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.
 
 

1		It took me a long time to analyze the nonsense in that comment.  For the answer, see my essay The Constitution, The Government, and The Doctrine of Social Contract.
		Back

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:

2		From Another Compendium of Wit and Wisdom.
		Back
3		December 31, 1970
		Back
4		August 11, 1971
		Back

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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

5		As I re-read this essay, I must add this footnote.  I won several brushes with the government because they couldn't find me to enforce their tyranny.  Eventually, however, a former girlfriend gave my correct address to the District Attorney's office in Santa Clara County, California.  After that, my camouflage was destroyed and they came after me.  Eventually, I was forced out of my home. — Sam Aurelius Milam III Thursday, February 1, 2007
		Back

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.

6		See my essay Liability Ltd., Corpus Corporatum or Corpus Delicti?.
		Back
7		For a more nearly complete version of the story, see my memoir Outward Bound.
		Back

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

8		Of course, I didn't know at the time that it was my final design task.
		Back
9		That wasn't the exception.  It was the rule.  That's why I started watching my paperwork so carefully.
		Back

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 which 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

10		By the way, say "hi" to Macky Tush.  She's the one doing all the work while I tap her keys.
		Back
11		I cannot resist the temptation to add another footnote.  On this clear winter morning in February of 1997, Macky Tush sits unused in the barn, badly in need of new parts.  If ever my funds will allow it, then I intend to restore her to working condition and to use her for games and for whatever else she might enjoy. — Sam Aurelius Milam III Friday, February 7, 1997
		Back

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 law 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 feeling

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 enough money 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

12		I've relocated twice since then, first to Idaho and, most recently, to Arizona.  I still live in a special place.  Any place that I live is special. — Sam Aurelius Milam III Tuesday, November 14, 2006
		Back
13		I'm not going to tell you.  Go look it up.  It's at the beginning of Chapter One in Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein.  While you're there, read the book
		Back
14		Over the next few years, I accumulated quite a thick file of correspondence on this matter.  Predictably, the thugs utterly ignored every objection that I made and mindlessly demanded that I pay their Daddy Tax.  I consistently refused, except for $8000 in Monopoly Money that I sent to them.  They were pretty steamed about that. What eventually happened was that they waited until I went somewhere and then arrested me out on the street where I was unarmed and not in a defensible position.  After that, I was forced out of my home. — Sam Aurelius Milam III Thursday, February 1, 2007
		Back

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 a law 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 brainwashing.  Lately I've become rather selective.  If somebody isn't receptive to my ideas, then I don't waste my time on him.

15		Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. — Matthew 19:24 Revised Standard Version
		Back

Page 19

Sovereignty is freedom from imposed political control.  It's political autonomy.  A sovereign is not subject to outside political authority.  Sovereignty can reside in one of only two possible places.  It resides either in the people or in the ruler.  The dynamics of government will not allow a third alternative.  Jurisdiction is an area or domain of legitimate political authority.  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, governments can be sorted into two categories:  those with sovereign people¹⁶ or those with sovereign rulers.  None of the other differences between governments are of much real 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.  Regardless of what's requested, regardless of the name of the government, both people are compelled by the penalty for disobedience and by the power of the government to impose the penalty.  The two forms of government, 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 airwaves were there first.  They predate the FCC.  It doesn't own them.  It can'town them.  That it presumes to control them is a usurpation and, indeed, a very foolish one.  The FCC can control the airwaves only by completely jamming them.  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 and I don't know why so few people figure it out.  What it means is that, lacking the technology to build a fence around the airwaves, the FCC has instead contrived a power

16		Hypothetical, so far.
		Back

Page 21

The jurisdiction over people is a direct consequence of unspoken assumptions regarding sovereignty.  If the people are sovereign, then each individual can choose whether or not to submit to a jurisdiction.  If the ruler is sovereign, then no one has any such choice.  In the particular example of the airwaves, if the FCC didn't have the jurisdiction then anyone could use the airwaves.  The fact that no one can do so without permission demonstrates that the FCC does have the jurisdiction.  The general significance of that is that the exact same kind of reasoning applies to all government agencies.  That is, sovereignty resides not with the people but with the U.S.  government.  As a consequence of that, all activities must be regarded as privileges at least potentially regulated by government.  If you take a look around then I think that you'll see that, indeed, anything that you want to do requires one form or another of permission from the government.

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 understanding 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 the people 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.

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.  What 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 the government that would be necessary 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 FCC example, a jerk who disrupts the airwaves can be located by triangulation.  Under the present system, the FCC would then move against him.  A free market of the airwaves might evolve different regulatory techniques.  I imagine that some of the jerk's fellow users of the airwaves would easily locate him and gladly provide him with an opportunity to desist.  In the event that he

17		In fact, most if not all activities are regulated in some way.  We can choose the way.  Government isn't necessarily the best.
		Back
18		Computer viruses are another good example.
		Back

Page 22

Consider a colony of termites.  In a termite colony there's a place for everybody and nobody's out of that particular place.  Everybody's equal except, of course, for the Queen.  Everybody works for the good of society and nobody makes waves except, of course, when the Queen says to.  They all cooperate.  Nobody competes with anybody except, of course, at mating time.  What else would you expect from a bunch of males?  In that regard, I can't help but to mention that a termite colony is a totally female institution.  In a termite colony, the insect equivalent of sovereignty is entirely female and clearly resides at the top.

Did you ever wonder about the origin of termites?  They weren't always like that.  At some time in the past, the ancestors of termites must have been something different than what the termites are today.  The structured behavior and the dependence upon the nest might have evolved from herd animals.  What other kind of animals would have lived close enough together to evolve into a colony?  A herd has a little bit of organization, but not much.  I'm not real comfortable with the idea of herd animals unconsciously evolving into a colony.  It just doesn't seem like the natural incentives would drive a herd to such a condition.

Try this idea on for size and see how it fits.  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 Democratic administration.  I don't mean just 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 government.  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?  Before you answer, 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 system so perfectly defined that we'd all be more manageable if we weren't permitted to deviate.  It's difficult to see how a herd could evolve into a termite colony.  It's a lot easier to see how people might do it.  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