Everyone who grew up during the 60's was aware of the evils inherent in "the system".  I saw the evils but I also got brainwashed.  I was taught that the only legitimate way to change the system is to work within it.  While working within the system, I had to comply with it.  I could write to my congressmen but if I didn't vote then I shouldn't complain.¹   Yet I resented the imposition of so many arbitrary requirements.  My instincts told me that there should be more choices in America than love it or leave it.  By the time that I was out and on my own, I was ready to try for something better but my brainwashing constrained me to work within "the system".

Who can doubt that there's room for improvement?   The problem is where to start.  I started a long way from the beginning and pointed in the wrong direction.  It isn't surprising that I tried the wrong tactics against the wrong opponent.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 1

I checked with a lot of insurance companies and was assured that Texas legislation didn't allow that kind of policy.  I then began writing to the Texas Legislature, seeking a change in the legislation.  Letters went back and forth during late 1969 and 1970 and I ended up working with Mr. Bill Presnal, of the Texas House of Representatives.  Eventually, we exhausted the subject and his final letter to me³ contained the following paragraphs:

Page 3

I began to have doubts about the relevance of working within the system.  I wasn't ready to give up yet but I did begin to take a few precautions.  One thing that I did was to rent a post office box and make sure that the post office didn't have any record of my home address.  After that, I refused whenever possible to give my home address to anybody.  It might seem like a paranoid stratagem but it proved to be one of the most useful ones that I ever employed.⁵
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 4

Engineers also review the engineering designs that come out of the drafting department.  I was astonished to learn that new designs are largely markups of previous designs and that they're almost entirely the product of drafting personnel.  I was more than a little annoyed to discover that the actual nuts and bolts designing was done by draftsmen and that I, as an engineer, didn't have much control over it.  My job was to sign off the paperwork because policy and legislation doesn't allow draftsmen to bear the design responsibility.

I eventually discovered a whole nether world within the nuclear industry.  That is the insidious labyrinth of legislation and rules by which the industry is allegedly regulated.⁶   After I discovered the regulations and began to read them, I learned that I'd been routinely violating the Atomic Energy Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, a good many industry standards, most of GE's internal procedures, and various of GE's contractual obligations.  Nobody told me.  I just learned it by reading.  The violations were such a normal part of the system that most people didn't even care.  The secretaries didn't even have some of the required forms because nobody ever used them.  The more I learned, the more intractable I became.

I'll skip most of the sordid details of my 10 years at GE and, for the purposes of this essay, get to the conclusion.⁷  First, however, I'd like to emphasize particular wording of Section 223(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.  I'll underline some particularly important parts.

Page 5

In March of 1982, I submitted my final design task.⁸   It was in compliance with all of the various rules.  I was no longer as naive as I had once been, so I kept the design package under careful surveillance as it proceeded through the issue cycle.  When it arrived at the checker's desk in the drafting department, I noticed some changes.  They were serious changes and constituted a falsification of the record of design verification.  They indicated verification records that didn't exist and removed the required indication that verification was being deferred.  The changes were violations of 10CFR50 Appendix B and various internal procedures.  They'd been made without my knowledge or my consent.  They'd been made over my signature, making me responsible for them.⁹   I retrieved the package, corrected it, and re-submitted it.  Again, it was changed.  Again, I retrieved it but I didn't re-submit it.  I hid it and waited.  On Wednesday of that week my boss asked me if the package had been issued.  I told him that it had not been issued.  He asked me when it would be issued and I told him that I didn't intend to issue it at all.  He asked me why and I told him about the changes. He reminded me that the package was due on Friday.  I reminded him that it had taken me several months to do the job.  I suggested that they could start over with another engineer and try to finish it from scratch in two days or they could let me issue it correctly.  He went away puzzling over my attitude.  On Friday, they agreed to let me do it my way.  On the first of the next month, I was laid off due to lack of work.  The excess work being farmed out to subcontractors at the time was outside of my areas of

Page 6

Well darn, that's what happens when you buck the system.  I'd forgotten my brainwashing, become obstinate, and gotten laid off.  Smitten with remorse, I notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), had an interview with some investigators, got involved with some lawyers, and just really worked like hell within the system.  I even wrote a report, submitted it to the NRC, and had a real deposition with a court recorder and everything.  I was Mr. System Himself.  As I recall, I even wore a suit to the deposition.  SheeEEEiiiit!  As the proceedings proceeded, I began to notice how busy everybody was and how much job security they all had, mostly due to my allegations.  I also noticed that I was the only one who was laid off.  Then I noticed how very quickly nothing was being corrected at GE.  It finally occurred to me that if the problems were ever solved, then most of those guys would be out of work.  I started to view the ongoing investigations, responses, reviews, letters, audit reports, charges, and counter-charges with a degree of interest that pretty much corresponded to my level of hope that anything useful was ever going to be accomplished.  That is, I left them to their busy-work and moved on to other things.  Who knows?  They might still be kicking it around.  It wouldn't surprise me a bit.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 7

It happens, however, that a campaign committee is influenced by very different incentives than those that influence a discussion group.  Different incentives attract a different membership and also evoke different responses from the old membership.  The demise of our discussion group was a microcosm of the more gradual change in the libertarian movement.  Members became increasingly committed to registering candidates, maintaining ballot status, increasing membership, and protecting the party's growing vested interest in the elective process.  Their arguments gradually became apologies for compromise as they joined the struggle to win mainstream voters.  People who called themselves Libertarians began to advocate some very statist ideas, such as automatic vehicle identification systems and tax credits for private school participants.  They ranted against licensing and regulation but carried driver's licenses and drove licensed BMW's.  They objected to big government but worked at Lockheed.  They complained about controlled economies, then invested in the stock market.  They talked and argued and debated and analyzed and never did anything.  Before my very eyes, the "party of principle" slowly became the "party of principal".  Over the following years, my resistance against the system grew and the Libertarian Party eased further into the establishment.  Eventually, I rescinded my driver's license and refused to register my transportation.  By then, my principles were making my life kind of dangerous.  I was way out on the edge, all by myself.  Every time that I saw a cop and started to sweat I got more resentful of my old friends, the armchair libertarians.  I don't want to come right out and say that they were frauds, pretenders, and hypocrites, but it did become clear to me that they weren't risking anything.  They weren't even remotely opposing the system.  Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 9

1011

By that point in my career, I was no longer easily dazzled and it didn't take me long to pick the winning horse.  It wasn't the Constitutional Patriots.  Gary Martin's case is a sufficient example.  He spent months of careful work preparing a lot of excellent legal and constitutional arguments with which to oppose a traffic ticket.  It happens that there are a lot of implications that follow from traffic tickets.  How many of us can afford to go to the effort to raise those issues?  Gary's reward for his effort was to have his points rejected by the judge.  By that I mean that the judge "refused to hear them".  Damned arrogant for a public servant, but there you go.  He even threatened Gary with contempt of court if Gary made any more constitutional objections to his traffic ticket.  The judge decided to deny Gary's motions and rule against him.  He said that he was doing it so that Gary would have the opportunity for an appeal.  He acted like he was doing Gary a favor.  I was there and heard it with my own ears.

When Gary arrived at the court room on appeal day, he was a little surprised to see that his case was the only one on the docket for that afternoon.  It was a little puzzling, but he waited around until eventually nobody showed up and nothing happened.  Eventually, he located a clerk who was busily idling at a desk out front and asked when the court would convene.  The clerk showed unusual energy by acting surprised and said that there wouldn't be any session of the court that day because all of the

Page 11

It turned out that the Constitutional Patriots were wrong about a lot of things, and prone to misinterpretations of the Constitution.  However, they were also right about a lot of things.  It was during that time that I first began to think seriously about money, corporations, jurisdiction, despotism, social contract, and sovereignty.  I began to really study the Constitution.  I was still a licensed member of the regulated establishment but I was learning to understand the nature and the pedigree of the U.S. government, and what it means to be a U.S. citizen.  I was questioning everything that anybody had ever taught me.  At last, I was pointed in the right direction.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 12

I considered the situation from all angles that I could see and paid the ticket with a large check that I wrote on 8 1/2 x 14 paper.  I wrote the check with a Marks-a-Lot marker, carefully including all of the funny little numbers along the bottom.  The traffic court sent it back and told me that they wouldn't accept it.

The timing was excellent.  I was having serious doubts about the LibertaRepubliCrats and was just getting started with the Constitutional Patriots.  It seemed like a good time to try those new law books and see if they worked.  My letter of response was one of the most daring things that I had ever done up to that time.  With great trepidation I defied my brainwashing, clutched my shiny new California Code of Civil Procedures firmly to my breast, and replied as follows:

Page 13

Eventually, I sent another letter to Kay Caragher, again summarizing my position.  The court responded by informing me that my "bail" had been increased to $154, by warning me that they would report me to the DMV, and by declaring that I wouldn't be allowed to renew my driver's license.  Since then, I've not heard another word from them.  No mention of a warrant was made during my next visit to the DMV and they never got any money from me.  Although I continued to kick the matter around in a few more letters, I finally realized that I'd won.  It probably shouldn't have taken me so long to figure that out but I'd never won before and I just didn't recognize it for what it was.  The lesson here for those of you who seek such things is that, if they lose your file, then you've won.  That's the time to stop fighting and be quiet.

Page 14

There are lessons to be learned from that kind of thing.  It took my confrontation with the traffic court and Kim's escape from the county, but I was beginning to learn the lessons.  One important lesson is that you can't play the devil's game, on the devil's court, by the devil's rules, using the devil's ball, and expect to win.  That's why the Constitutional Patriots continue to lose.  No matter how correct they are, no matter how eloquently they explain it, they don't have any way to compel the courts.  The court room is the devil's turf.  The rules of practice are the devil's rules.  You get the idea. A judge will never rule against his employer and that's what they're asking him to do.  Another lesson is that the system doesn't have to obey the legislation because the judges work for the system and the police work for the system.  On the day that I received that final notice, I realized their arrogance.  They would increase my "bail" regardless of my objections and not even deign to notice the objections.  They wouldn't even bother to prove me wrong but just ignore my arguments and do what they damned well wanted to do.  That and the kidnapping of Kim's children finally showed me the government for what it is.  After that, the whole direction of my life changed forever.

My next trip to the DMV was my last.  My driver's license had expired and I wondered (remembering that warrant that the court had threatened to issue) what would happen if I tried to renew it.  At the DMV, nobody mentioned a warrant.  They took my money and all went well until I arrived at the thumb print counter.  The impetuous young criminal in charge of thumb prints eagerly ordered me to give mine and I declined, reminding him that it was voluntary.  "Not any more!" he enthused.  "Look!" he cheered, pointing gleefully to a notice posted on the wall.  Since my most recent previous visit, the thumb print was no longer voluntary.  I responded, "Well then, just return my money and I'll be on my way."  The change in the legislation didn't surprise me.  What surprised me was that they returned my money.  Amazing!  As I walked out of the DMV jingling the Eisenhower dollars that they'd returned, an unexpected

Page 15

Using an out-of-state address, I denied the accusations and blamed the situation on the temporary agency for which I'd been working at the time.  They construed my denial as an appeal, informed me that the appeal was being processed, and sent me some claim forms.  I thanked them kindly for the forms but assured them that I already had sufficient funds and didn't need to claim any more.  They notified me of the date of my appeal hearing.  I denied ever having made an appeal, accused them of fraudulently fabricating an appeal in my name, demanded to see the appeal that I'd allegedly made, and demanded that it be withdrawn.  Then just for good measure, I denied ever having done anything that would give them any jurisdiction over me.  They ignored me, held the appeal hearing, and ruled against me for failure to appear.  I notified the Administrative Law Judge that I had not made an appeal, that she didn't have jurisdiction over me, that any decision that she made wasn't of any interest to me, and that I would refuse to recognize any such decision.  I again demanded a copy of the fraudulent appeal that I'd allegedly made, since they hadn't yet sent it to me.  In response, they informed me that I owed them lots and lots of money so I again denied everything and accused them of everything.  The Presiding Administrative Law Judge (pronounced bo-zo) finally sent me an apologetic letter and said that she just couldn't see how I'd been harmed and that the determination of the Department was final.  I sent bozo a letter containing the following:

Page 17

In 1990, the Congress conducted a Census.  When the lady came to my place I told her that I didn't want to answer any questions.  She went away.  Maybe she was afraid that I'd eat her for breakfast.  Maybe she was right.  Several months later, another census lady showed up with a list in her hand.  She asked me if it was a "special" place.  I said yes.  She made a little mark on her list and went away.  I haven't heard from them since then.  Well, it was a special place.  I wonder what she meant by special.¹²

In January of 1991, I was sued by the Family Support Division of the District Attorney's Office.   That's the same gang of cutthroats that kidnapped Kim's children.  I gave them far better treatment than they deserved by utterly ignoring them.  I previously believed the racketeers to be dangerous and accorded them the same respect that I'd give a mad dog, a hungry crocodile, or a cornered rat.  However, I haven't heard a word from them.  I wonder what they're doing.  I haven't the faintest notion.  Probably the best thing for me to do is to recall the immortal words of that unknown platoon sergeant in 1918,¹³ hope for the best, and just get on with my life.¹⁴

Page 18

That kind of thing is a clue.  It suggests that people don't think very clearly and that they sometimes make things a lot more complicated than is necessary.  Maybe some of it's because they feel guilty about being greedy and they try to compensate in peculiar ways.  Consider the folderol over the dolphins.  Why is it O.K. to eat tuna but not O.K. to eat dolphins?  Because dolphins are intelligent and tuna aren't?  Nonsense.  Tuna are intelligent.  They just aren't as intelligent as dolphins.  Intelligence isn't either on or off.  It varies from one species to the next.  So you want to set up a test and eat only animals that fall below some level of intelligence?   How're you gonna test them?  Here's a suggestion.  If something's too stupid to stay out of the tuna net then it's about as bright as a tuna.  Eat it.  How about people?  If a mentally deficient person has an IQ less than a dolphin, does that mean that it's O.K. to eat the person?  Make up your mind.  Either intelligence is the criterion or it isn't.

You see what I mean?  People just don't think.  They complain about something that they haven't thought about, can't explain, can't measure, can't control, and that isn't nearly as important as a lot of other things that are happening.  Then they pass a lot of stupid legislation that compels other people, but never themselves.  Did you ever see anybody advocate legislation that would correct his own behavior?  Of course you didn't.  If you don't eat dolphins anyway, then make it illegal to eat dolphins.  But a law against eating pigs?  No more BLT sandwiches?  Ridiculous!  Well why not?  Pigs are pretty darned smart.  At least you don't see many of them getting caught in tuna nets.

I tried for a while to educate people and found them to be resistant.  I got very tired of arguing with their stupidity.  Lately I've become rather selective.  If somebody isn't receptive to my ideas, then I don't waste my time on him.

Page 19

Sovereignty is freedom from imposed political control.  It's political autonomy.  A sovereign isn't subject to outside political authority.  Jurisdiction is an area or domain of political authority, power, and control.  Its nature is a consequence of assumptions regarding sovereignty.  In principle, one's belief concerning sovereignty conditions all subsequent political expectations.  In practice, the general failure to understand sovereignty causes most of the political confusion in the world.

In spite of the rhetoric, societies can be sorted into two categories:  those with sovereign people¹⁶ or those with sovereign governments.  None of the other differences between societies are of much significance.  For example, the number of children permitted to a Chinese peasant and the construction methods and materials with which an American is allowed to build his house are regulated by exactly the same kind of authority.  Both people are compelled by the penalty for disobedience and by the power of a government to impose the penalty.  The two governments, which loudly denounce one another, operate using exactly the same principles of intimidation.  The tragedy is that a choice could exist if people only knew that they could make it.

One of the missing ingredients is the understanding of sovereignty and jurisdiction.  An interesting way to explain it involves the licensing of the airwaves by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  It's ludicrous, in principle, to think that the FCC has any legitimate jurisdiction over something that it didn't create.  The electromagnetic principles were there first.  They predate the FCC.  It doesn't own them.  It can't own them.  That it presumes to control them is a usurpation and, indeed, a very foolish one.  The FCC can control such phenomena only by completely jamming the relevant frequencies.  Short of that, it doesn't have any power to prevent anyone with the proper equipment from using what God or nature has provided.  But (you object), anybody who does that gets a ticket and has to pay a penalty.  The implication of that isn't really very subtle.  What it means is that, lacking the ability to build a fence around the airwaves, the FCC has instead contrived a power over the people who want to use those airwaves.  It doesn't control the airwaves because they aren't susceptible to control.  It does control the people because they are.

The jurisdiction over people is a direct consequence of unspoken assumptions regarding sovereignty.  If individual human beings are sovereign, then each individual can

Page 21

I hear howls and screams.  People are yelling, "Yeah, but even with sovereign people, society has a right to protect itself!"  Nonsense.  Saying that society should be able to protect itself is like saying that literature should be able to write stories. Society exists only in our imaginations.  It's our subjective perception of the net result of all of the things that we do.  It isn't even an artificial person, like a corporation.  It isn't anything.  It doesn't have rights.  If rights exist, then people have them.  The alleged "will of society" can be exercised only in the person of the people's appointed representative who (surprise surprise!) turns out to be the government.  That means that you can't have it both ways.  Either individual human beings are sovereign or the government is sovereign.  You can't have sovereign people and then allow that "society" has a right to protect itself from the people.  Au contraire.  Individual human beings ought to have a right to protect themselves from "society", as embodied in the government.

How did the land of the free and the home of the brave end up in such a sorry state?  One reason is that the people allowed themselves to become frightened.  They allowed the government to convince them that (staying with the FCC example) if the airwaves are unregulated, then everybody will abuse them and nobody will be able to use them.  That's a stupid idea.  Any unregulated activity will develop customary forms and practices.¹⁷  Within the standard practices established by custom, people will cooperate in their own best interests.  That means that things will work as well as they need to work.  Of course, the occasional jerk will try to create problems for everybody else.¹⁸   In general, however, it's easier to deal with a jerk than it is to deal with a government that would be sufficiently powerful to prevent him from being a jerk.  That's especially true since the existence of such government tends to attract the jerks into the law enforcement business.

In the present example, and under the present system of enforcement, the FCC would move against the hypothetical jerk.  A free market of the airwaves might evolve different regulatory techniques.  A jerk who disrupts the airwaves can be located by triangulation.  I imagine that some of the jerk's fellow users of the airwaves would locate him and provide him with an opportunity to desist.  In the event that he didn't, they'd have several options.  The best option might be, all things considered, to

Page 22

You think that it sounds like taking the law into our own hands?  If individual human beings are sovereign, then the law is already in our own hands, exactly where it ought to be.  This is where somebody always claims that people can't handle power in their own hands.  They'll abuse it, someone cries.  People haven't been any worse in that regard than governments, which are notorious for their abuses of power.  Given that choice, what's the big deal?  And besides that, if individual human beings are sovereign, then the government can't do anything about the jerk anyway because he'd have to consent first and he won't do that, because he's a jerk.  However, we can do something about him.  We're not subservient to him like the government is (if individual human beings are sovereign).  We're his equals and he annoys us at his own peril.  Think about it.  I like the sound of it, but maybe you don't.  Maybe you'd rather have a sovereign leader who makes all the rules and politically impotent people who obey him.  That way the government could keep everybody in line and you wouldn't need to be bothered.  Then there'd be a nice orderly mandatory system and anybody who defied it could be put away.  Admittedly, that's one way to run things.  I wonder what some of the consequences might be.  I suggest that you go study the lives of people who've lived under any of the various despotisms that have existed in the past.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 23

Did you ever wonder about the origin of termites?  Maybe they weren't always like that.  At some time in the past, the ancestors of termites might have been something different than what the termites are today.  The structured behavior and the dependence upon the nest might have evolved from some less communal arrangement in the past.  Here's a suggestion.

Suppose that our human societies just keep getting more and more regimented, allowing individuals fewer and fewer choices.  I don't mean just during the present presidential administration or even during the duration of the U.S. government, which I anticipate won't last much longer.  I mean through all of the coming cycles of human societies.  Suppose that our species just keeps getting more and more conditioned to decisions made at the top.  How many generations of that would it take before we didn't need to think anymore?  Take into account the potential influence, over many generations, of all of the things that we can do to ourselves.  Consider things like genetic engineering, selective breeding, specializations of skills (interdependence), public "education", and so forth.  Consider our incentives to conform.  Notice how women keep trying to dominate society and how security oriented they are.  Imagine a society so perfectly defined that we weren't permitted to deviate.  It's possible to imagine that we could, eventually, evolve into something like a termite colony.  All that's needed is a sufficient emphasis on security, some applicable technology, a gang of cutthroats for leaders, a lot of meek people, and enough time.  Heck.  That doesn't sound so different from what we have today.

How did the termites originate?  Maybe, after all, other intelligent life did exist on Earth in the past.  Maybe the same incentives that drove them drive us.  Maybe their past is our future and the next step will be a woman for president.  Nobody knows for sure and the termites aren't talking.  I plan to speculate, to resist, and to rave on.

Page 25