If the devil came to you and said, ‘I will let you ban abortion in its entirety if you allow me to enslave the people to the bonds of human civil government through statute labor and making their children a surety for debt,’ would you take the deal?
‘Imagine that you yourself are building an edifice of human destiny that has the ultimate aim of making people happy and giving them finally peace and rest, but that to achieve this, you are faced inevitably and inescapably with torturing just one tiny baby, say that small fellow who was just beating his fists on his chest, so that you would be building your edifice on his unrequited tears would you agree to be its architect under those conditions? Tell me, and don’t lie!’ (Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov)
Human civil government is exclusively maintained by statute labor and borrowing against future generations, whose parents make a surety for debt through social security and other legal entanglements. True abolition redeems man from the dominion of man, and secures them as freemen under Christ rather than make them property of the state.
Praying to the State for righteousness is the kind of pragmatism that both Moses and Christ refused to practice. Satan may grant a small victory in exchange for dominion, but God does not look favorably on the idea of sacrificing the liberties of all for lives of some. The key is not to outsource our responsibilities to corporations like human government who will only take our appeals as excuses to expand their power, and therefore our bondage, but to retain our personal responsibilities and, by extension, our rights. Our rights come from God unless we opt to be ruled by tyrants instead, and transact our rights for privileges and responsibilities for civil liabilities.
For example, this is why praying to the state to legalize recreational drugs like marijuana is met with regulations on tax and usage. This is also why praying to the state to secure the freedom of some men from chattel slavery in 19th century America, resulted in the civil bondage of all men through the 14th amendment.
‘The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word “citizens” as a word denoting membership, as opposed to the former use of the word, which denoted merely an inhabitant. This is not to say that there was not citizenship of the United States prior to the amendment, for there surely was. The Fourteenth Amendment was an across-the-board offer of citizenship as a member of the United States Federal Government.’ (The Covenant of the Gods, Citizen vs. Citizen)
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment,
“No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it.” (Supreme Court of Georgia, Padelford, Fay & Co. vs Mayor & Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 )
Contrary to popular belief, chattel slavery was not an exclusive institution of the southern states, but an institution of the Federal government. As will be shown in this case, a universal truth should be expressed: social maladies like injustice are primary fruits of human institutionalism, and rarely exist in anarchist societies. They are encouraged and protected by human civil government, pushing interpersonal accountability and true justice to the back alleys, and killing any notion of social virtues that the people may have to police themselves in an adhocratic and righteous community.
Prior to the Civil War, the United States government was prepared to amend the Constitution in order to make chattel slavery permanently legal in the United States. This ‘Corwin Amendment‘, passed (and openly supported) by a northern-controlled Congress on March 2, 1861, was meant to entice the southerners to stay in the Union and remain as its tax slaves, to be treated as an agricultural colony to the northern, industrial states through tariffs, which are an act of war and a means of exploitation. Through the tariff, southern farmers were maintaining between seventy-five and eighty-five percent of the cost of operating the Federal Government. Eighty to ninety percent of that money was being retained and used in northern states for civil infrastructure and political corruption. This economic exploitation propagated exponentially the existing demand for the ‘free labor’ of chattel slavery to exist in the south, which means that the United States Government directly benefited from the institution of chattel slavery by its own insistence upon tax slavery. The Corwin Amendment is as follows:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
To add injury to insult, one of Abraham Lincoln’s campaign promises to northern, industrial voters was to actually raise the tariffs against southern trade, which is something he actually did do. But to further compound chattel slavery as a federal institution, he announced in his inaugural address:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Because the white southerners were being impoverished by the United States government, no promise of legalized slavery would convince them to remain in the Union. When authoritative governments cannot bribe their potential civil slaves through benefits, protection, or, in this case, license to remain in their power, then they will invariably resort to intimidation to keep their human property. This dual-strategy has been evidenced all throughout history, even in Pharaoh who offered compromises to retain his tax slaves and, upon being rejected, sought to retain them through violence. The United States government is no different. When the southerners decided to exercise autonomy and slough off the heavy tax burdens of the United States government, that government committed to imperialist aggression against them. To highlight the perverted justice of the United States’ government its opinion on its institution of slavery never changed:
“If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley.)
After the Civil War decimated the south and sacrificed countless lives on the altar of human civil authority, one of the primary legislative ‘solutions’ offered by the United States Government to the problem of chattel slavery in 19th Century America, was protection through subjection to ALL people, regardless of race, as a benevolent Benefactor who exercises authority. This could only be done through application, either on your own accord or on your behalf by someone who had equitable rights to you, through Novation. To this day, federal government assumes jurisdiction over born children, through the consent of their parents, by granting them Employee Identification numbers.
‘Birth Registration Document: The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.’ (20 C.F.R., section 422.103)
Human slavery is always unlawful whether or not it is ‘illegal’. Satan may have granted a ‘victory’ in the United States’ Government’s lip service to the criminalization of chattel slavery in the 19th century but, in exchange, transferred that very heinous practice of corvee over the remaining population through enticing, but deceitful offers of benefits. While the promised benefits run out after a short while, the resulting bondage lasts from generation to generation.
One can only imagine how much more closely the noose will tighten once the federal government endeavors to ‘protect’ prenatal humans as an answer to our prayers to it for ‘justice’. ‘He who takes the responsibility incurs the right.’ (Maxim of Law) Surely the issuing of birth certificates will be replaced by ‘conception certificates’, and embryos will be numbered and catalogued as civil slaves, and pregnant mothers will be closely monitored for the purposes of securing the future of the prenatal chattel citizen who, now as a guaranteed civil investment, will eventually soak up a little bit of the national debt through taxation within the system.
Their incubators (mothers) will be regulated in diet and other choices that may or may not harm the child, and their performance will determine whether they will be allowed to produce future children, resulting in either mandatory sterilization as a penalty or they will be offered tax-funded benefits as incentive to produce a ‘healthy’ pregnancy by some arbitrary federal standard.
There will be mandatory in-utero-vaccines. Every doctor and midwife incorporated with the state (which will be all of them), will be required to notify the state of pregnancies. ‘Unhealthy’ fetuses will be automatically enrolled in disability or welfare programs upon their birth. Eventually, pregnancy will become a privilege instead of a right, and certain classes of citizens will be sterilized. Women are already civil slaves, with ever-diminishing rights, because ‘The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father.’ (1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502.)
Surely abortion will not be truly abolished but, like slavery, will change forms. Just like one law meant to free the slaves actually enslaved us all, so one law meant to abolish abortion will actually abort us all. Relying on human civil government to ‘abolish’ abortion will necessarily make the birthing situation worse for both mother and child. When you make the pre-born child government property through legal personhood and civil citizenship ‘Man is a term of nature; person of civil law.’ (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary , “Maxim,” p. 2136.), then the government not only has a right, but a responsibility to make executive decisions for the child regarding healthcare and delivery and anything else imaginable once you broaden the legal boundaries of an oppressive, socialist institution to include them. We are already seeing this play out in Alabama.
“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”
“A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” (American Law and Procedure; Vol 13 pages 137-62 1910)
In addition to the criminalization of abortion by wicked men who desire to have more power over you, being a gateway for that power to manifest itself in unbearable and wicked ways, the very necessity of publically policing criminal activity is itself a perversion of justice. There is no use praying to the maintainers of the unrighteous mammon for the criminalization of abortion if you are not also praying to them for the execution of that justice too. Public ‘service’ requires that you covet your neighbor’s goods. His taxes are what allows ‘law‘ enforcement to even exist. If ‘taxation is theft’, then obviously any benefit (including public salary) produced by taxation is also unequivocally theft. It is this sin that is the original definition of ‘shedding’ your neighbor’s ‘blood’ in Scripture, often repeated, because making your neighbor’s livelihood and property a liability for your policies and benefits through bureaucratic force is depriving him of the liberty that is inherent to his life.
A better notion in performing the weightier matters, one that will establish justice and not pervert it, is to take personal responsibility for your neighbor’s righteousness and security from harm. In order for a free society to dispense justice under God, each man would have to be personally responsible to that endeavor. For example:
The roots of local responsibility for crime prevention seem to lie in Anglo-Saxon customs that placed prevention squarely on the local community through the tithing and the ‘Hue and Cry‘. Every male over the age of 12 had to belong to a group of nine others, called a tithing. These ten men were responsible for the behaviour of each other. If one of them broke the law, the others had to bring that person before the court. The sanction, to make the system work, was that if they did not, they would all be held responsible for the crime. This usually meant paying the victim of a crime for their loss. The community was also responsible for doing their best to chase after a criminal. Anyone wronged could call upon everyone else in a community to chase a criminal simply by calling on them to do so by “raising the hue and cry” – calling out for help. Everyone nearby was then supposed to join in the chase. If they did not make an effort then the whole community was held responsible for the crime and would face punishment themselves. (Bingham Heritage Trails Association)
The early Christians maintained a system of welfare based on freewill offerings. Partakers of their charitable daily bread were expected to be righteous, new creatures after having received the baptism into the free society established by Christ. If any member was found to be slothful, deceitful, covetous, or in some other way deleterious to the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven, then they were confronted in the judicial steps laid out by Christ in Matthew 18, and if they were found unrepentant, then they were barred from partaking in the daily ministration of this righteous society, and were forced by hunger to supplicate to their former civil masters for covetous welfare in exchange for them going back into civil bondage.
Free people do not have human rulers to whom they can outsource their social injunctions to mercy, justice, faith, and pure religion. The righteousness of liberty is written on their hearts and minds, enabling them to keep the commands of God and to love their neighbor as themselves.
‘The lex fundamentalis of natural law is the duty of every man, so far as in him lies, to strive that the welfare of human society in general be secured and maintained.’ (Pufendorf: On the Duty of Man and Citizen: Introduction By Walther Schucking and translated by Herbert F. Wright.)
‘He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?’ (Micah 6:8)