What is “Government”?
1. Definition
On this site, the term “government” we define as follows:
- “Government” =everything that is PUBLIC. It is synonymous with the legal fiction “United States”.
- Government is a PUBLIC Membership Association (PMA) you have to CONSENT to join. That act of consent is called an election in the I.R.C. The W-4 form is effectively a “request” to participate in the withholding for federal programs. See:
The consequences of filling out a W-4 for those not ALREADY working for the government, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/the-consequences-of-filling-out-a-w-4-for-those-not-already-working-for-the-government/ - Those who have CIVILLY/LEGALLY joined through an EXPRESS ELECTION become:
3.1. Members and citizens of the United StatesP. but ALSO . . .
3.2. CIVIL OFFICERS and AGENTS of the collective body politic serving WITHIN the Executive Branch under the Secretary of the Treasury as a volunteer. - The act of JOINING causes:
4.1. A surrender of sovereignty and sovereign immunity under the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the Supreme Court and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). See:
Acquiring a Civil Status, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/
4.2. An exercise of your First Amendment rights that no government can lawfully interfere with.
4.3. An act of contracting, where the CIVIL statutory law is the contract or “social compact”. See:
The REAL Social Compact, Form #08.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/TheRealSocialCompact.pdf
4.4. A waiver of some but not all formerly PRIVATE rights, as described in:
Membership in a Specific Class, Status, or Group As a Cause for Loss of Rights, SEDM
https://sedm.org/membership-in-a-specific-class-status-or-group-as-a-cause-for-loss-of-rights/ - Consenting members are called CIVIL STATUTORY “citizens” and “residents” but NEVER POLITICAL ONLY “citizens”. Those who are POLITICAL but not CIVIL “citizens” remain PRIVATE and never PUBLIC. See:
Why You are a Political Citizen but CIVIL Non-Citizen, National, and Nonresident Alien, Form #05.006
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf - “Government” can only tax or regulate PUBLIC property, which includes civil statuses such as “citizen” that it legislatively creates as well as any private property you donate to them by “effectively connecting” it.
- VOLUNTARY CIVIL STATUTORY franchises are the only lawful method of CIVILLY regulating or taxing you or your property. See:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf - You can lawfully avoid taxation by never CIVILLY associating through either a domicile or election of any kind. Those who do this are called “nonresident aliens”. Thus, they RETAIN their entirely PRIVATE and DEFAULT and legislatively but not constitutionally FOREIGN status under the constitution. This LACK of elections is recognized in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31).
- If you are not ALLOWED to CIVILLY or LEGALLY disassociate and claim “nonresident alien” status and not elect to convert your PRIVATE property through an Effectively Connected status, then:
9.1. You are DEPRIVED of the right of PRIVATE property in the Fifth Amendment and
9.2. You certainly do not and cannot “own” yourself.
You are therefore a slave of someone else. Property ownership, after all, includes the right to EXCLUDE any and all others from using or benefitting from your property. A slave is someone who either doesn’t own themself or can’t own private property. See:
What is a “Slave”?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/what-is-a-slave/
The above summary is fully recognized by the Declaration of Independence, which says that all JUST powers of government derive from the CONSENT of the governed. Where there is no consent, EVERYTHING government does to you is inherently UNJUST, with the exception of the criminal law and the common law itself, of course. THIS is fully consistent with why we say that ALL civil statutory law is law for government ONLY, meaning VOLUNTARY MEMBERS of the “public” only:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the above description of government with the following explanation:
The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares, such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another State, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this court to be beyond the power of the legislature and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499; Delaware &c. R.R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358. In Chicago &c. R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property 203*203 without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mount Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Massachusetts, 509, 519.
Most modern legislation upon this subject has been directed
(1) to the requirement that every citizen shall disclose the amount of his property subject to taxation and shall contribute in proportion to such amount; and
(2) to the voidance of double taxation.
As said by Adam Smith in his “Wealth of Nations,” Book V., Ch. 2, Pt. 2, “the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. The expense of Government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interest in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called equality or inequality of taxation.”
But notwithstanding the rule of uniformity lying at the basis of every just system of taxation, there are doubtless many individual cases where the weight of a tax falls unequally upon the owners of the property taxed. This is almost unavoidable under every system of direct taxation. But the tax is not rendered illegal by such discrimination. Thus every citizen is bound to pay his proportion of a school tax, though he have no children; of a police tax, though he have no buildings or personal property to be guarded; or of a road tax, though he never use the road. In other words, a general tax cannot be dissected to show that, as to certain constituent parts, the taxpayer receives no benefit. Even in case of special assessments imposed for the improvement of property within certain limits, the fact that it is extremely doubtful whether a particular lot can receive any benefit from the improvement does not invalidate the tax with respect to such lot. Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 204*204 104 U.S. 78; Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Massachusetts, 53; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264; Louisville &c. R.R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Co., 197 U.S. 430. Subject to these individual exceptions, the rule is that in classifying property for taxation some benefit to the property taxed is a controlling consideration, and a plain abuse of this power will sometimes justify a judicial interference. Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269. It is often said protection and payment of taxes are correlative obligations.
[Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 202-205 (1905); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14163786757633929654]
The “great estate” they are talking about is a public trust that holds all public property. That trust is called the Constitution, which creates a corporation to manage the public property within the trust called “United States”. The functioning of the “Public Membership Association (PMA)” called “United States” and the PRIVATE Membership Association it is patterned after is further explored in:
Self, Family, Church, Local Self Governance, and Private Membership Associations (PMAs), SEDM
https://sedm.org/self-family-church-and-local-self-governance/
For PROOF that “United States” is synonymous with “government” or at least “includes” government, see:
PROOF OF FACTS: “United States” INCLUDES (not means) the government, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-united-states-includes-the-government/
LEGAL IGNORANCE about this subject is GUARANTEED to make you a SLAVE of government! GUARANTEED!
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”
[Hosea 4:6, Bible, NKJV]
This subject is LITERALLY the ROOT of all Third Rail Issues. See:
Third Rail Government Issues, Form #08.032
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ThirdRailIssues.pdf
Avoidance of third rail issues by those in government who are corrupt is summarized in the following scripture:
“For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for [d]vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.”
[1 Peter 2:15-17, Bible, NKJV]
All government corruption and unjust political power DEPEND for their entire existence on the fact that you DO NOT know this definition!
For a description of the symbology we use on this site to describe the various COMPONENTS or CHARACTERISTICS of the term “government” see:
Site Symbology for Political Terms “United States”, “State”, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/site-symbology-for-political-terms-united-states-state/
The study of how the above various COMPONENTS of “government” relate to government as a whole is called “mereology”:
Wikipedia: Mereology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology
2. When does “government” CEASE to be “government”?
1. In a state, domicile has EVERYTHING to do with taxation. And domicile is voluntary.
2. Federal is different. Its purely election and not domicile.
3. BUT the constitution doesn’t expressly authorize elections that break down the separation between public and private. The constitutional right to contract, specifically addressed in the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution), prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. This means states cannot enact laws that alter the terms or enforceability of existing contracts. While the clause protects against state actions, it does not shield contracts from federal laws. HOWEVER, the right to contract or NOT contract is NOT unlimited, because its exercise STILL cannot be permitted to destroy the separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE or the separation of powers itself.
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
4. Yes, you can consent to join the government by a formal oath or political election. But to do so:
4.1. Purely by IMPLIED consent by you unilaterally filling out a tax form. OR
4.2. Not having a lawful oath or appointment OR
4.3 A written formal evidence of an acceptance BY THE GOVERNMENT exercised within the delegated authority of the acceptance agent
. . .is not authorized and produces a DE FACTO government as described in:
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
The absolute constitutional separation of public and private is sacrosanct. The entire oath of public officers depends on that separation and them protecting it. Here’s a demonstration of that:
All the following activities implement a de facto government:
- Refusing to recognize PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights or how one is EXPRESSLY converted to the other.
- Hiding the process of consent that accomplishes the conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC so that you are not informed about how to REMOVE your consent. See:
Invisible Consent, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/invisible-consent/ - Compelling a domicile.
- Bundling things you don’t want with things that you do. We call this “weaponization of government” and it violates the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Adding to definitions using “includes” or “including” with an undefined context or general class. This fails the reasonable notice requirement of due process.
- Using implied rather than express consent to EVADE documenting formal acceptance by the government.
- Not administering a proper oath or appointment in compliance with Title 5 of the U.S. Code among those who HAVE consented.
- Changing your civil status without your consent in violation of the First Amendment. This is identity theft:
Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf - Interfering with YOUR ability to do any of above to the GOVERNMENT to acquire rights over them if they refuse to surrender their right to engage in them. This is a requirement of equal protection and equal treatment. See:
Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, form #05.033
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf
It’s just a scam and a fraud if they make the requirement for your consent invisible by avoiding the above legal formalities.
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Note: “creates no office”=”U.S. person”
CIVIL STATUS=office.
That SCAM is exhaustively documented in:
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
If all just powers originate from CONSENT, and they hide the consent to make it INVISIBLE/IMPLIED so you aren’t aware that they need it to enforce, is ANYTHING JUST beyond that point?
NO!
If EVERYONE received “REASONABLE, UNAMBIGUOUS NOTICE” that being a “U.S. person” was voluntary and forced you to EXPRESSLY rather than IMPLIEDLY volunteer and take a lawful oath, do you think people would continue to elect themselves into this office?
HELL NO!
Ronald Reagan was famous for saying the following:
“The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service exam.”
So THAT is the real secret which makes the CONSENT secret or “invisible” (invisible consent) as described in:
Invisible Consent, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/invisible-consent/
Can a government established to protect private property and private rights make a profitable business out of alienating ANY of those rights or control over your property in order to pay for the delivery of the protection?
NO!
The FIRST step in protecting PRIVATE property is to keep it from being converted to PUBLIC property by the security guard. If he won’t protect it, why should you hire him with “taxes” to protect you from anyone ELSE? This is described in:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
Like any business, they don’t need to own or control ANY of your property to protect it. Thus, REGISTERING your car or your body with an SSN works a purpose OPPOSITE of REAL, de jure, government. See:
Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407
http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm
QUESTION: Would you hire a security guard to protect your property if the fine print of the contract for his services required him to OWN all the property and simply rent it out to you for a fee called “taxes”?
ANSWER: HELL NO! NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would hire a security guard under those terms. Only if the security guard had a MONOPOLY on their services would people even BEGIN to go down that road, and only by force or coercion beyond that point. Thus, the “social compact” is fatally flawed and works a purpose OPPOSITE of establishing government to begin with.
All of these considerations are why constitutional rights MUST be inalienable, at least insofar as the relationship between PRIVATE and PUBLIC are concerned. The ONLY geographic place you are even ALLOWED to alienate those rights is where they DON’T apply, which means federal territory or abroad. See:
Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf
If you’re not either abroad or residing on federal territory, every effort to entice you to give up those rights, which are PRIVATE property, transforms the “government” from a PROTECTOR to a PREDATOR as described in:
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
Of this section some people have asked:
Isn’t all this already on SEDM?
Our answer:
Because if you have to define something, the only way you can prevent equivocation and sophistry by legal predators is to define BOTH what it IS, and what is IS NOT so there is no room for judicial grandstanding to illegally expand definitions by fiat or using presumptions.