At the heart of our relationship not just with the state, but with many of our most powerful social, cultural, and even religious norms, lies a foundational premise so widely accepted it is rarely questioned: the social contract. We are told this is the legitimate basis for our interactions, an implicit agreement for the sake of security and order. Yet, when we place this contract under the lens of reason, its very foundation crumbles, revealing not a voluntary pact but a sovereign fraud, a trick of coercion masquerading as consent. The supposed “authority” of these civilizational norms is often nothing more than power, a distinction that changes everything.
Positive law consists of man-made rules and statutes enacted by governing bodies, which derive their claimed authority from social or political institutions rather than from inherent moral principles. These laws are subject to change, expansion, and corruption, and they often serve to enforce compliance and consolidate control rather than uphold an individual’s fundamental natural rights.
The primary fraud is one of original consent. No one is presented with the terms of this contract at birth and asked to sign. We are born into a pre-existing system—a one-size-fits-all trap that seizes each child at the moment of their birth. This trap comes with millions of positive laws already written, and countless new ones that magically appear as these civilizational norms expand, none of which were ever agreed upon or negotiated by the individual. Our subsequent compliance and interactions within these norms are then taken as “implied consent,” a convenient fiction for those who hold power, as it sidesteps the rigorous requirements of a truly valid agreement: full disclosure, a genuine option to decline, and the explicit ability to voluntarily opt out free from retribution.
Negative law refers to the universal, pre-existing principles of justice and individual rights—such as the right to life, liberty, and property—that are inherent in nature and reason, not created by man. Its purpose is to define and protect the boundaries within which humans may act free from interference from others.
This initial deception inverts the very purpose of law. In a system grounded in reason and individual rights, man-made positive laws are meant to be servants to the negative laws of nature—the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property that exist prior to any government. The sole legitimate function of a governing body is to protect these pre-existing rights. Instead, we witness the opposite: our natural rights are treated as privileges to be regulated, taxed, and revoked by a system of positive laws that now demand our full servitude.
Abductive reasoning is the creative, intuitive process of forming the most plausible hypothesis to explain observed phenomena, serving as the essential first step in diagnosis and truth discovery. It generates the foundational premises that deductive reasoning must then rigorously test for logical coherence and alignment with reality.
Deductive rigidity refers to the strict application of fixed premises to reach conclusions, often stifling inquiry by treating those premises as unchallengeable sacred cows, leading to inflexible and potentially flawed outcomes.
This inversion is not just political; it is a profound logical and philosophical error. It mirrors a mind where rigid deductive reasoning (deductive rigidity) suffocates the creative, intuitive leaps of abductive logic. A healthy system allows creativity to flourish, using deduction as a tool to test and ground new ideas in reality. The fraudulent state, however, creates a rigid “Matrix” of rules and unchallengeable premises, and demands that all human creativity function only within its pre-approved channels. This enforces stagnation, transforming a tool for order (deductive reasoning) into a cage for the human spirit.
John Locke’s law of reason refers to a universal moral code discoverable through rational thought, guiding individuals towards understanding principles of justice, cooperation, and self-preservation. It’s essentially a natural law accessible to all capable of logical reasoning, independent of divine revelation or societal dictates.
The most insidious consequence of this fraudulent foundation is the flipping of the burden of proof. Because the system’s legitimacy is the unquestioned first assumption, any action that violates its decrees is presumed to be wrong. The state does not need to prove its moral authority to make a law; it only needs to prove that you broke it. An accusation from the state may be correct that a positive law was violated, but if that law is not rooted in what John Locke called the law of reason, it is an exercise of illegitimate power masquerading as authority. The accusation itself becomes a form of slander against a free individual, a libel that goes unrecognized within an empire of lies.
Consider the analogy of a marriage to a narcissist who conceals their morally bankrupt character behind a facade of reason and charm. The agreement to marry is fraudulent because one party never had access to the true terms of the contract—the character of their partner. Add to this a vow of “until death do us part,” a clause that removes the option to exit, which is the hallmark of any valid agreement, and the entire contract is a sham. The marriage is essentially a trap built on deceit, and any consent given was not truly informed. This is the nature of our relationship with any institution or civilizational norm that hides its coercive nature behind the language of authority and public good, especially since we weren’t even given the choice to marry them—it was as free as an arranged marriage is free.
This widespread compliance to a pervasively fraudulent agreement is not surprising, as civilization itself holds a monopoly on the terms of the agreement. There are no genuine alternatives presented; we are forced to go along with the established order simply to have any semblance of freedom, choice, and a functioning life. Try to create a truly voluntary alternative, and it will be marginalized by the system’s gatekeepers. If it gains any real traction, it will be crushed by force. Therefore, the ‘consent’ many give is extracted under the ultimate duress: the absence of choice. It is an agreement made out of indoctrination and the desperate need for perceived security in a system designed to be the only option. This does not make the fraudulent contract valid; it merely demonstrates the power of conditioning and the tragic willingness of individuals to trade their autonomy for a hollow promise of safety within a gilded cage.
The Garden of Eden metaphor offers a powerful lens for this principle. God’s warning that Adam and Eve will “surely die” is not a threat, but a statement of metaphysical cause and effect. It reveals what happens when the first agreement is predicated on a lie of omission—on hidden terms and a reversed burden of proof. By partaking, they adopt a new operational logic for their reality, one where the foundational premise is fraudulent. Death is the natural, logical conclusion of a system now built on this first lie. In such a reality, the world itself begins to select for and empower further deception, leading inevitably toward decay and disintegration.
Conversely, when that initial fraudulent agreement is broken and replaced by one founded on truth, the very physics of cause and effect in human affairs begins to shift. Actions rooted in reality produce sustainable, positive outcomes. Trust, value creation, and genuine cooperation become the default currency of interaction, creating a virtuous cycle that selects for and empowers further truth. In such a system, where the foundational principle is alignment with what is, the logical outcome is no longer a slow march toward decay, but the flourishing of abundant life. Death ceases to be the inevitable conclusion because the system itself is structured to promote growth, integration, vitality, and therefore abundant life; everything selects for and towards more life.
The use of force, state-sanctioned or otherwise, as a foundational premise for authority is a powerful spell that keeps people asleep. This force acts as the electrified fence of the social contract’s matrix, delivering punishment to those who wander outside its prescribed boundaries while rewarding those who comply with the illusion of stability. Sleeping Beauty, a metaphor for the populace, will never awaken from this slumber until the intoxicating enchantment—granting unearned moral superiority to the rulers and instilling paralyzing fear in the ruled—is finally broken. The illusion of authority is not maintained by consent, but by the constant, looming threat of the sword for those who dare to question it; it’s inherent in the system itself.
To break this spell, one must first understand the fundamental difference between earned authority and the unearned power the state actually wields. Authority is the right to direct, a right that must be earned through reason, moral consistency, and competence. It is an internal recognition of legitimacy, voluntarily granted by an individual who follows not out of fear, but out of respect for demonstrable truth and wisdom. Power, conversely, is simply the ability to compel action. When divorced from authority, it degenerates into raw coercion—external, reliant on fear, and requiring constant threat. One can possess authority without power, as a respected philosopher does, or wield power without authority, as the state does. The theoretical ideal is a union where legitimate power serves only to defend the rights established by a reason-based authority. The sovereign fraud, then, is the state’s masterful illusion: dressing its raw, unearned power in the borrowed robes of genuine authority to command a legitimacy it has never earned.
This exposes the moral chasm between two types of force. The state’s force is aggressive; it is initiated to control behavior and enforce compliance with its arbitrary, non-consensual rules. It serves the system. Legitimate force, however, is defensive. It is never initiated, only used in response to aggression to protect one’s rights. Its purpose is corrective and restorative, designed to realign a subjective perception with objective reality by disrupting violent illusions. It is a tool of restoration applied with precision to shatter deception and conform a hostile actor to the unyielding contours of individual rights. It serves truth, not a system.
Breaking this spell does not require a call to arms, but a revolution in perception. It is the moment an individual recognizes they have been married to a narcissist—seeing the civilization’s performance of benevolent authority for the manipulative, morally bankrupt fraud it truly is. This awakening begins with the courageous refusal to grant moral sanction to the system’s foundational lie, a personal rejection of the poisoned fruit offered in the Garden. By refusing to operate within a reality whose first premise guarantees decay, one chooses to build on a foundation of truth, which alone leads to life. The first step toward reclaiming true liberty is to see ‘authority’ for what it is—mere power—and to recognize the so-called social contract as the most pervasive fraud in human history. True sovereignty begins when we stop seeking external permission to be free.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1qmevs7evjxx2f3asapytt8jv8vt0et5q0tkct32
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
