If it is the Truth that sets us free, then we should fight for the Truth

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The natural law declared by *our **Founding Fathers should be our nation's Civil Purpose. When the "necessary tyranny" (a more perfect government) ruling over our nation takes action because of a "best interest," it is in violation of that Truth as by natural law such promiscuous and mysterious government is deemed invalid.
But we don't have to do anything as it is silly to think that any power can usurp the Truth. So, let's just keep right on letting them think that they are legitimate rulers.
In the meantime, let's thank the Lord for our true rulers, the young shepherds who, for the sake of those weak ones falling behind the flock, submit to their evil authority while shedding the Lord's blood against the sting of arrows, of bullets, and of swords.

*President Obama distances himself from our Founding Fathers by referring to them as "THE" founders or founding fathers. As amazing as it might seem, this tactic works to raise him up to their level in the eyes of the naive.
**Our Founding Fathers are greater than lessor founding fathers of other nations because they founded a nation on a Truth. Therefore, we should refer to them in the more formal terms as I have demonstrated.

[steve005]

How the UCC 1-308 works
.
UCC 1-308 is the remedy for any legal process under commercial law in the U.S.
.
§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
.
Since the Federal Corporation is just that, a corporation. It has no jurisdiction except with those that contract with it. Also see Congressional act of 1871 and USC Title 28, Part VI, chapter 176, sub chapter 176, subsection A, 3002 (15) “United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;
The states illegally contracted with the federal corporation by passing the Uniform Commercial Code making themselves as well as the unsuspecting people subject to the Federal corporation and also to the states in their new commercial capacities. Therefore all of the laws (color of law) are contractual commercial laws and the remedy is UCC 1-308. The Uniform Commercial Code makes all crimes commercial only by contract as per 27 CFR 72.11. The problem is that you have to get into higher courts before they will recognize the remedy. The remedy however should legally and always be give without delay on demand or claim. This of course is the problem. The misdemeanor courts do not have a clue as to where their jurisdiction comes from and neither do magistrates. You have to get in front of a court with a real judge that tries felonies. The courts try to string ya along under duress of threat hoping that you can be scared into a plea. But they in the end have to honor the remedy.
.
27 CFR 72.11 PART 72_DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY--Table of Contents
Subpart B_Definitions Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

Last note: The 14th amendment actually creates a lower class of “citizen of the United States” rather than the higher Citizenship of one of the several states of the union. The remedy provided to the 14th amendment, is an act by congress known as 15 United States Statute at Large, July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment took effect and also known as the "Expatriation Statute." This is your remedy to claim to be a natural Citizen of your state. This makes you a higher Citizen and no longer subject to the Article 4 loophole that also deprives you of your rights.


there is truth here, we need to learn more about this by trying it, but research and understand it first

[steve005]

Be sure to reserve your rights as mentioned on the page in the blue column "Beat the law. how to get diplomatic immunity" before using any of the processes below.



DISCHARGE ALL DEBTS WITH A BILL OF EXCHANGE

Never use the word pay, always use the word discharge.

It is impossible to pay a debt because there is no silver or gold coin. If you use the word pay, you could get yourself into trouble.

You can discharge any and all debts regardless of what they are by making a simple bill of exchange with example below. Simply print, copy, write or use a clear transparency with a color copier in red ink the example below at a 45 degree angle across any bill. Then notarize and sign and attach to the front, the example

Bill of Exchange below. If you have made a public NOTIFICATION OF RESERVATION OF RIGHTS UCC 1-308, it is a good idea to attach a copy of this to the back of everything.

Have copies made and certified by your Notary as true copies. Send it certified mail return receipt to whomever it is owed. If it is a mortgage, file a copy with your deed. Examples include the mortgage company, IRS, government, phone bills, credit cards, traffic citations, judgments’ and etc…

By using UCC 1-308, you are reserving all of your rights protected by the constitution. U S Constitution article 1, section 10 says that states can only use silver and gold as payment and that states cannot interfere with contracts.

HJR 192 says that … obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against publicpolicy and further states "All coins and currencies of the United Stated (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight.'
Since you have the right to pay in gold and silver, and since gold and silver currency does not exist, then you can make a bill of exchange that is payable upon its presentation, when gold and silver currency becomes available. This is very unlikely. The reason for using the phrase “Accepted as value / accepted for value…” is to say that you accept the value to the extent of what the Federal Reserve note is redeemable in gold and silver coin. Since the bill is valued in Federal Reserve notes and the Federal Reserve note is debt and not tied to the gold standard and cannot be redeemed for gold, the amount of gold and silver due upon its presentment is zero. The receiver of the Bill of Exchange can get it monetized at a discount rate at the Federal reserve. See USC TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER IX > § 343

If the clerk gives you trouble, just tell them to keep passing it up to their supervisor. Further, if they refuse the Bill of Exchange, the debt is discharged anyway according to HJR 192 and/or UCC § 3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an endorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.



this also

[Andrew-Austin]

The natural law declared by *our **Founding Fathers should be our nation's Civil Purpose. When the "necessary tyranny" (a more perfect government) ruling over our nation takes action because of a "best interest," it is in violation of that Truth as by natural law such promiscuous and mysterious government is deemed invalid.
But we don't have to do anything as it is silly to think that any power can usurp the Truth. So, let's just keep right on letting them think that they are legitimate rulers.
In the meantime, let's thank the Lord for our true rulers, the young shepherds who, for the sake of those weak ones falling behind the flock, submit to their evil authority while shedding the Lord's blood against the sting of arrows, of bullets, and of swords.

*President Obama distances himself from our Founding Fathers by referring to them as "THE" founders or founding fathers. As amazing as it might seem, this tactic works to raise him up to their level in the eyes of the naive.
**Our Founding Fathers are greater than lessor founding fathers of other nations because they founded a nation on a Truth. Therefore, we should refer to them in the more formal terms as I have demonstrated.

Should we also pray in the direction of the Washington and Jefferson monuments three times daily? Because I haven't been doing this lately, just been too busy going door to door handing out pocket constitutions and preaching the light to pagans. Sorry my founding fathers for I have sinned.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

there is truth here, we need to learn more about this by trying it, but research and understand it first

As a machine can't fix itself, a tyranny can't fix itself. The goal isn't to create a perfect, perpetual machine or a perfect, perpetual tyranny, but the machines and the "necessary tyranny" are a means to an end with that end being the expression of our American "Civil-Purpose."
Once again, liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery, equality for the sake of equality is no better than inequality, responsibility for the sake of responsibility is no better than irresponsibility, and the U.S. Constitution for the sake of the U.S. Constitution is no better than a dictatorship.
These are all just means to an end with that end being our Civil-Purpose.
Our purpose is to return by way of "American movement" to that which was declared a natural law by our Founding Fathers. This true movement exists outside of petty campaigns.

[Danke]

The Libertarian From Nazareth?

by Bill Butler


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html

Whatever one’s religious denomination, a careful, dispassionate analysis of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth compels the conclusion that Jesus was an uncompromising political libertarian. Libertarianism is of course not a faith or a creed, but rather a political theory for organizing civilized society. The written record provides strong, unambiguous support for the fact that Jesus was a political libertarian who very likely had an Austrian understanding of money.

Jesus believed in and taught the importance of the following principles: (1) all people must treat others as they would like to be treated (the "Golden Rule"); (2) man’s primary responsibility is to obey God and his conscience, not man-made positivist legal codes; and (3) that state actors who violate God’s will are morally responsible for their actions. Further, Jesus’ parables repeatedly recognize and implicitly support the ownership and responsible stewardship of private property.

Before going further, it is necessary to understand what most libertarians believe. Libertarians believe that people have all right, title and dominion over their own lives, liberty and property. Libertarians believe that all people or entities (organized groups of people) that infringe on others’ lives, liberty and property violate reason and/or Natural Law. To most libertarians, government is legitimate only insofar as it meets both of the following conditions: (1) government’s power derives from the voluntary "consent of the governed" (i.e., everyone governed contractually agrees on the laws and a method of enforcement that ensures due process prior to restraining any single individuals’ life, liberty or property rights); and (2) government’s enforcement methods do not indirectly violate any individual’s life, liberty or property rights, including the rights of those not party to the social contract.

The Golden Rule

Libertarian theory is different from all other political theories primarily because libertarians reject the notion that government is entitled to a monopoly on violence or otherwise has license to violate reason, Natural Law or the Golden Rule. Simply put, libertarians believe that the Golden Rule applies to everyone, including government and its agents. Thus, a government that deprives an individual of property without prior consent violates reason, Natural Law and the Golden Rule. This is the sine qua non of libertarianism.

Did Jesus believe that government was subject to the Golden Rule? Most clearly, yes. Jesus lived in first century Iudaea, a province of the Roman Empire. The governing authority was the Roman governor, Procurator Pontius Pilate, and his enforcement arm was the imperial Roman army. Jesus and his kinsmen thus lived under the occupation of a foreign army and foreign authority that, as imperial armies are wont to do, extracted tribute from the locals in the form of taxes.

Although Jesus’ interactions with the state are limited, those few interactions provide deep insight into his political views. Next to the legal positivist Pharisees, the most reviled and universally hated characters in the New Testament gospels are unquestionably the tax collectors. These are the locals who served the empire by collecting from their own people, often skimming or demanding their own personal tribute. Although Jesus is kind and generous to the tax collectors, including Zacchaeus and his own disciple Matthew, there is no question that he regards them as "sinners" who have violated God’s law and who must acknowledge their sins and repent. It is more than their collaboration with the Romans that makes these people sinners, for the gospels regard the dishonest tax collectors like Zacchaeus – those that line their own pockets with other people’s money – as the worst of these bad actors.

In the story of Zacchaeus, in consideration for forgiveness and redemption, Zacchaeus pledges half of his property (for abetting the Romans’ unjust taxation) and further pledges to return four times the money he has personally extorted (300% interest to the victims!).

The other state actors with whom Jesus fatefully comes into contact are of course the Roman soldiers that put him to death and Pontius Pilate.

As he is being executed, Jesus’ prayer for the soldiers shows that he believes they are morally responsible for their acts and in need of forgiveness:

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

This prayer is significant because, if Jesus believed that the soldiers were not morally responsible for carrying out immoral orders, he would see no need to seek forgiveness on their behalf. The record shows that the soldiers did not falsely accuse Jesus of blasphemy and sedition, the soldiers took no part in his trial before the Sanhedrin, the soldiers were not present when Pilate interrogated Jesus and they were not part of the crowd that demanded Jesus’ crucifixion. Yet Jesus’ prayer for them indicates that he believes they are nevertheless morally culpable for their actions.

Although Jesus seeks forgiveness because the soldiers "know not what they do," the soldiers’ lack of self-awareness clearly is not sufficient for their forgiveness. If it were, Jesus would not have to ask for it. Jesus’ prayer indicates that he believes that the soldiers, and by extension all state actors, are not without sin simply because they are unaware of the nature of their actions. He prays for the soldiers because they are too obtuse to recognize that their actions are evil. They receive forgiveness not because of their ignorance, but because Jesus seeks forgiveness for them.

What about Pilate? While Pilate attempts to "wash his hands" of any culpability for Jesus’ death, it is Pilate who imprisons Jesus, Pilate who interrogates Jesus upon his return from the Sanhedrin trial and it is Pilate’s Roman soldiers that actually carry out Jesus’ execution. Although the gospels are somewhat opaque on the Roman governor’s acts, omissions and motivations leading up to the crucifixion, it is clear, from Pilate’s wife’s warning – "have nothing to do with this innocent man" – that his participation in Jesus’ execution was unjust and immoral.

Jesus on Taxation and Sound Money

Statists who argue that Jesus supported taxation and/or the state ignore the many passages relating to sinful tax collectors and Jesus’ unjust execution by the Roman secular authority and instead point to the "Render unto Caesar" passage in Matthew, chapter 22 as evidence that Jesus was pro-state. In the story, Pharisees and other "spies" attempt to goad Jesus, a middle-class Jewish tradesman surrounded by Roman centurions, into foolishly fomenting a tax revolt.

The story begins with Jesus’ Pharisee inquisitor asking him whether or not the local Jews should pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. Jesus responds by asking him to produce a coin that Caesar would accept as a tax. After the Pharisee produces the coin, Jesus asks him whose image is on the coin and the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s." Jesus then recommends: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

While this story offers many wonderful, nuanced and insightful lessons, the story in no way offers moral support for taxation or the state. Taken in context, the story sheds much more light on Jesus’ views on the role of money and pragmatic, non-violent civil disobedience in response to overwhelming secular power.

To fully understand the story, one must know a little about money and currency in first century Iudaea. The story of the moneychangers at the Temple shows that more than one currency was in circulation at the time. History indicates that at least four currencies, Greek, Roman, Jewish and Tyrian, were used as media of exchange. Because only Jewish shekels and Tyrian coins were allowed in Temple ceremonies, the entrepreneurial moneychangers opened shop outside the Temple so that that the faithful could exchange their Roman denarii for Jewish shekels in order to offer their sacrifices and meaningfully participate in Temple ceremonies.

In this context, with at least four separate currencies circulating in Iudaea, Jesus’ response to the Pharisee: "Whose image is on the coin?" says a lot about what was going through his mind. Jesus wants to know what authority issued the coin; that is, who "made" it and who, therefore, accepts or demands it as currency?

When the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s," Jesus learns that the money in question is that of the occupying imperial forces, is not allowed in Temple ceremonies and carries the craven image of Caesar, declaring him a "God." Given this context, Jesus’ response, "[r]ender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s," in no way sanctions taxation as moral or justified. Nor do Jesus’ statements support capitulation to the occupying Roman army or secular authority. Jesus’ response actually evades the question entirely and instead provides a powerful statement in support of private property, for Jesus clearly recommends that, notwithstanding Caesar’s confiscatory and illegal taxation, Caesar remains entitled to the things that Caesar owns.

Jesus’ sage recommendation expresses contempt for the imperial currency and at the same time subtly and paradoxically suggests that cooperation and rebellion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The implication of the story, in the context of the voluminous anti-state and anti-tax gospel evidence, is that Jesus seems to be saying, "thank you for telling me that the coin is that of empire’s, minted from ore taken from seized mines and debased to satisfy the empire’s military ambitions; I say cooperate and pay the tribute the empire demands, as it is prudent and may save your life, but do not materially support the empire and the occupying forces by giving them anything of real value; things of real value, like shekels, belong to God."

Jesus’ recommendation thus gives rise to the inference that he believed the Jews living under Roman occupation should pay their taxes in overvalued denarii, as the Romans likely demanded, and hold and perhaps shield their wealth in the undervalued shekel and Tyrian money. This position reflects both libertarian political views as well as a recognition of Gresham's Law, according to which government-decreed bad money drives undervalued good money out of circulation.

The Parables and Jesus’ View of Property and Contract

A cursory review of Jesus’ teachings would seem to indicate that he did not think highly of property or property rights. From the Sermon on the Mount to the conversation with the young rich man whom Jesus instructs to sell all his possessions, Jesus repeatedly decries the evils of worshiping things instead of God. For Jesus, it seems a man’s wealth is not only irrelevant to how God views him, the two are inversely related as can be seen his statement:

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24.

Furthermore, Jesus and his followers lived a kind of communal existence, sharing their food with one person responsible for the group’s money. Based on this evidence alone, one might conclude that Jesus had little understanding of or regard for private property.

But to draw broad conclusions from this limited evidence is to make a hasty generalization, for the core of Jesus’ teaching is found in the parables and the parables are replete with spiritual lessons drawn from material and commercial examples, including examples relating to thrift, entrepreneurship, the productive use of capital, negotiation of debts, respect for others’ property, responsible stewardship of one’s own private property and freedom of contract.

In the universe of the Jesus’ teachings, the anti-property lessons are not so much anti-property as they are a warning to people who, in Jesus’ view, have misplaced priorities, people who mistakenly believe that ownership of private property and accumulation of wealth is an end it itself rather than a means to a higher end. The weight of Jesus’ teaching in fact shows that Jesus highly regarded private property rights and, in order to illustrate the proper relationship between God and man, repeatedly analogized the responsible use and stewardship of private property to the responsible use and stewardship of life received from God.

Jesus, Victimless Crimes and Self-Defense

Jesus was and is infamous for socializing and dining with prostitutes and other "sinners." While Jesus clearly did not sanction prostitution, his interaction and defense of prostitutes and adulterers illuminates his political worldview. Jesus’ lessons indicate that he believed that prostitution, adultery and other "victimless" crimes, although grievous sins, were matters of conscience that could only be solved through the internal action of the sinner.

In John, chapter 8, the Pharisees bring to Jesus an adulterous woman who, by some accounts, was a prostitute and suggest that she be stoned to death in accordance with Old Testament law. Jesus stops the stoning and protects the woman by stating: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As the crowd slips away and no accusers are left to "condemn" the woman, Jesus instructs her to go and "sin no more."

Unlike the tax collectors who must atone by paying back what they have taken, Jesus recognizes that the woman’s sins are a matter of internal conscience. Jesus instructs the Pharisees that want to stone the woman to examine their own consciences and correct their own sins before seeking judgment against the woman who has harmed no one but herself. Jesus thus shows that he does not believe that the woman’s crime can legitimately or practically be enforced by anyone other than the woman.

Here it is important to note that libertarianism is not synonymous with libertinism. While some libertarians find nothing at all morally wrong with prostitution, other libertarians (like Jesus) believe it is morally wrong but understand that because it is a victimless crime the state has no legitimate role in enforcing it. Prostitution, like drug use and abuse, directly harms only the voluntary participant. Jesus clearly understood and believed this principle. Jesus sought to eradicate prostitution not through state or collective action, but through individual self-examination and counsel.

With regard to self-defense, Jesus did not use violence against those who aggressed against him and advocated against using violence at all. Although Jesus laid down his life for a particular purpose and although there is some authority in his teachings for the use of force in self-defense, the weight of evidence suggests that Jesus was a pacifist.

The question then is whether Jesus can at the same time be a pacifist and a libertarian. In the big tent of libertarianism, he can. Although libertarians believe that individuals have the right to use violence commensurate with the threat in defense of life, liberty or property, they do not believe that people have an obligation use violence to protect themselves or others. As such, Jesus was a simply libertarian who likely believed that the use of force was never legitimate.

Conclusion

Christ's words and actions reflect the libertarian commitment to the rights of person and property, and hint at the Austrian understanding of money. Jesus taught the Golden Rule and believed all individuals, including state actors, must observe it and must make reparations for violating it. He believed that taxation was theft and a violation of individual private property rights. He believed in wise, calculated, and non-violent civil disobedience. He believed that neither the state nor any collective group has a role in punishing or enforcing victimless crimes. Finally, he believed in sound money. One does not have to accept any particular Christian creed to know that politically, Jesus was a libertarian.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Should we also pray in the direction of the Washington and Jefferson monuments three times daily? Because I haven't been doing this lately, just been too busy going door to door handing out pocket constitutions and preaching the light to pagans. Sorry my founding fathers for I have sinned.

How we refer to our Founding Fathers is up to us. As modern sophisticates think of themselves as their superiors and thus refer to them disrespectfully, it is up to those of us who know and understand the self evident and unalienable Truth to challenge such naive and shallow opinions.
And just how are you fighting? Have you forfeited the counterfeit granted to you by the Aristocracy?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Libertarian From Nazareth?

by Bill Butler


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html

Whatever one’s religious denomination, a careful, dispassionate analysis of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth compels the conclusion that Jesus was an uncompromising political libertarian. Libertarianism is of course not a faith or a creed, but rather a political theory for organizing civilized society. The written record provides strong, unambiguous support for the fact that Jesus was a political libertarian who very likely had an Austrian understanding of money.

Jesus believed in and taught the importance of the following principles: (1) all people must treat others as they would like to be treated (the "Golden Rule"); (2) man’s primary responsibility is to obey God and his conscience, not man-made positivist legal codes; and (3) that state actors who violate God’s will are morally responsible for their actions. Further, Jesus’ parables repeatedly recognize and implicitly support the ownership and responsible stewardship of private property.

Before going further, it is necessary to understand what most libertarians believe. Libertarians believe that people have all right, title and dominion over their own lives, liberty and property. Libertarians believe that all people or entities (organized groups of people) that infringe on others’ lives, liberty and property violate reason and/or Natural Law. To most libertarians, government is legitimate only insofar as it meets both of the following conditions: (1) government’s power derives from the voluntary "consent of the governed" (i.e., everyone governed contractually agrees on the laws and a method of enforcement that ensures due process prior to restraining any single individuals’ life, liberty or property rights); and (2) government’s enforcement methods do not indirectly violate any individual’s life, liberty or property rights, including the rights of those not party to the social contract.

The Golden Rule

Libertarian theory is different from all other political theories primarily because libertarians reject the notion that government is entitled to a monopoly on violence or otherwise has license to violate reason, Natural Law or the Golden Rule. Simply put, libertarians believe that the Golden Rule applies to everyone, including government and its agents. Thus, a government that deprives an individual of property without prior consent violates reason, Natural Law and the Golden Rule. This is the sine qua non of libertarianism.

Did Jesus believe that government was subject to the Golden Rule? Most clearly, yes. Jesus lived in first century Iudaea, a province of the Roman Empire. The governing authority was the Roman governor, Procurator Pontius Pilate, and his enforcement arm was the imperial Roman army. Jesus and his kinsmen thus lived under the occupation of a foreign army and foreign authority that, as imperial armies are wont to do, extracted tribute from the locals in the form of taxes.

Although Jesus’ interactions with the state are limited, those few interactions provide deep insight into his political views. Next to the legal positivist Pharisees, the most reviled and universally hated characters in the New Testament gospels are unquestionably the tax collectors. These are the locals who served the empire by collecting from their own people, often skimming or demanding their own personal tribute. Although Jesus is kind and generous to the tax collectors, including Zacchaeus and his own disciple Matthew, there is no question that he regards them as "sinners" who have violated God’s law and who must acknowledge their sins and repent. It is more than their collaboration with the Romans that makes these people sinners, for the gospels regard the dishonest tax collectors like Zacchaeus – those that line their own pockets with other people’s money – as the worst of these bad actors.

In the story of Zacchaeus, in consideration for forgiveness and redemption, Zacchaeus pledges half of his property (for abetting the Romans’ unjust taxation) and further pledges to return four times the money he has personally extorted (300% interest to the victims!).

The other state actors with whom Jesus fatefully comes into contact are of course the Roman soldiers that put him to death and Pontius Pilate.

As he is being executed, Jesus’ prayer for the soldiers shows that he believes they are morally responsible for their acts and in need of forgiveness:

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

This prayer is significant because, if Jesus believed that the soldiers were not morally responsible for carrying out immoral orders, he would see no need to seek forgiveness on their behalf. The record shows that the soldiers did not falsely accuse Jesus of blasphemy and sedition, the soldiers took no part in his trial before the Sanhedrin, the soldiers were not present when Pilate interrogated Jesus and they were not part of the crowd that demanded Jesus’ crucifixion. Yet Jesus’ prayer for them indicates that he believes they are nevertheless morally culpable for their actions.

Although Jesus seeks forgiveness because the soldiers "know not what they do," the soldiers’ lack of self-awareness clearly is not sufficient for their forgiveness. If it were, Jesus would not have to ask for it. Jesus’ prayer indicates that he believes that the soldiers, and by extension all state actors, are not without sin simply because they are unaware of the nature of their actions. He prays for the soldiers because they are too obtuse to recognize that their actions are evil. They receive forgiveness not because of their ignorance, but because Jesus seeks forgiveness for them.

What about Pilate? While Pilate attempts to "wash his hands" of any culpability for Jesus’ death, it is Pilate who imprisons Jesus, Pilate who interrogates Jesus upon his return from the Sanhedrin trial and it is Pilate’s Roman soldiers that actually carry out Jesus’ execution. Although the gospels are somewhat opaque on the Roman governor’s acts, omissions and motivations leading up to the crucifixion, it is clear, from Pilate’s wife’s warning – "have nothing to do with this innocent man" – that his participation in Jesus’ execution was unjust and immoral.

Jesus on Taxation and Sound Money

Statists who argue that Jesus supported taxation and/or the state ignore the many passages relating to sinful tax collectors and Jesus’ unjust execution by the Roman secular authority and instead point to the "Render unto Caesar" passage in Matthew, chapter 22 as evidence that Jesus was pro-state. In the story, Pharisees and other "spies" attempt to goad Jesus, a middle-class Jewish tradesman surrounded by Roman centurions, into foolishly fomenting a tax revolt.

The story begins with Jesus’ Pharisee inquisitor asking him whether or not the local Jews should pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. Jesus responds by asking him to produce a coin that Caesar would accept as a tax. After the Pharisee produces the coin, Jesus asks him whose image is on the coin and the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s." Jesus then recommends: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

While this story offers many wonderful, nuanced and insightful lessons, the story in no way offers moral support for taxation or the state. Taken in context, the story sheds much more light on Jesus’ views on the role of money and pragmatic, non-violent civil disobedience in response to overwhelming secular power.

To fully understand the story, one must know a little about money and currency in first century Iudaea. The story of the moneychangers at the Temple shows that more than one currency was in circulation at the time. History indicates that at least four currencies, Greek, Roman, Jewish and Tyrian, were used as media of exchange. Because only Jewish shekels and Tyrian coins were allowed in Temple ceremonies, the entrepreneurial moneychangers opened shop outside the Temple so that that the faithful could exchange their Roman denarii for Jewish shekels in order to offer their sacrifices and meaningfully participate in Temple ceremonies.

In this context, with at least four separate currencies circulating in Iudaea, Jesus’ response to the Pharisee: "Whose image is on the coin?" says a lot about what was going through his mind. Jesus wants to know what authority issued the coin; that is, who "made" it and who, therefore, accepts or demands it as currency?

When the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s," Jesus learns that the money in question is that of the occupying imperial forces, is not allowed in Temple ceremonies and carries the craven image of Caesar, declaring him a "God." Given this context, Jesus’ response, "[r]ender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s," in no way sanctions taxation as moral or justified. Nor do Jesus’ statements support capitulation to the occupying Roman army or secular authority. Jesus’ response actually evades the question entirely and instead provides a powerful statement in support of private property, for Jesus clearly recommends that, notwithstanding Caesar’s confiscatory and illegal taxation, Caesar remains entitled to the things that Caesar owns.

Jesus’ sage recommendation expresses contempt for the imperial currency and at the same time subtly and paradoxically suggests that cooperation and rebellion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The implication of the story, in the context of the voluminous anti-state and anti-tax gospel evidence, is that Jesus seems to be saying, "thank you for telling me that the coin is that of empire’s, minted from ore taken from seized mines and debased to satisfy the empire’s military ambitions; I say cooperate and pay the tribute the empire demands, as it is prudent and may save your life, but do not materially support the empire and the occupying forces by giving them anything of real value; things of real value, like shekels, belong to God."

Jesus’ recommendation thus gives rise to the inference that he believed the Jews living under Roman occupation should pay their taxes in overvalued denarii, as the Romans likely demanded, and hold and perhaps shield their wealth in the undervalued shekel and Tyrian money. This position reflects both libertarian political views as well as a recognition of Gresham's Law, according to which government-decreed bad money drives undervalued good money out of circulation.

The Parables and Jesus’ View of Property and Contract

A cursory review of Jesus’ teachings would seem to indicate that he did not think highly of property or property rights. From the Sermon on the Mount to the conversation with the young rich man whom Jesus instructs to sell all his possessions, Jesus repeatedly decries the evils of worshiping things instead of God. For Jesus, it seems a man’s wealth is not only irrelevant to how God views him, the two are inversely related as can be seen his statement:

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24.

Furthermore, Jesus and his followers lived a kind of communal existence, sharing their food with one person responsible for the group’s money. Based on this evidence alone, one might conclude that Jesus had little understanding of or regard for private property.

But to draw broad conclusions from this limited evidence is to make a hasty generalization, for the core of Jesus’ teaching is found in the parables and the parables are replete with spiritual lessons drawn from material and commercial examples, including examples relating to thrift, entrepreneurship, the productive use of capital, negotiation of debts, respect for others’ property, responsible stewardship of one’s own private property and freedom of contract.

In the universe of the Jesus’ teachings, the anti-property lessons are not so much anti-property as they are a warning to people who, in Jesus’ view, have misplaced priorities, people who mistakenly believe that ownership of private property and accumulation of wealth is an end it itself rather than a means to a higher end. The weight of Jesus’ teaching in fact shows that Jesus highly regarded private property rights and, in order to illustrate the proper relationship between God and man, repeatedly analogized the responsible use and stewardship of private property to the responsible use and stewardship of life received from God.

Jesus, Victimless Crimes and Self-Defense

Jesus was and is infamous for socializing and dining with prostitutes and other "sinners." While Jesus clearly did not sanction prostitution, his interaction and defense of prostitutes and adulterers illuminates his political worldview. Jesus’ lessons indicate that he believed that prostitution, adultery and other "victimless" crimes, although grievous sins, were matters of conscience that could only be solved through the internal action of the sinner.

In John, chapter 8, the Pharisees bring to Jesus an adulterous woman who, by some accounts, was a prostitute and suggest that she be stoned to death in accordance with Old Testament law. Jesus stops the stoning and protects the woman by stating: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As the crowd slips away and no accusers are left to "condemn" the woman, Jesus instructs her to go and "sin no more."

Unlike the tax collectors who must atone by paying back what they have taken, Jesus recognizes that the woman’s sins are a matter of internal conscience. Jesus instructs the Pharisees that want to stone the woman to examine their own consciences and correct their own sins before seeking judgment against the woman who has harmed no one but herself. Jesus thus shows that he does not believe that the woman’s crime can legitimately or practically be enforced by anyone other than the woman.

Here it is important to note that libertarianism is not synonymous with libertinism. While some libertarians find nothing at all morally wrong with prostitution, other libertarians (like Jesus) believe it is morally wrong but understand that because it is a victimless crime the state has no legitimate role in enforcing it. Prostitution, like drug use and abuse, directly harms only the voluntary participant. Jesus clearly understood and believed this principle. Jesus sought to eradicate prostitution not through state or collective action, but through individual self-examination and counsel.

With regard to self-defense, Jesus did not use violence against those who aggressed against him and advocated against using violence at all. Although Jesus laid down his life for a particular purpose and although there is some authority in his teachings for the use of force in self-defense, the weight of evidence suggests that Jesus was a pacifist.

The question then is whether Jesus can at the same time be a pacifist and a libertarian. In the big tent of libertarianism, he can. Although libertarians believe that individuals have the right to use violence commensurate with the threat in defense of life, liberty or property, they do not believe that people have an obligation use violence to protect themselves or others. As such, Jesus was a simply libertarian who likely believed that the use of force was never legitimate.

Conclusion

Christ's words and actions reflect the libertarian commitment to the rights of person and property, and hint at the Austrian understanding of money. Jesus taught the Golden Rule and believed all individuals, including state actors, must observe it and must make reparations for violating it. He believed that taxation was theft and a violation of individual private property rights. He believed in wise, calculated, and non-violent civil disobedience. He believed that neither the state nor any collective group has a role in punishing or enforcing victimless crimes. Finally, he believed in sound money. One does not have to accept any particular Christian creed to know that politically, Jesus was a libertarian.

If you believe Christ was only a man, then I might agree with you. If you believe that He was the Almighty, then I don't agree.
There are only a few certain things and one of them was that the Almighty witnessed how his mother was treated like a whore. Ironically, when Jesus began to minister later on, he wasn't allowed to touch whores as they were treated like dogs. So, He preached the Gospel to them instead while by Jewish law He was only allowed to discuss the old testament with His disciples.
This is all very unfathomable and is beside the point.