When something is mandatory, are we always obliged to obey it as if it is an objective law, such as those found in nature? Is it a criminal matter, a civil one, a commercial one? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition 1910, something that is “mandatory” is essentially a “command” (see full definition in graphic above) from one party to another. This begs the question, are commands issued from one party to another actually “mandatory”, and under what circumstances are they or are they not mandatory?
Well, if slavery is outlawed the world over, and it is a basic natural right to direct one’s own life free from external interference, than anything that is “mandatory”, which we already established as a command, would need to contain some voluntary element to it in order for it to be lawful and in alignment with the basic natural right to self-direction free from external interference forced upon a natural person. The voluntary element that gives one the right to command another is the consent of the lesser party to submit to the issuing party in the form of a mutual agreement, for without consent to the agreement, it would be considered an attempt to gain unlawful power over another to control their lives, which is slavery and servitude, and therefore unlawful. A person is not obligated to enter into agreements and follow mandates that are supposedly mandatory if they do not wish to be in an agreement with that party. Acting upon a mandate is implied consent and proof that one is in an agreement with the party issuing the mandate, as it is a willful act of submission that declares the authority and/or leadership of the party issuing the mandate over the one obeying the mandate.
A choice is always there because we’re not slaves, even if we’ve gone so far into the illusion that the agreement is forever binding and impossible to get out of. However, for example, if one is in an agreement with a government and actively receiving benefits from them in the form of free healthcare and/or money, that is also a sign / symbol of consent implying their willingness to participate in the agreement. So one would need to back out of receiving benefits before saying no to a mandate to actively demonstrate their withdrawal from the original agreement. Some people also say that voting for government officials is implied consent to the system one is involved in, so consciously forfeiting one’s privilege to voting may also be an act of withdrawing consent from such a system.
These examples are obviously about government, but this applies to all agreements. One must withdraw from receiving benefits to demonstrate they are actually breaking the agreement. One cannot continue to both receive benefits from the agreement and also declare that the agreement is over. That’s like saying “I should still receive sex from my former wife after I voluntarily leave her for another woman”, “I should continue to receive payments and protection from my husband after I voluntarily leave him for another man”, and “I should continue to receive a paycheck from my former employer after I voluntarily leave the company for another job opportunity”.
I do not believe that getting out of some agreements are particularly easy, which is why, for example, divorce lawyers exist for this reason. Leaving an agreement often requires guidance from someone who has already done it in order for the process to be somewhat efficient, and to mitigate personal or professional risks, but it also requires a willingness to take risks, even if they are perceived risks, due to the external pressures one would undoubtedly receive for backing out of larger all encompassing agreements such as marriage or participation in civil government.
From my own personal experience, I think focusing on leaving “mass systems” (centralized public systems) for decentralized “private systems” for ourselves and our children is a great first step to leaving behind one sided agreements that can seem suffocating and inflexible. Mass centralized systems are frequently inflexible due to the masses of people that are filtered through them, so by necessity they need to be more generalized, while private systems are tailored to the individual and their needs, making them much more flexible, but also more expensive due to their focused and tailored nature. The wealthy prefer private systems like private schooling, private lessons, private tutoring, private banking, private travel, tailored clothing, and so forth, over mass government and corporate systems, because they are more flexible and provide better individual service. Agreements between private parties also ensures that the systems are serving the individual and their needs rather than the individual serving and consuming the products of mass public and corporate systems.
I think the mindset change from “mass” to “private” is an important intermediate step in anyone’s journey to self-ownership, and doesn’t rock any boats or get one into trouble with the government, because private systems are already well established, they just typically cost a lot more because one must forgo the benefits they would receive from a generalized mass governmental or corporate system (or even something as mundane as a horse riding school vs having private lessons for horse riding) for personalized attention and care.
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.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee: