“No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none.”
How many of you have heard the noise that your bodily fluids belong to the government road pirates when they demand it if they suspect you of impaired driving? Somehow, they have managed to circumvent your self-ownership with legal mumbo jumbo and of course, intimidation.
I want to break this down simply. If you did sign a form, then your local badged Orcs would have “express” written consent to chemically test you. Most state codes ape the Federal statute and say that simply by driving on a highway in your state that you are “deemed” to have consented to have a blood or breath test. That is, you never really consented so the State will “deem” you to have consented.
Now many will complain that absent drunk driving laws and enforcement, some will perish. This may be the case but it is still pre-crime. What if we substituted drunk driving with weapons, would the same circumstances dictate that “weapons checks” would prevent most crime? If impaired driving is such a problem, why is anyone allowed to have motor vehicles within five miles of a bar or liquor establishment or restaurant?
The severity of punishment has no statistical relationship to reducing the crime as a pre-crime prophylactic. In the end, if your impaired driving causes property damage, bodily injury or death, you should be held accountable but not before you do harm.
Mark Crovelli makes an interesting observation:
“Another option would be to simply recognize the fact that people are responsible for their actions, and only fine and incarcerate them if they actually cause harm to another person. Yes, this option would mean that we would have to leave drunk drivers alone unless they actually hurt someone, just as we now do with drivers who are sleepy or are decrepitly aged. But, is this not the same standard that we employ in other areas of criminal law? We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to raid the poorer areas of our cities to search out and incarcerate people they think will become criminals one day, simply because the poor are more likely to commit certain crimes. We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to round up and imprison people according to race, based upon the fact that certain races commit disproportionate amounts of crime. Why, then, do we allow the state to do precisely this to drunk drivers, based solely on the assumption that drunk drivers may harm other people, when we would condemn it if it was done to any other segment of society?”
They will deem you doing so. Can you imagine purchasing or leasing any good or service and that is how you seek remuneration or warranty service if not expressly stated but simply deemed. Coercion is the converse of consent, and no consent is needed to defend against invasions.
I’ve explained why voting and the fairy tale called “rule of law” have no more bearing on reality than your ability to keep everything you earn even once you assume room temperature. I’ve told you that the American tax rate exceeds 100%.
Lysander Spooner threw a grenade on this absurd idea of implied consent and blew it to hell.
“Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract.”
Implied legally means “it never actually happened.”
But the state needs to have implied consent because what sane human being would sign off on surrendering so much wealth and resources but do at the point of a gun? Who would have time for instance to read 3.8 million words in the tax code? All of Shakespeare’s words add up to approximately one million words.
James Cox avers:
“Not only is the theory of “implied consent” logically flawed, but it also obviously does not describe reality. Any “government” that had the consent of its subjects would not need, and would not have, “law” enforcers. Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Anyone with their eyes open can see that “government,” on a
regular basis, does things to a lot of people against their will. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors, beat cops, inspectors and regulators, border guards, narcotics agents, prosecutors, judges, soldiers, and all the other mercenaries of the state, and to still claim that “government” does what it does with the consent of the “governed,” is utterly ridiculous. Each individual, if he is at all honest with himself, knows that those in power
do not care whether he consents to abide by their “laws.” The politicians’ orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individual’s consent.”
So if you don’t find yourself cajoled, fined, kidnapped, maimed or killed depending on your level of resistance to the government agent’s demands. So his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the statist violence brokers issue logically infers that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. They own you but they’ve simply readjusted the optics for slavery to fit into the new century and give the plantation workers the illusion of freedom.