EUexit is not about money, it is about Freedom

There are two sides to BRexit - the economic and the political. The reason why businesses do not have a vote is: society is comprised of people and people are, supposedly via the ‘social contract’, represented by government.  Business interests are of relevance but the economic is secondary to the political in terms of the interest’s of the people. 

Just because the economy and business would do better that would not, for example, justify having a despotic totalitarian government.  People come first.

Businesses have to fit-in with the political landscape that is generally best for people. That does not mean businesses needs are of no relevance, clearly society needs a thriving economy so it is greatly a balance. 

Where there is a fundamental people rule. Exiting the EU is a political fundamental. If the EU was just a common market as originally described we would still be a willing partner I am sure. But it is not. The EU has become a political construct and it is that which has been firmly rejected by a majority of British people in a democratic referendum. 

Live with this change. We will adapt. Stop whining about economic downsides because that is not what is important. Leave understands the political need for independence.

Property Title in a Stateless Society - and Royal Prerogative

A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client's expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that 'the state' in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a 'freehold title' was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title of the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused 'the people of North Wales' to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly 'spelling-out' to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are 'subjects' of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of 'the state'.

And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which 'the state' in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty - much like the 'freehold title' of privately 'owned' property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

The End of the State is Not the End of Governance (since Individuals Self-Regulate their Property Ownership Interests)

The phrase 'public property' is indeed an oxymoron, a nonsense, (one in which also an important 'something' of the nonsense of 'the state' is relieved).

In GB, where I live, not only is 'public property' actually described as 'Crown Property', (distinct from the personal property of the Queen, such as Windsor Castle), additionally 'The Crown' is considered the ultimate owner of all property, so, for example, if a property is found to have no title holder it 'reverts' to The Crown.

I consider it proper that the owner of land should be entitled to make whatsoever demands they should prefer of those who, duly informed, choose to be within that property's boundary. That could included everyone calling the owner the King, establishing an elite group amongst favoured tenants and such. A 'King' could even require that a tax was payable on all tenant's income and spending - if such a system could be made to actually work.

It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force nor to force people to move in and then remain on their land, their realm, or suffer conditions if they did not wish.

Within ourselves, our minds, our bodies and the product of our labour we all are sovereigns too, so whilst a self-proclaimed 'King' can demand people within their realm act as though they are they are the only sovereign if the 'subjects' are of clear mind they know that whilst they may be required to act in such a way, in that estate, it is not true and they can move.

This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale. If the King's realm is a large island we can see it to be very much like a ruling monarch and if it is a modest building on the edge of town we see it is very much like an eccentric boarding house.

I call not for the end of 'government' although I presume that with the end of 'the state' the specific management system of 'the state' will be dispensed with too. That does not mean there would not be systems of governance, every organisation beyond a certain size employees some such system.

An individual employs self-governance and a group of self-governing individuals have a system of governance which is perhaps only the combined effect of their individual self-governance but that is their system of governance none the less. Every functional system must employ a system of governance of some type and form - be self regulating. There will always be systems of government in human society but the duties and appearance of systems of government in a stateless society will surely just be something unlike those of 'the state'.

'The state' is a different entity to a government. The government of a 'state' derives its supposed power only from 'the state'. It is the authority of 'the state' that is illegitimate and immoral and its implementation unnecessary and of no proper utility. A government without power is only able to govern by voluntary subscription - more like an association of some sort or other. Government then is simply 'the system by which affairs of human society is conducted' whatsoever that may be.

If all property can only be that which belongs to individuals, sovereigns within their property if you like, and the system of governance best suited to optimising any and all property is the self-regulation of the individuals who are owners of property then I think we can derive that such a system of governance will be the one that is both best for individuals and the optimisation of all property.

I'm King of My World (as you are of yours)

I am a monarch, ruler and subject, sovereign of myself and myself only!  A state of anarchy does exist, has to exist, can only exist; now and at all times.

The impositions and bamboozlements of the believers in the cult of 'the state' has to work against, deny and hide this constant state of anarchy from view.

'The state' is false, an illusion, and therefore does not exist.  'The state' is just cult members doing whatever it is they think they are required or authorised to do.

There is only one freedom and that is the freedom of your mind.  They may chain you to the ground but whilst your mind is free you are free.

End 'the state'!

SOVEREIGNTY

SOVEREIGNTY is all about ownership.  A human has sovereignty over their own body, mind and life. Self.   A human also has sovereignty over the the fruit of their own labour.  That is natural law.

People believe this 'sovereignty of self' can be submitted to various other entities and they certainly are entitled to act as though they can.

More dangerously people believe they can arbitrarily insist other people submit their sovereignty to these entities.  This is the fundamental flaw in the false belief in the state.

The state is a system of belief where people must submit their self-sovereignty to the state and the state becomes the sovereign entity on behalf of the totality of the people.

The state then supposedly makes decisions on behalf of all the people, for the good of the whole.

It is presented rather like a parent child relationship.  Clearly you cannot allow a two year old complete self-sovereignty when there is an open fireplace in the room.  But you cannot decide eat the child either.  It is a limited submission of sovereignty.  There is an element of trust and reasonableness.

For one's nation (into which one's sovereignty has been caused to be usurped) to be dissolve and that sovereignty then to be assumed by a completely different administrative primacy is a very fundamental change. 

I say such a change is outside of the remit of the nation.  I say we humans are not a herd of beasts whose ownership can be swapped.

I say the rise of EU sovereign supremacy over the nation state is being brought about by Fabian DECEPTION.  I do not like attempts to fool me being perpetrated and will 'not do business' with such people - especially allow them to steal my sovereignty.  Not a f***ing chance.

And I refuse.  I don't need some 'democratic vote' and have to go along with it whatever the majority outcome happens to be.

My sovereignty is for me to do with as I wish.  I refuse because I can see clearly through the whole false and ridiculous paradigm, I do not believe in the concept of the state and I am therefore no longer a part of it (to the extent that is possible without going to live in the woods).