Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[The Observer]

Sadly, not only have we lost the troll, but he also quit copying and pasting to his site after Dan's last post. Only the first of Famspear's poetic efforts has been archived.

Ah, the irony. Instead of capturing all the off-topic blather, Mr. Eastman instead memorializes LPC's on-point post that rebuts his inane theories. Does the phrase "hoisted by one's own petard" come to mind?

[The Observer]

The main problem with 6-8 is that Eastman is arguing that none of the powers that we normally associate with government (policing, justice, defense, etc.) are legitimate for the government to use. So labeling him as an anarchist appears to be the correct description.

More to the point, however, is his failure to realize that it is the very act of the collective will of the people to grant the government these powers that makes it a legitimate power for the government. It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy. Eastman is just the lone voice in the wilderness trying to convince anyone willing to listen that his selfishness trumps the will of the people.

[Famspear]

......Congress has legislative power and authority. The IRS authority to collect taxes is executive. Congress has delegated legislative authority of a sort to the Sec. Treas. by allowing him to write regulations, but the IRS's basic administrative authority is executive, not legislative. That authority can not have been delegated by Congress because Congress has no executive power. The authority of the IRS to collect taxes derives from its position within the executive branch, not as a delegation of authority from Congress.....

Another way to say it would be that the authority of the IRS to collect taxes comes from statutes enacted by Congress.

Maybe, as you seem to be saying, "delegation" of authority is not the right word. Congress cannot, as a general rule, delegate legislative authority to the executive branch.

Congress enacts statutes creating executive branch entities or officers, such as the Department of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In the statutes, the Congress provides for certain executive powers to be vested in the Department, in the Secretary, or in the Commissioner, etc.

I would argue that, strictly speaking, the IRS authority to collect taxes comes (directly or indirectly) from Congress -- but perhaps not as a "delegation" from Congress. The authority is statutory, and statutes are enacted through a legislative process by the Congress. The Secretary of the Treasury can "delegate" some of his executive power to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner can re-delegate some of his power on down the chain of command.

There are some arguments to the effect that the executive and judicial branches of government have some "inherent" powers, just as the legislative branch does. For example, although state legislatures often enact statutes regulating the practice of law and the licensing of individuals to practice law, there is a theory that the courts have inherent authority to regulate the practice of law -- that this is really an inherent judicial function.

I believe some legal theorists hold that while Congress has the constitutional power to limit (to some extent) the jurisdiction of the federal courts, Congress could not validly enact a statute that would limit an inherent judicial function -- for example, by enacting a statute that says that "Southern Baptists shall have no freedom of religion" and including in the statute a provision that says that the courts "shall have no jurisidction" to declare that statute unconstitutional. That would not fly; the Congress cannot usurp an inherently judicial function in the guise of limiting a court's jurisdiction.

Likewise, the courts have recognized that the executive branch may have some inherent authority or legal prerogatives. I think executive privilege might be one of those.

[Imalawman]

......Congress has legislative power and authority. The IRS authority to collect taxes is executive. Congress has delegated legislative authority of a sort to the Sec. Treas. by allowing him to write regulations, but the IRS's basic administrative authority is executive, not legislative. That authority can not have been delegated by Congress because Congress has no executive power. The authority of the IRS to collect taxes derives from its position within the executive branch, not as a delegation of authority from Congress.....

Another way to say it would be that the authority of the IRS to collect taxes comes from statutes enacted by Congress.

Maybe, as you seem to be saying, "delegation" of authority is not the right word. Congress cannot, as a general rule, delegate legislative authority to the executive branch.

The power to tax is an enumerated power to congress, not the executive branch. I would argue that the IRS derives it authority from congress, as Famspear said, through legally enacted statutes, which have been upheld by the judicial branch and executed through the executive branch. Congress has delegated a certain amount of authority to an agency, but not legislative, but certainly the collection function has been delegated.

I think the major flaws are found in the "social contract" type gibberish at the bottom.

[Famspear]

The main problem with 6-8 is that Eastman is arguing that none of the powers that we normally associate with government (policing, justice, defense, etc.) are legitimate for the government to use. So labeling him as an anarchist appears to be the correct description.

More to the point, however, is his failure to realize that it is the very act of the collective will of the people to grant the government these powers that makes it a legitimate power for the government. It is the voice of consensus that grants legitimacy. Eastman is just the lone voice in the wilderness trying to convince anyone willing to listen that his selfishness trumps the will of the people.

As you may surmise, my 25 cent theory is that Eastman is engaged in a psychological transference. I argue that it is not psychologically normal to believe what people like Dale Eastman and Larken Rose believe, and especially that it is not normal for these people to believe these things so strongly.

Larken Rose in particular seems to be a very, very bitter individual. The emotion, the anger, the bitterness, comes right out in his video posts.

With Eastman, I think it comes out in his writing. These are people who (I suspect) have had problems with Mommie or Daddy (or some parental figure) in their very early life, and are unconsciously trying to deal with these problems as an adult. But they're trying to deal with these problems in a pathological, unhealthy way.

I see the emotion that people like Eastman show in their writings and speeches about things like taxes and especially about Authority and Authority Figures. Occasionally, I see the Freudian slip (as I have with Dale Eastman) that might indicate the existence of some infantile conflict that has never been properly resolved.

[LPC]

1. In order to enforce or collect a tax, the IRS in general, must have authority.

2. The authority for the IRS to collect a tax is suffused throughout Title 26 of the United States Code, known as the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

3. The authority imbued within the IRC or the Statutes-At-Large is a delegation of authority from Congress.

4. Congress gets its authority from the Constitution.

5. The Constitution gets its authority from “The People”.

I don't think that's quite right, because I don't think that the Constitution has "authority" in the usual sense of the word.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Constitution is the method by which The People have delegated their authority and by which they exercise their authority.

6. The People (as a collective) can NOT delegate any authority to the Constitution that The People (as a collective) does not have.

That seems tautological. The People can't authorize what the People can't authorize?

7. No individual in the collective can delegate an authority to the collective that the individual does not have.

Here's where it breaks down, because this is Eastman's conclusion masquerading as an argument.

Why can't The People collectively assert powers that individuals cannot? Well, they just can't, that's all. I (Eastman) don't like it.

There are examples in law which clearly refute his "argument," such as the operation of corporations. No one shareholder can bind the corporation or act on behalf of the corporation, and yet the shareholders collectively can elect directors who *can* bind the corporation and act for the corporation. How can shareholders collectively do something that individual shareholders cannot? Well, it's just the nature of corporations.

And, as I've said before, it's in the nature of governments to exercise powers on behalf of The People that individual persons do not have. Why? Well, it's the nature of governments. It's an assumption we make in order to allow governments to work and societies to function, much like we assume that 1+1=2 in order to make arithmetic work. (Actually, you can "prove" that 1+1=2 using a set of assumptions called Peano's axioms, but there are still assumptions being made.)

You can make a different assumption if you want, and assume that a government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, but it would be like assuming 1+1>2, and would make it difficult to function in the world that everyone else understands.

[wserra]

Here's where it breaks down, because this is Eastman's conclusion masquerading as an argument.

Why can't The People collectively assert powers that individuals cannot? Well, they just can't, that's all. I (Eastman) don't like it.

Exactly.

The real answer is: Of course, people collectively assert power people individually cannot. That's the nature of government. That's the nature of law. Deny that this should occur, you're an anarchist.

Anarchy brings with it a host of other problems, but Eastman should at least have the cojones to admit what he is.

[Pottapaug1938]

If Eastman had any cojones (at least, that aren't solid brass), he wouldn't be offering this
bull-effluent to the rest of us.

[Cpt Banjo]

The real answer is: Of course, people collectively assert power people individually cannot. That's the nature of government. That's the nature of law. Deny that this should occur, you're an anarchist.

But Eastman isn't talking about power -- I think even he would admit that a group has the physical ability to exert power. In trying to negate the concept of authority, he's really saying that the concept of law (as the authorized use of force) is immoral. By seeing authority in terms of morality rather than legality, he's arguing philosophy rather than law.

[Mr. Eastman]

When I post this particular post, it brings my post count on Quatloos to 5. The post count in this thread when I started drafting my reply was 52. A ratio of 9.4:1. As I check on the post count today, it's 92. That's a ratio of 17.4:1.

What this means is that you Quatloos regulars will just have to be patient and wait your turn to get a pound of my flesh.

Plus, I'm also copying all your posts to my website for archival (among other) purposes. Mr. Williams, yes, I copied your poem as well. Link

Another of my purposes is to catch a snapshot of all the polite discourse the respectful regulars of Quatloos post. Your true colors are, well, true.

On to the replies...

I have given several politicians the power to make laws which i have never had.

Very important statement noted.

Can't or won't answer a yes/no question with a yes or no.

Do you enjoy looking like an idiot in public? Please answer a yes/no question with a yes or no.

No.

Good.

Then why don't you just stop doing it?

Your opinion that I look like an idiot in public is noted and dismissed.

... and the way that you structure your quotes of my posts is proof that you are seeking only to weave your biases into the discussion and distort the posts of others for your own apparent benefit.

Please elaborate on how I "structured" your posts.

The reason why I will not give a yes or no answer to your question has nothing to do with my having been a lawyer; it has to do with the fact that I don't trust you half as far as I could throw my Hudson Bay axe. You ask a very general question; and unless we are having a purely intellectual and philosophical discussion any yes or no answer is meaningless. You obviously have some motivation for asking your question; so I am calling your hand.

What makes you ask that question? Why do you ask?

You state, "unless we are having a purely intellectual and philosophical discussion any yes or no answer is meaningless." If our discussion is not intellectual and our discussion is not philosophical, how would you label our discussion? Myself, I'd label it "in progress" and "incomplete".

You are correct that I have certain motivations for asking my question.

One of which was to observe the response to my posting here. I've observed that I did indeed poke a stick in a hornet's nest, just as I projected.

I do have a history with some of the regulars here and I know that if I posted the sky is blue, I'd be challenged on the statement. So I must tediously lay my foundation.

I realize this response does not satisfy your questions. Please be patient, you are not the only iron presently in the fire and I notice that you have another post that I will address below.

As others have noted here, Dale, the answer to your question is: Yes, it is legally possible for you to give something to someone else that you yourself do not possess.

In fact, in a narrow, technical, legal sense, it is possible for you, a private individual, to direct a disposition of property when you don't even own the property yourself (I'm not talking about the government taking someone's property or anything like that).

For example, let's think about a trust (an arrangement whereby one person, called a trustee, holds legal title for the use and benefit of another person, called a beneficiary). Let's say that Bob is the Trustee and Mary is the beneficiary of our trust. It is legally possible in certain circumstances for the trust to have been set up so that an individual -- let's call him Joe (who is neither the trustee nor the beneficiary of the trust) -- to direct that the ownership of certain property in the trust be transferred to someone else, even though Joe has no legal right to the property himself, and has no right to transfer the property to himself, to his own estate, to his creditors, or to the creditors of his estate.

Dale, do you know what Joe "has" here? Do you know the technical legal term for what Joe has here?

For my curiosity's sake, I hope you will enlighten me. As to my original question, the technical term for the authority vested in Joe has no bearing. So knock the stuffing out of your straw man if you must.

You point out that it is legally possible in certain circumstances for the trust to have been set up so that Joe, who doesn't "possess" certain property can direct that certain property to be transferred.

What Joe does possess in your description, is authority given to him by someone who possesses the authority to give Joe his authority. Absent that first authority, the second can not be granted and Joe can't direct anything.

Can Joe be given authority by a person who doesn't have authority to give Joe authority? (In other words, this is where you impeach my prior paragraph.)

Guys, you know perfectly well that his reason for asking his "question" is so he can enlighten all and sundry with his opinion, regardless of facts. Since he's suckering idiots into paying him to screw up their lives, he wants the free PR.

Bold emphasis mine. Naked assertion noted. Or should I say, Barefaced, shameless, brazen lie noted?

The enlightenment to be done will be the result of posts such as yours. As I stated, True Colors.

I'm still wondering what happened to 4 and 6 ....

possess tr.v. possessed, possessing, possesses. 1. To have as property; own. 2. To have as a quality, characteristic, or other attribute: possessed great tact. 3. To acquire mastery of or have knowledge of: possess valuable data. 5. To cause to own, hold, or master something, such as property or knowledge: She possessed herself of the unclaimed goods. 7. Obsolete. To gain or seize.
Source: American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

pos·sess (pə-zĕs)
Share: 
tr.v.pos·sessed, pos·sess·ing, pos·sess·es
1.
a. To have as property; own:possess great wealth.
b. Law To have under one's power or control:possess illegal drugs.
2.
a. To have as a quality, characteristic, or other attribute:possesses great tact.
b. To have mastery or knowledge of:possess a knowledge of Sanskrit; possess valuable information.
3.
a. To gain control or power over. Used of a demon or spirit.
b. To occupy fully the mind or feelings of:The dancers were possessed by the music.
c. Often Offensive To have sexual intercourse with (a woman).
d. Archaic To control or maintain (one's nature) in a particular condition:I possessed my temper despite the insult.
4. Archaic To cause (oneself) to own, hold, or master something, such as property or knowledge.
5. Archaic To gain or seize.

Hmm?

As I replied before:

If you wish to communicate with me, first define your terms.

So taking Voltaire's advice, I defined my terms. Others have engaged on those terms, So I submit the suggestion that you should just sit back and enjoy the show.

Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

Yes. For example, it is possible to make a gift of tangible property that you own, but is not in your current possession, through a symbolic delivery.

I direct your attention to this part of my previous post:

possess tr.v. possessed, possessing, possesses. 1. To have as property; own. 2. To have as a quality, characteristic, or other attribute: possessed great tact. 3. To acquire mastery of or have knowledge of: possess valuable data. 5. To cause to own, hold, or master something, such as property or knowledge: She possessed herself of the unclaimed goods. 7. Obsolete. To gain or seize.
Source: American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

I further direct your attention to #1.

I direct your attention to #5.

If your definition of "possess" excludes the concept of custody separate from ownership, then your definition is incomplete.

The on-line version of the dictionary includes a 1b, "Law To have under one's power or control:possess illegal drugs." Which was my point, which is that it is possible to own something that is not currently in your possession, and to make a gift of the ownership.

It's also possible to be in possession of something with only a partial ownership interest. A life tenant of property has the right of exclusive possession, but is not the only owner of the property because the remainderman has ownership rights without any current right of possession.

I could go on, but perhaps you'll now get the point. (But probably not.)

I posted that definition with my question for a reason. Your post illustrates that reason.

You wanted to illustrate that you didn't understand the definition you posted? Or that your definition was incomplete?

I wanted to enlist the help of a lawyer and have him do the work gratis. I thank you for making a point for me that will be very useful in some of my following replies to the Quatloos regular's replies, including, but not limited to, your reply.

Mr. Evans states: "If your definition of "possess" excludes the concept of custody separate from ownership, then your definition is incomplete. " Bold emphasis mine. Thank you Mr. Evans.

I asked, "Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?"
Mr. Evans replied: "Yes."
Mr. Evans presented this situation: "For example, it is possible to make a gift of tangible property that you own, but is not in your current possession, through a symbolic delivery."
Mr. Evans continued in his clarifying post: "Which was my point, [...] it is possible to own something that is not currently in your possession, and to make a gift of the ownership."
Mr. Evans also posted this definition of possess to bolster his point: "To have under one's power or control" Bold emphasis mine.

Supporting Mr. Evans' selected definition:

possession 3. (n.) The fact of possessing: ownership; custody; guardianship; hold; keeping

Thus what Mr. Evans appears to be saying is: it is possible to own something that is not currently in your [custody, control], and to make a gift of the ownership.

The casual reader is asked to notice that there are two objects here. There is the "something" owned, and there is the "ownership" of the something.

As Mr. Evans' points out, "it is possible [...] to make a gift of the ownership."
What is in custody, what is in possession, what is possessed, what the owner possesses, what the owner controls, what is under the owner's power, what the owner owns, and what the owner gives away is the "ownership" of the something.

Mr. Evans has painted a very clear picture of the owner (the one who possesses, controls, has custody of, and power over the "ownership") "making a gift of", that is giving away, the ownership in answer to my question, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? You can't give away the ownership unless you have the ownership.

Mr. Evans made another statement: "It's also possible to be in possession [custody, control] of something with only a partial ownership interest. A life tenant of property has the right of exclusive possession[custody, control], but is not the only owner of the property because the remainderman has ownership rights without any current right of possession." Bold emphasis mine.

REMAINDERMAN

The person who inherits property when someone passes away, and has executed a "life estate deed." For example, John owns a house. He deeds it to himself for life, and then to Jane upon his death. Jane is the remainderman.

Bold emphasis mine.

I think Mr. Evans meant to say: "[...]the remainderman has [FUTURE] ownership rights[...]"

In case you missed it, guys, Dale has answered his own question and he got it wrong.

You and I know that you can't give anything to anybody that you don't possess.

Even when he narrows the definition to exclude intangibles, he still gets it wrong.

You can't give me a silver dollar unless you possess a silver dollar.

Actually I can. Hint: Amazon et al allow for a delivery address different from the billing address.

OK, Dale. You have received several excellent answers to your question. Please proceed with the trolling.

Bold emphasis mine.

To possess is to have possession, and

possession 3. (n.) The fact of possessing: ownership; custody; guardianship; hold; keeping

If you paid Amazon et al for a product, you own the product. As the owner, you also own the control and you own the power over the product even though it is not in your direct custody.

When you direct Amazon et al to deliver the product to an address different from the billing address, you are exercising the owner's control and power over the product. Unless you bought the product specifically to loan to the addressee at the non-billing address, what you have given the addressee is the ownership of the product. You can't give away ownership of anything unless you are the owner of the anything.

You and I know that you can't give anything to anybody that you don't possess.

How about the situation where, say, my Uncle Bert has a rare silver dollar, and that I am his only heir at law. He has a will; but he is in an irreversible coma and vegetative state. Let's say that, in return for something done for me by someone else, I assign all of my right, title and interest in that silver dollar to the second party. I have thus given away, for valuable consideration, something which I do not now possess but will, in due course, possess.

Of course, all this is meaningless without knowing why Dale has posed his original question. Let's see if he has the integrity to explain, to us, why he asked that question.

Partial answer: I asked the question to get responses such as this one. As I stated above, I must tediously lay my foundation.

So on the present question, we play our games. I want acknowledgement that the question can only be answered logically, in the negative. Conversely, the Quatloos regulars do not want to acknowledge that the question can only be answered in the negative. Thus, answers such as yours that attempt to prove my question is not limited to a negative answer become very important in attempting to resolve the issue for both sides.

On to your answer then.

You state as a conclusion: "I have thus given away, for valuable consideration, something which I do not now possess but will, in due course, possess."

I directly contradict that statement.

What you have given away IS something you DO possess - you have given away your FUTURE "right, title and interest in that silver dollar." Until you have given away (or exchanged) your FUTURE "right, title and interest in that silver dollar"you possess, control, own, have power over, have custody of that FUTURE "right, title and interest in that silver dollar." Therefore, you have not given away (or exchanged) anything that you do not possess.

Before the title to the silver dollar passes to the second party it passes through you. For that instantaneous, infinitesimally tiny moment, you own the title to that silver dollar. So again, you have not given away (or exchanged) anything that you do not possess (own).

A serious answer to the question, with simple answers (even simpler than the ones previously provided):

I can exercise dominion over a number of things not in my possession:
1. Things owned but not possessed:

I can transfer funds held in my bank account (in possession of the bank) by writing a check and delivering the check to another person.

In this case, I own the asset; it is being held for me by another, who is under obligation to distribute the asset at my instruction.

2. Things possessed but not owned:

As the US MAIL, or Fed Ex, I lawfully possesses goods in transit, but do not own them. I can deliver (exercise dominion over) those goods and deliver them to the intended recipient. (See also Bills of Lading and Warehouse Receipts).

Or, as a bank, Bank of America does not own my deposits, but it can disburse those deposits on my instructions (or in response to a Court order, etc.). See also Art 4, UCC.

As Dan said, "So what?")

dominion n. 1. Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty

possession 3. (n.) The fact of possessing: ownership; custody; guardianship; hold; keeping

I can exercise dominion [control] over a number of things not in my possession [custody]:

1. Things owned but not possessed: transforms into 1. Things owned but not in custody:
In your example #1 you own the funds. You control them, have power over them and can give them to whomever you want whether directly or, as in your example, indirectly.

2. Things possessed but not owned: transforms into 2. Things in custody but not owned:
In your example #2a, you possess (have in custody, have control of) the goods for delivery.

I [as the US MAIL, or Fed Ex] can deliver (exercise dominion [power, control] over) those goods and deliver them to the intended recipient.

Only if you have custody of those goods. In order to have custody of those goods, they must be given to you by their rightful owner (or prior custodian if a chain of custody exists). In this case, you have not delivered anything that you did not possess (have custody of). And you certainly didn't defecate the goods into being out of nothingness.

A glance at Eastman's board - the one he references in his sig - shows that it contains 260 posts. Of those, 247 are Eastman's.

And that applies to the original post and original question how?

Oh right, I forgot about the M.O. you guys use. Deflect, distract, disrupt by any means necessary. Silly question. Sorry.

Answer to Eastman's question:

Yes. [...] a headache.

One does not "give" a headache. One "causes" a headache.

It's been so quiet around here that I almost (repeat, almost!) replied to the troll.

But I thought better of it.

Uh, you forgot to quote the Quatloos regular whose post you ARE replying to. And since I'm the O.P. that you are calling "the troll" is me, I would like to thank you for the meal... If I didn't know that what you posted is itself, a troll.

Since he is a purveyor of "When did you stop beating your wife" style questions, a firm believer of quoting only selected portions of a statute, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt his grammatical illiteracy, what is the point?

On top of everything else, he isn't even entertaining, so that on top of just flat out boring equals ignore as far as I am concerned. Troll be damned!!!

Asked upon direct "When did you stop beating your wife?" is answered with "I haven't." Asked upon cross, "Is it true you didn't stop beating your wife because you never started?" is answered with, "Yes."

Since you are promising to ignore me, I look forward to not reading anymore of your replies to my posts.

[wserra]

A glance at Eastman's board - the one he references in his sig - shows that it contains 260 posts. Of those, 247 are Eastman's.

And that applies to the original post and original question how?

You were the one who raised the subject of your board. I was just pointing out that, while you surely appear to like the sound of your own voice, no one who matters agrees with you.

[webhick]

Hey, Eastman. Your warning says:

WARNING: Do not reply to or comment about my posts if you don't want your posts archived on my website.

But I didn't reply to your post or comment about your post and yet my prior post in this thread magically appeared on your forum. In the event that I actually cared whether or not my posts were archived on your website, I would feel violated to the depth of my core. For my simple post to be copied posted on your website in all its naked glory would an unforgivable act. An act so blatantly hurtful that I would every hour on the hour drop to my knees, shake my fists at the heavens and scream "WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME!?" until my knees were bloody, my carpal tunnel flared up and I grew a polyp in my throat. When all these things occur, I would then start cutting the letters out of Dick & Jane books use them to form the "lyrics" of Justin Bieber songs and mail them to you in random order. Then and only then would you feel the depth of the pain that I would feel.

But only if I gave a damn. Which I don't, so whatever. Just wanted to say "hi" and tell you that you broke your own rule/warning.

[Pottapaug1938]

In all his passing gas, Mr. Eastman fails to address the one simple question I asked, long long ago: WHY DID YOU ASK YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION? WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO ASK IT?

[Cpt Banjo]

Can Joe be given authority by a person who doesn't have authority to give Joe authority?

Please define what you mean by "authority".

[Quixote]

When I post this particular post, it brings my post count on Quatloos to 5.

Your post count may be low, but you more than make up for that with your post length. It's a pity your content density is not higher. I think I dozed off about 3/4 of the way through your last post while waiting for you to get to a point.

[Quixote]

In all his passing gas, Mr. Eastman fails to address the one simple question I asked, long long ago: WHY DID YOU ASK YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION? WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO ASK IT?

He is "tediously lay[ing his] foundation". Emphasis on the tedious. As he noted, Dan has handed him his ass on at least one occasion and he doesn't want to jump in until he has tested the waters. Strangely, he keeps a transcript of his trouncing by Dan on his website.

[Famspear]

Dale, people in North America as a group, as a "body politick", got together many years ago and a majority of the individuals in that group agreed to a United States Constitution. In that Constitution, they set up a system of national government consisting of legislative, executive and judicial branches.

We will presume, for the sake of argument, that a certain minority of the members of that "body politick" did not agree to the arrangement. That's too bad. That's just tough.

The validity of law and the validity of what government does or does not do is not something that each individual as an individual has the legal authority to determine.

You, Dale Eastman, do not have the legal or moral authority to bind other people by your own conclusion (assuming that it is your conclusion) that the government of this place where you exist is somehow invalid. The rest of the world does not need your approval in order to exert valid legal authority over you.

I repeat: The rest of the world does not need your approval in order to exert valid legal authority over you.

In this sense, your personal view about the validity, legitimacy, etc., of Political Authority, of government, of tax law, etc., is not binding on other people, even if they vote without your agreement -- to impose taxes on you, to require you to drive within a certain speed on the highway, or whatever.

In a free society such as ours, the legitimacy of political power, of governmental power, does not come from individuals acting as individuals. Legitimacy comes from the concurrence of many individuals acting as members of a group, a political body. That means, in our system, that The People (as a group) are sovereign.

There are old court cases where the courts refer to someone as being a "sovereign individual," but in none of those cases was the court using that term in the way it is being misused today by certain individuals who call themselves "sovereign citizens" and who falsely claim that they are not subject to taxation, or traffic laws, or whatever.

Dale, I don't recall seeing you use the term "sovereign individual" or "sovereign citizen," and I don't mean to imply that you have done so.

There seems to be some similarity in your beliefs about government, etc., and the arguments made by some of the so-called "sovereign citizens." My use of the term "sovereign" is a helpful way of explaining things in this context.

We do have a Constitution -- that was set up by a majority -- that (fortunately) now limits the power of the majority in certain contexts to impose its will on the minority. To use a silly example, a majority today could elect a Congress, a majority of which members might vote to outlaw the Southern Baptist denomination. In that situation, the matter would surely be litigated, and the courts would strike the law.

Dale, to cast this in the parlance of some of the current-day headlines, you and I are not "sovereign individuals." Political or governmental validity, as a general proposition, and subject to the limits of our Constitution, does not depend on the unanimous agreement of each member of the group -- even when the majority imposes its will on you, Dale, without your agreement.

[Famspear]

Dale, here is your original question:

Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

Aside from the "YES" answers, the technical legal answers, that were given to you earlier in the thread, let's get to the heart of your problem, Dale.

Your underlying premise is that somewhere, back there at the beginning somewhere, someone who did not possess the power to a certain thing, such as exercise political control over you personally, did so. You want to refute the political or legal validity or legitimacy of government or certain laws (or whatever) over you on the ground, essentially, that the person or persons who "gave" that authority over you did not have the authority to do so.

You are wrong.

The group, The People as a Body Politick, has the legal and moral Authority to bind you, Dale Eastman, regardless of whether you agree or not.

The Group has the legal and moral authority to impose taxes on you, through laws. The government instituted by The People -- even without your personal permission -- has the legal and moral Authority to enforce those laws against you, in certain circumstances with coercive power.

This is not rocket science, Dale.

[Imalawman]

Dale is certainly free to leave this country and it's legal borders and not be subject to its laws and the control that the majority of individuals has placed on us all through its representatives enacting legislation. Dale, didn't you go over this at all in 8th grade?

Here - maybe this will help:

Educational Video

[LPC]

Mr. Evans made another statement: "It's also possible to be in possession [custody, control] of something with only a partial ownership interest. A life tenant of property has the right of exclusive possession[custody, control], but is not the only owner of the property because the remainderman has ownership rights without any current right of possession." Bold emphasis mine.

REMAINDERMAN

The person who inherits property when someone passes away, and has executed a "life estate deed." For example, John owns a house. He deeds it to himself for life, and then to Jane upon his death. Jane is the remainderman.

Bold emphasis mine.

I think Mr. Evans meant to say: "[...]the remainderman has [FUTURE] ownership rights[...]"

No, I did not.

And the "lectlaw" quote is completely incompetent, because the a remainderman does not "inherit" (a completely different legal concept) when the life tenant dies. The remainderman simply comes into possession of what the remainderman already owned.

You keep confusing ownership and possession. Possession is just one of the rights of ownership, but it's not the only right.