The Most Liberating Word

Will Grigg lays it on the line in a similar way as did Eric Frank Russel in his wonderful story And Then There Were None. Freedom = I.W. or Freedom = I Won't! True freedom is the power to say NO! I Won't! to power without negative consequences to you and your's. ALL "governments" (coercive theft syndicates) ultimately use violence to get their way.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w130.html

The Most Liberating Word
By Will Grigg

"Let your 'yes' be 'yes,' and your 'no' be 'no'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."

~ Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 5:37

Years ago, somebody coined the aphorism, "'No' is a complete sentence." While some grammarians might disagree with that conclusion, "no" is incontrovertibly the most powerful word that a freedom-focused individual can utter – assuming, of course, that he has the fortitude to let it be his final answer.

To say "no" in reply to an offer, suggestion, or demand is to assert authority. The same can be said of "yes," but only when it is said in particular circumstances. "Yes" can signify either honorable agreement or craven submission. Saying "no," on the other hand, is a way of claiming one's sovereignty and demanding that it be respected.

Refusing consent is an assertion of the most elemental property right. Saying "no" during a business negotiation may abort a transaction, or it may facilitate a mutually agreeable arrangement on slightly different terms. In either case, parties involved in such a conversation understand and respect the sovereignty of each other, and agreement doesn't occur until and unless both sovereign actors are satisfied with the terms.

When "yes" is said in this context, the rights and interests of both parties are protected, assuming that both follow the admonition from the Sermon on the Mount that they will make good on the promises they freely made.

We are routinely told that the government ruling us rests on the "consent" of the governed. "Submission" is a more appropriate term.

Think of it for a second: How often does the State recognize our right to withhold consent? Are those in the State's employ generally willing to accept "no" as a final answer, or do they generally treat it as an act of criminal rebellion?

In myriad ways, from the smallest imposition to the most grotesque mass murder, agents of the State treat non-compliance as justification for the use of potentially lethal force. If an armed stranger in a state-issued costume demands that you submit to an abduction called an "arrest" despite the fact that you've done nothing to injure anybody, what will happen to you if you refuse to cooperate?

MORE HERE