"Standing armies consist of professional soldiers who owe their livelihood and income to the government. Unlike civilians who render periodic service in local militia, professional soldiers do not own property and therefore do not have any source of income other than the government’s military paymaster. Thus, they are more likely to serve the government’s interests, regardless of whether its leaders are dishonest and corrupt or not. In fact, standing armies may even promote rapacious foreign or domestic policies if such policies enrich the army. In contrast, arms bearing, property owning citizen militiamen have a stake in the health of the republic as a whole and can be trusted to act in the republic’s best interests, whether those interests call for action in support of or against the political leadership of the nation." ~ Anthony Dennis
Rights and Monopoly Money
I suppose most people by now, at least hopefully, are aware that the game of life, i.e. commerce, is really played with funny money. Like, as in fiat dollars. Federal greenbacks exchangeable for stuff, but not substance. The whole system itself is dishonest. Dishonest in the fact the true legal ramifications of such a system are never willingly reveled to nor understood by the people. This stuff isn't taught in schools from what I know. People love to cite the united States Constitution and their rights. As I've mentioned before, the Constitution is the playbook for government, not you and me. We are entitled to common law. But the very system of commerce we use, and are forced to use, precludes our Constitutional rights. So forget the Constitution, for it is a mere memory. You need to know the code and statutes. Information is available to anyone who wishes to explore how exactly a colored money system truly works and how such a system affects your individual rights. This isn't even something I've known about for a long time, either. But I understand it. That's not to say that you won't. You will. Once explained and brought under the spotlight of truth, the sham is easy to understand. I'll do my best.
In a system where nothing backs the currency, except air, it is false and not real, or a better way to say it . . . colored. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Colorable: That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be; hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. This is contrary to common law in that all contracts and exchange must be real under common law. If any transactions between you and me under common law involve any type of fraud, those transactions have been "colored" and any contract we may have had, void. Hence when you and I transact for the refrigerator I have for sale for $500 and you give me cash, Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) backed by the "debt" they purchase, the fridge in this case, the fridge now becomes part of what backs the money. So, technically, it can never be "paid" for. Now if in our system of commerce the $500 you gave me was exchangeable for, say, gold or silver--substance--then there is no basis for fraud. The $500 you gave me for the fridge can be used to buy gold, which can either allow me to "sit" on my money for a bit and see if the price of gold goes up, or I can actually exchange my wealth, my gold, for another commodity of equal value. The $500 in FRNs you gave me only allows me to "exchange" that debt for another.
In a way, that doesn't really sound all that sinister. Until I decide to "sit" on those FRNs you gave me and not exchange them. Let's say I put that $500 in my bank and now my bank balance is $10,000. If, tomorrow the powers that be--the Federal Reserve Board--decide to charge less for their money to their members by printing more currency, hence lowering the value of their FRNs, I'm robbed because the purchasing power of my $10,000 is diminished. The prices of goods and services rise in accordance with the inflated value of the currency.
Still, again, not all that sinister. That may be troubling yes, but sinister? Not just yet. It only gets sinister when one stops to realize that a system of false money--colorable--can't operate under laws that represent the truth. The laws themselves have to be colorable. The trouble with removing the substance from the money is it also removes the substance of law. If the word "colorable" means something that appears to be real and genuine, but is not, you know maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver and gold), then the appearance of any transaction is false. If a Federal Reserve Note is used in connection with any contract, then that very contract becomes a colorable contract, and all colorable contracts must be enforced under a colorable law and jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a lawful jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use fiat dollars. This is now commonly referred to as Statutory Jurisdiction. Or as I like to simply say, the code. The law is colorable because we are using colorable money.
So again you might be saying, how does this directly affect me? Here's how. If laws can be written as statutes, then any law can be written that contradicts or even abolishes an individual right. Is life so complicated, so hard to understand and follow, so deep and full of legalities that the writing of laws has to be done by a Board of Governors and compose a volume of law so vast that is virtually impossible for the average person, including me, ever to understand? Drug laws, for both declared "legal and illegal" drug use, interfere with the natural right of people to heal themselves and extend their lives as far as they can, and in any way they see fit, are a perfect example. If a new experimental drug comes along that you want to try and buy, the government can and almost always does restrict the drug's use by way of statute and the code. As an allegedly "free" person, your access to and use of that or any other drug can be restricted. If you can be restricted in any way from doing something that does no harm to another, you are not free. That's why you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a law or statute that doesn't restrict you and your business or personal life.
If all laws are statutes, then any notion can be written and enforced as such. All courts are then statute courts or commercial courts and not Constitutional courts. Those courts enforce the provisions and meaning of the statute. So, even though the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, you can be and are regularly prohibited and deprived in many ways. Sales taxes and property taxes are such statutes or provisions. Goods, services and property are taxed in order provide all sorts of nefarious activity by the state, yet absolutely no due process on any individual takes place prior to the collection of funds. It is more usual that your neighbors, friends and co-workers will gather together and conspire through secret ballot for the confiscation of your property. Yeah, so what if it's highly un-Constitutional, but as commonplace as say, a lawyer running for political office?
Colored money leads to colorable contracts and colorable law. Statutes are restrictions to the pursuit of happiness. All of it is prohibited in the Constitution. The Uniform Commercial Code was developed in 1951 through 1975 as law to counter the effects of playing with funny money. The funny money game started in 1933 by executive order. The three types of law granted in the Constitution--Common, Equity and Maritime--are all but a memory, and so is this tired parchment called the Constitution of the United States of America.