Proof that you are Property

When I say to people that they are property, I get that haunting express of disbelief and sometimes the sense that they think me to be crazy. It is possible, true, that I have little sense of intellect and might well be as defined by Webster's: crazy.

But this does not negate the reality of my statement: You are the property of the State*.

Do not accept this as truth? Fine.

Here in California the current legislative process has allowed the State to pass a number of edicts. One such edict requires that an individual inform the state of the transfer of a firearm to another individual.

In California the law normally requires that you take a firearm to a dealer where both of you must undergo a background check. At the end the State has their paperwork. Thus, any additional law that further requires the individual to tell the state the whereabouts of a firearm would be redundant, nay? That is because it is not aimed at sales and transfers with in the legal entity called California. It is instead aimed at controlling the behavior of individuals when they leave the State. I hope already you see that it requires that the State consider you its property and that you traveling to another State somehow still makes you responsible for your acts, regardless of the State you travel too.

If for example, I travel to Arizona and take a firearm with me. While there, I go shooting with a buddy and that buddy is so enamored with the firearm I gift it to him. We then call local Arizona law enforcement and they explain it simply, "Is he standing there? Yes? Then hand him the gun. Transaction complete." 

From Arizona's perspective we have not committed any crime and no additional transactional information is required. With in the border of the entity calling itself Arizona, two individual people complied with the law involving the transfer of a firearm. 

California has zero say in the edicts mandated by Arizona. But it is not about two individuals conducting a transaction. It is about a piece of California property transacting with a piece of Arizona property. California has no legal authority to impose its view on the Arizona property, so it can do nothing. But the moment the property claimed by California arrives back in California, sans gun, California, by its ownership of that property demands some kind of action. 

The State thus claims authority over actions that occurred not inside its borders. It claims the power to police and control not actions that occur locally but over the person themselves no matter where the person goes in the world.

Still don't agree... okay...

Imagine then if you lived in Arizona and practiced giving guns to family and friends as a measure of your day to day life then one afternoon traveled to California. Would California suddenly have the authority to arrest you for not telling California of all the previous firearm transfers you completed without informing them? Of course not. The Arizonian is the property of Arizona and the State of California has no jurisdiction over the actions of the Arizonian. They cannot claim any authority over his actions, because they cannot claim him as their own property.

Now, you might be saying, "Well, yeah, that's because he is a citizen of Arizona." And you'd be correct in calling him such. But making up a fancy word called 'citizen' to mask the word 'slave' no more frees the man. He is still under the authority of a particular plantation called State. He cannot, for example, become 'Stateless' and not have to answer to the authority of California. Because, for California, the act of living inside its border automatically declares the citizen must behave according the mandates the State passes. 

I used guns, because such laws actually exist. The problem is that they are a hot button and thus, sometimes difficult to see around to the real issue. So, try changing the aspect of the objects in question. Say, for example, that it is a crime to share bubblegum in one State. You have to get a license to buy it, you have to keep track of your intake and then report your consumption every month. If you report you had six pieces by in fact only had five you'd be committing a crime. Let's say then that you leave the State in question and visit your family in a neighboring State. While there you share all of your gum, but in that State it is not a law that you cannot share your bubblegum. Have you committed a crime? Or course not. Because, while in that plantation calling itself a State, you do not have to follow the laws of the other State.

Take this one further; if you are actually a slave in a field picking cotton and your Master gives you one break every six hours but you decided to take a break every hour, you will be beaten by your Master. But, if your Master sends you down the street to another plantation to pick some other master's cotton and he gives breaks every hour, when you get back to your Master should you expect to be beaten? By California's expectations on firearm transfers, the answer would be yes, one should expect to be beaten for doing something at another master's plantation. Because the slave is the property of the Master and he chooses, owns all power of authority.

The only time one can not expect to be beaten at all is when one is free of the influence of masters. If the State gains the authority to define your actions even when you are not in that State, you are the property of the State and your actions are owned by their will. The fact one cannot claim Stateless citizenship proves this point.

*State does not need to mean California v. Nevada, but implies any entity calling itself a legal authority that controls an individual's actions.