The law and everyone's rights removed except for the military (and then what?)

Can there be some kind of voting held to remove the law (all of it signed into law by the centralized government and the aspects of that government that make it, uphold it, and enforce it) and everyone's rights (all of them signed into law and the branch and system that proposes them for any gain, upholds them for any gain, and ensures them for any gain) outside the military in the U.S.?

Is there a more worthy reason why they should be removed than to be remaining?

And then what...

How would things go in this country without those things?

How would it change you in everyday life here in the U.S. without any rights and any laws being outside the military?


After you answer the questions hear me out below:...



[edit on 22-2-2008 by Mabus]

Outside the military, instead of the law related aspect of government, a "freernment" should be set constituted in the ppl outside that military. A freernment is where you govern yourself, your property, and your dependants (which includes things like children, employees, etc. if you have any) how you so freely desire. You get to freely work with any organizations accepting you that you need to work with for any kind of gain that benefits you and/or others.

You'd be most liberated in that. In this freernment by any or all means it's up to you, in agreeance with others or not, to ensure your best interests and the best interests of your dependants if any.

You must understand that in a nation without laws there is no need for the delusion of rights, as if you must fight for them how some centralized governing government approves.

In this freernment you come to a point, immature or mature and/or unethical or ethical and/or unmoral or moral in the veiws and opinions of others, where you, alone or not, conclude what you are free to do that you feel you need or want to do on this then freed body of land with respect or not to others and with respect or not from others. And that's how it should be!

Ha, if you think ppl dont have common sense and would flat out just disrespect ppl or do certain things without a cause, only to end up getting themself put in check (beaten, tortured, or killed) by someone(s), then you are kidding yourself and not realizing the better it would be if we were involved in a freernment.

And yes, even no more traffic laws would be so the streets would indeed become a 'drive on at your own risk' thing. It will be up to you to choose to drive on streets how you learned to with consideration to others sharing the streets. If you think more you'd possibly die on a 'proceed at your own risk' streets with no traffic laws that could be violated, you'd drive more how you learned to and be more alert. It would be a psychological impact to sway you to drive on the streets properly many could say. Plus, with the foreknowledge that it's not know if other ppl might take it into their own hands to put you in check for causing an accident, you might moreso have your act together out on the streets.

In this freernment ppl would indeed look out for their best interests. That's even if it's to feel releaved by getting justice or revenge or avengeance which depends on who's view it is that's taking an action against you for some reason. Yes, you would more likely respect others not knowing how those others will come across you if and when you provoke or enrage them. This means in this freernment ppl would be free to express their triggered emotions because of your actions in how they want to. If and when everyone learns to keep that in mind, things would be just fine. This doesnt mean there would be choas. Freernment is not anarchy! Humans naturally want to get along with others in surviving in a civilized way, and would more likely being free from a centralized government control. You know, to be civilized doesnt mean there has to be a centralized government to ensure it when it can be ensured by all in an individual way.

If the thought of what happens after a law violation keeps you from doing something to someone or something, then who is to say the thought of being put in check in some unknown way wouldn't keep you from doing something to someone or something?

And this aint freernment just realizing we may protect ourselves however without "whole" protection:

So there would be a funded military (the same one just made to stand with a central military command without the centralized government over the ppl outside it) by money printed out of thin air instead of a tax on we the ppl. That means we are so set to keep our more natural freedom on this land. This military would be filled with the type of patriots we the ppl could all agree with because they would be set to protect us and our then great land and not be in other countries doing anything unless those other countries are a dangerous threat to them or us. Of course this military would be as a government to all the paid vulanteers within itself, not to the rest of us. So we'd still be a freernment and not an anarchy by this. What's keeping the military from placing a centralized government over all in the U.S. would be honor with morals and ethics and respect to a contract by the majority of ppl through a president (which would be someone or something to represent all of the ppl's agreeance that arent in the military). A freernment has a democratic rebublic aspect over things for the "whole" or common interests.

So just picture every thing going on now outside the military without the law or rights inplaced by a centralized government. There would still be a U.S. postal service to etc, but those functions would work civilized without the law or rights. Who says they cant? And yep, in this one could then mail firearms and drugs if they so wanted to because the law that could be violated wont be. What's keeping the postal service from stealing your mail now? The fear of being caught that could lead many being fired and jailed? Or the fear that more and more folks wouldnt trust to pay over money to the postal service to mail things which would leave the postal service bankrupt?

Also since there is no law someone inside the postal service could steal your mail, knowing it aint like you're there to watch over them and do something about it if they stole your mail. So mailing would be at your on risk like it is now while the post office would know it would loose profit if mail is being stolen within its midst to where it would of course seek to build trust with the ppl by surely firing who it catches not being ethical on the job with all this tracing mail technology. And so do you see how ppl would be in check from all sides in society without the law to think not to do something to someone or something they wouldnt if there were the law?

In a freernment it would be like freely upholding of a part written and part unwritten code of conduct with reguards to others, but not like an upholding of the law that could fine you or put you in jail or put you on probation which would be then gone.

And dont be fooled, it's why I said "the law related aspect of the centralized government" and not just "the government", just so you dont argue on how can we as ppl function without, say, a U.S. postal service or etc since that's also apart of the government. Once we remove "the law" aspect it still wouldnt be referred to a "central" government even if there is still a U.S. postal service functioning, do you see? Remove the delusion of being usless or helpless without a "central" government ruling over you and then you will begin to see what I'm getting at. It's the control by "the law" that makes a government a government. Without a central one you're free to be your own government working with others just like you in that.

Now be honest to all this: What do you think would happen if all this coming into play? Would it be grand? Or would we be worst off then how we are now?

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Mabus]