name. It's an uncanny suggestion of a form of numerical identification provided by some powerful entity. It seems as though a person who is marked with the name of the beast might be a government employee. Maybe the name of the beast designates some sort of badge or other government identification tag. It seems like other people, the subjects of the beast, might be marked by numbers issued by the beast. Finally, consider Revelation 13:18.
The beast, therefore, isn't some heavenly, or hellish, or supernatural apparition. The number is a human number. The beast is a bunch of people.
|
The Number of a Man's Name
I believe that the seeming accuracy of the prophecy follows not from divine inspiration but from an understanding of the timeless nature of human behavior. That is, the prophecy doesn't predict a particular situation for our time or for any particular time. It reflects an accurate understanding of the general behavior of people and of governments. Any thinker with (13:18) wisdom and experience at his disposal can safely predict that (13:16) everybody, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, will eventually be required to have government identification, that when the technology allows it the identification will be physically attached to the individual and not just carried in a pocket, and that (13:17) people will be prohibited from doing anything that they want to do unless they have the identification. The prophecy in Revelation is a timeless and universal warning about
governments.
|
The Number of a Man's Name
|
The Number of a Man's Name
Glossary Attest. To bear witness to; to bear witness to a fact; to affirm to be true or genuine; to act as a witness to; to certify; to certify to the verity of a copy of a public document formally by signature; to make solemn declaration in words or writing to support a fact; to signify by subscription of his name that the signer has witnessed the execution of the particular instrument. Lindsey v. Realty Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 322, 324; City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport v. Borsuk, 131 Conn. 640, 41 A.2d 775, 778. Also the technical word by which, in the practice of many of the states, a certifying officer gives assurance of the genuineness and correctness of a copy. Thus, an "attested" copy of a document is one which has been examined and compared with the original, with a certificate or memorandum of its correctness, signed by the persons who have examined it. See Affirmation; Jurat; Oath; Verification. —Black's Law Dictionary, 1979
identification .... 1. an identifying. 2. a being identified. 3. something used to identify a person or thing .... —Thorndike Century Senior Dictionary
1941 identification .... 1a: an act of identifying: the state of being identified b: evidence of identity 2a: psychological orientation of the self in regard to something (as a person or group) with a resulting feeling of close emotional association b: a mental mechanism whereby the individual attains gratification, emotional support, or relief from stress by consciously or unconsciously attributing to himself the characteristics of another person or a particular group syn see RECOGNITION —Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
1973 Identification. Proof of identity. The proving that a person, subject, or article before the court is the very same that he or it is alleged, charged, or reputed to be; as where a witness recognizes the prisoner as the same person whom he saw committing the crime; or where handwriting, stolen goods, counterfeit coin, etc., are recognized as the same which once passed under the observation of the person identifying them. See also Authentication; Line-up; Mug book The requirement of identification as a condition precedent to admissability (sic) is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.Evid.R. 901. See also Authentication; Eyewitness identification; Label; Lineup; Voiceprint. —Black's Law Dictionary, 1979
IDENTITY. Sameness. In cases of larceny, trover, and replevin, the things in question must be identified; 4 Bla. Com. 396. So, too, the identity of articles taken or injured must be proved in all indictments where taking property is the gist of the offence, and in actions of tort for damage to specific property. Many other cases occur in which identity must be proved in regard either to persons or things. The question is sometimes one of great practical difficulty, as in case of the death of strangers, reappearance after a long absence, and the like. See Ryan, Med. Jur. 301; 1 Beck, Med. Jur. 509; 1 Hall, Am. L. J. 70; 6 C. & P. 677; 1 Cr. & M. 730; 1 Hagg. Cons. 180; Shelf. Marr. & D. 226; Best, Pres. App. Case 4; 88 Ill. 498; Wills, Circ. Ev. 143 et seq.; 4 Bla. Com. 296; 4 Steph. Com. 468. —Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1889
identity .... 1. individuality; who a person is; what a thing is. The writer concealed his identity under a false name. 2. sameness; exact likeness. The identity of the crimes led the police to think that the same person committed them .... —Thorndike Century Senior Dictionary
1941 identity .... 1a: sameness of essential or generic character in different instances b: sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing; ONENESS 2a: the distinguishing character or personality of an individual: INDIVIDUALITY b: the
|
The Number of a Man's Name
relation established by psychological identification <a symbolic act ... marking ~ and participation in a collective action — Paul Jacobs> 3: the condition of being the same with something described or asserted <establish the ~ of stolen goods> 4: an equation that is satisfied for all values of the symbols 5: IDENTITY ELEMENT —Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
1973 Identity. Evidence. Sameness; the fact that a subject, person, or thing before a court is the same as it is represented, claimed, or charged to be. See Authentication; Identification .... —Black's Law Dictionary, 1979
Insufficient. Not sufficient; inadequate to some need, purpose, or use; wanting in needful value, ability, or fitness; incompetent; unfit, as insufficient food; insufficient means. It is the antonym of "sufficient." Nissen v. Miller, 44 N.M. 487, 105 P.2d 324, 325. —Black's Law Dictionary, 1979
jurisdiction .... 1. right or power of administering law or justice. 2. authority; power; control. 3. extent of authority. It does not lie within his jurisdiction to set you free. 4. territory over which authority extends .... —Thorndike Century Senior Dictionary
1941 Lawful. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law: not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of "equitable." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process. See also Legal; Legitimate; Valid. —Black's Law Dictionary, 1979
Proof. The effect of evidence; the establishment of a fact by evidence. New England Newspaper Pub. Co. v. Bonner, C.C.A. Mass., 77 F.2d 915, 916. Any fact or circumstance which leads the mind to the affirmative or negative of any proposition. The conviction or persuasion of the mind of a judge or jury, by the exhibition of evidence, of the reality of a fact alleged. Ellis v. Wolfe-Shoemaker Motor Co., 227 Mo.App. 508, 55 S.W.2d 309. "Proof" is the establishment by evidence of a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court. Calif. Evidence Code. See also Burden of going forward; Burden of persuasion; Burden of producing evidence; Burden of proof; Clear and convincing proof; Clear evidence of proof; Degree of proof; Evidence; Failure of proof; Offer of proof; Testimony. Evidence and proof distinguished. Proof is the logically sufficient reason for assenting to the truth of a proposition advanced. In its juridical sense it is a term of wide import, and comprehends everything that may be adduced at a trial, within the legal rules, for the purpose of producing convic-
|
The Number of a Man's Name
tion in the mind of judge or jury, aside from mere argument; that is, everything that has a probative force intrinsically, and not merely as a deduction from, or combination of, original probative facts. But "evidence" is a narrower term, and includes only such kinds of proof as may be legally presented at a trial, by the act of the parties, and through the aid of such concrete facts as witnesses, records, or other documents. Thus, to urge a presumption of law in support of one's case is adducing proof, but it is not offering evidence. "Belief" is a subjective condition resulting from proof. It is a conviction of the truth of a proposition, existing in the mind, and induced by persuasion, proof, or argument addressed to the judgment. Proof is the result or effect of evidence, while evidence is the medium or means by which a fact is proved or disproved, but the words "proof" and "evidence" may be used interchangeably. Proof is the perfection of evidence; for without evidence there is no proof, although there may be evidence which does not amount to proof; for example, if a man is found murdered at a spot where another has been seen walking but a short time before, this fact will be evidence to show that the latter was the murderer, but, standing alone, will be very far from proof of it. Affirmative proof. Evidence establishing the fact in dispute by a preponderance of the evidence. Burden of proof. See that title. Degree of proof. Refers to effect of evidence rather than medium by which truth is established, and in this sense expressions "preponderance of evidence" and "proof beyond reasonable doubt" are used. Full proof. See Full. Half proof. See Half. Negative proof. See Positive proof, infra. Positive proof. Direct or affirmative proof. That which directly establishes the fact in question; as opposed to negative proof, which establishes the fact by showing that its opposite is not or cannot be true. Preliminary proof. See Preliminary. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Such proof as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it tends to support and which is wholly consistent with defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. State v. Dubina, 164 Conn. 95, 318 A.2d 95, 97. Such is the required standard of proof in criminal cases. Proof evident or presumption great. As used in constitutional provisions that accused shall be bailable unless for capital offenses when the "proof is evident" or "presumption great," means evidence clear and strong, and which leads well guarded, dispassionate judgment to conclusion that accused committed offense and will be punished capitally. Ex parte Coward, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 170 S.W.2d 754, 755; Ex parte Goode, 123 Tex.Cr.R 492, 59 S.W.2d 841. Proof of claim. Statement under oath filed in a bankruptcy proceeding by a creditor in which the creditor sets forth the amount owed and sufficient detail to identify the basis for the claim. Also used in probate proceedings to submit the amount owed by the decedent to the creditor and filed with the court for payment by the fiduciary. Proof of debt. The formal establishment by a creditor of his debt or claim, in some prescribed manner (as, by his affidavit or otherwise), as a preliminary to its allowance, along with others, against an estate or property to be divided, such as the estate of a bankrupt or insolvent, a deceased person or a firm or company in liquidation. See Proof of claim, supra. Proof of loss. A formal statement made by the policy-owner to the insurer regarding a loss, intended to give insurer enough information to enable it to determine the extent of its liability under a policy or bond. Proof of service. Evidence submitted by a process server that he has made service on a defendant in an action. It is also called a return of service. Fed.R.Civil P.4.
|
The Number of a Man's Name
Proof of will. A term having the same meaning as "probate," (q.v.), and used interchangeably with it. Standard of proof. A statement of how convincing the evidence must be in order for a party to comply with his/her burden of proof. The main standards of proof are proof beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal cases only), proof by clear and convincing evidence, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence. —Black's Law Dictionary, 1979
|
The Number of a Man's Name
(From the California Vehicle Code) Identification Cards 13000 (a) The department may issue an identification card to any person attesting to the true name, correct age, and other identifying data as certified by the applicant for such identification card. (c) Every application for an identification card shall be signed and verified by the applicant before a person authorized to administer oaths and shall be supported by such bona fide documentary evidence of the age and identity of such applicant as the department may require, and shall include a legible print of the thumb or finger of the applicant. Verification of Identity: Unlawful Denial of Birth Certificate 13007.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this code or in the regulations adopted thereunder, including specifically the driver's licensing manual, the department may verify the identity of a person applying for an identification card through United States Census records even though the date and month of birth are not included as to any person born prior to the year 1916. It shall be unlawful for an applicant to knowingly declare to the department,
in writing, that no birth certificate exists for the applicant when, in
fact, a birth certificate does exist.
|
The Number of a Man's Name
|
The Number of a Man's Name
References
|
The Number of a Man's Name
|
|
|