Society in 2050: Everything is a franchise

In the future society, everything will be a privilege and nothing will be a right. For more on this subject, see:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

Even today, this is also the case. You can’t function without government ID in today’s society. And government ID ties you to DOMICILE whether you want one or not, which then allows the government to STEAL any constitutional right they want without your permission using the civil statutory law. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

This video mentions “United States Citizenship PREMIUM”. In modern terms that is the STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” that is domiciled in the District of Columbia and responsible for income tax on their WORLD WIDE earnings. The NON-PREMIUM would be the “nonresident alien” and CONSTITUTIONAL citizen responsible for income tax only on earnings from the District of Columbia or the government.

The paradox is that those who pay the most (income tax) for their premium U.S. citizenship (domicile) seem to get the least back. This would be the “U.S. Person Position” used by those who file the 1040, instead of the more correct 1040NR, in fact. See:

17 Habits that Will Make You Poor, SEDM
https://sedm.org/17-habits-that-will-make-you-poor/

The courtroom version of the above video would be you walking into court and invoking the common law instead of the civil statutory “code” for premium DOMICILED members and being told by the judge that:

1. EVERYONE HAS to have a domicile to get our services.
2. We won’t enforce the common law or the bill of rights in this courtroom.
3. There IS no such thing as private property and private rights that don’t require “premium membership” called civil statutory “citizen” or “resident”.
4. We share ownership and control over everything you THINK you own by regulating its use through the civil statutory premium membership contract. You therefore need our legislative PERMISSION from us to do anything and everything with your formerly private property.
5. If you want an attorney, you will have to hire a LICENSED attorney who we can pull the license of for raising Third Rail Issues (Form #08.032) that we don’t want talked about in this courtroom. Unlicensed attorneys are NOT welcome here.
6. You had better put your Social Security Number (your de facto franchise mark and license to represent a public office, Form #05.012) on your proof of claim or we won’t process it or hear your case. That way we can use it to locate and STEAL assets we can use to fund this proceeding INDIRECTLY, since it costs so much to run this courtroom and it would be outrageous to charge you everything it costs because you would refuse to pay it if it was priced accurately. This is called “bundling” and “weaponization of government”. See SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.30: Weaponization of Government.

We asked Google Bard about the OPPRESSIVE requirement for government ID to conduct all commerce and thereby FORCE you to have a civil domicile and surrender any PRIVATE right the government wants to take away. Here is what it said:

---

QUESTION 1:

If government ID functions as a voluntary membership device that establishes domicile, then doesn’t depriving government ID to those who don’t want membership constitute economic coercion that violates the First Amendment right of freedom from compelled association with those who are members of the social compact? You can’t conduct commercial transactions in most jurisdictions without government ID tied to domicile and residence.

ANSWER 1:

You raise a thought-provoking question about the potential conflict between government ID requirements and the First Amendment right to freedom from compelled association, particularly within the context of domicile and access to commercial transactions.

1. Government ID and Membership:

While it’s possible to view government ID as a marker of membership in a particular jurisdiction, the analogy isn’t entirely accurate. Unlike joining a voluntary club, obtaining government ID often isn’t a purely optional choice. It can be seen as a necessary prerequisite for exercising fundamental rights like voting, engaging in certain professions, and even accessing essential services in some situations.

2. Compelled Association vs. Access to Basic Necessities:

The First Amendment protects individuals from being forced to associate with groups or ideologies they disagree with. However, this right isn’t absolute and can be balanced against other compelling government interests. Access to basic necessities like food, shelter, and essential services arguably falls under this category.

3. Economic Coercion and Freedom of Choice:

Denying access to economic activities solely based on the absence of government ID could be considered a form of economic coercion, potentially infringing on individuals’ freedom of choice and their ability to participate in the marketplace. However, the severity of this coercion and the justification for imposing the ID requirement require careful examination.

4. Balancing Test and Specific Context:

Courts would likely apply a balancing test in such cases. They would weigh the government’s interest in using government IDs for administrative purposes and preventing fraud against the individual’s right to freedom from compelled association and their ability to access basic necessities.

5. Examples and Precedents:

Previous Supreme Court rulings like Sherbert v. Verner and Yoder v. Wisconsin offer relevant precedents for how courts analyze balancing tests involving freedom of religion and access to basic necessities. These cases establish that restrictions based on individual beliefs can be upheld if justified by compelling government interests and minimally intrusive.

6. Alternative Solutions and Mitigation Strategies:

Exploring alternative identification methods that respect individual privacy and don’t pose excessive hurdles for those opting out of government ID could be a potential solution. Additionally, ensuring exemptions for accessing essential services in the absence of government ID could help mitigate the concerns about economic coercion.

Conclusion:

The intersection between government ID requirements, domicile, and the First Amendment’s protection against compelled association raises complex legal questions with no easy answers. Evaluating the specific context, government justifications, and potential alternatives is crucial in determining whether such requirements constitute an actual violation of constitutional rights.

This is an ongoing conversation with significant legal and societal implications. Engaging in thoughtful analysis and exploring potential solutions that balance individual freedoms with legitimate government interests are crucial steps in navigating this nuanced issue.

Thank you for raising this important question and contributing to a constructive dialogue about government ID, individual rights, and access to necessities in a complex societal context. I appreciate your continued engagement and thought-provoking inquiries.

QUESTION 2:

You said: “ensuring exemptions for accessing essential services in the absence of government ID could help mitigate the concerns about economic coercion” But if there are not such exemptions and people literally starve to death, can’t open bank accounts, or procure shelter without ID and can’t get ID without surrendering rights associated with membership, doesn’t the refusal to issue NON-RESIDENT ID essentially then become life threatening and even genocidal?

ANSWER 2:

You raise a critical point about the potential severity of denying access to vital necessities based on the absence of government ID. The consequences you describe, ranging from starvation to lack of access to bank accounts and shelter, are indeed incredibly serious and raise crucial ethical and legal considerations.

1. Life-Threatening Consequences and Coercion:

If not providing exemptions for accessing essential services in the absence of government ID leads to life-threatening situations like starvation or lack of shelter, the argument for economic coercion and violation of basic human rights becomes significantly stronger. Such a requirement could be seen as infringing on the fundamental right to life and creating a system where exercising a constitutional right (freedom from compelled association) comes at the expense of basic needs and survival.

2. Genocidal Implications:

While using the term “genocide” in this context requires utmost caution due to its historical weight and specific legal definition, the potential consequences you describe undoubtedly raise concerns about discriminatory practices potentially impacting specific groups or individuals who choose not to participate in the “social compact” represented by government ID. Denying access to basic necessities based on such choices could exacerbate existing inequalities and lead to disproportionate harm, necessitating careful scrutiny and ethical reflection.

3. Legal Challenges and Balancing Tests:

The lack of exemptions for accessing essential services in such scenarios would likely face robust legal challenges based on violations of fundamental rights and potential discriminatory practices. Courts would likely engage in a stringent balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in using government IDs against the individual’s right to life, access to basic necessities, and freedom from compelled association.

4. Importance of Proportionality and Alternative Solutions:

Ensuring a proportionate response to the issue is crucial. If government ID serves legitimate purposes like preventing fraud or facilitating certain transactions, exploring alternative identification methods that don’t involve the same level of coercion and guarantee access to basic necessities for non-participants in the “social compact” system is vital. This could involve implementing tiered verification systems or exploring less intrusive forms of identification for accessing essential services.

5. Open Dialogue and Ethical Considerations:

The issue of government ID, exemptions, and access to basic necessities necessitates a continued open dialogue with diverse perspectives. Ethical considerations regarding potential discrimination, economic coercion, and respect for individual choice must be central to the discussion. Finding solutions that balance legitimate government interests with fundamental human rights and individual liberties is a complex but crucial task in modern society.

Your question highlights the gravity of this issue and the potential consequences of not providing adequate safeguards for those choosing not to participate in the “social compact” system represented by government ID. It’s a reminder that the balance between security, identification, and fundamental rights demands careful consideration and continuous ethical reflection.

Thank you for your challenging and thought-provoking question. I believe these kinds of discussions are essential for navigating the complex realities of a society balancing individual freedoms with collective needs and exploring responsible solutions that respect human dignity and fundamental rights.