Sovereignty “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “sovereignty” are taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition) and Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition):

 

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations [story on the Const. 207].

  2. Abstractly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people, but these powers are generally exercised by delegation

  3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers; namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary; the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old; the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad; and the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.

  4. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation (q.v.) and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state [(q.v.) 2 Dall. 471; and vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. 208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Reper. h.t.].

 

(Black’s)

The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent [See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455, 1 L. Ed. 440; Union Bank v. Hill, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 325; Moore v. Shaw, 17 Cal. 218, 79 Am. Dec. 123].

  • “The feeling of the nation has its correlate in the sovereignty of the nation. Political sovereignty is the assertion of the self-determinate will of the organic people, and in this there is the manifestation of its freedom. It is in and through the determination of its sovereignty that the order of the nation is constituted and maintained.” [Mulford, Nation, p. 129]

  • “If a determinate human superior, not in a habit of obedience to a like superior, receive habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society, and the society (including the superior) is a society political and independent.” [Aust. Jur.]

Sovereign “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “sovereign” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

A ruler; a king; the supreme power in a government.

A gold coin of Great Britain, equivalent in value to one pound.

  • “To the Constitution of the United States the term sovereign is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘sovereign’ people of the United States: But, serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.” Chrisholm v. Georgia (US) [2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455].

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers.
  2. In the United States the sovereignty reside in the body of the people [Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282]
  3. English law: The name of the gold coin of Great Britain of the value of one pound sterling.

 

(Black’s)

A chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler with limited power.

In English law, a gold coin of Great Britain, of the value of a pound sterling.

  • Sovereign people: A term familiarly used to describe the political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their collegiate capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives [see Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404, 15 L. Ed. 691].
  • Sovereign power: That power in a state to which none other is superior or equal, and which includes all the specific powers which are necessary to accomplish the legitimate ends and purposes of government [see Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 309; Donnelly v. Decker; 58 Wis. 461, 17 N.W. 389, 46 Am. Rep. 637; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 81].
  • Sovereign right: A right which the state alone, or some of its governmental agencies, can possess, and which it possesses in the character of a sovereign, for the common benefit, and to enable it to carry out its proper functions; distinguished from such “proprietary” rights as a state, like any private person, may have in property or demands which it owns [see St. Paul v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. 45 Minn. 387, 48 N.W. 17].
  • Sovereign states: States whose subjects or citizens are in the habit of obedience to them, and which are not themselves subject to any other (or paramount) state in any respect. The state is said to be semi-sovereign only, and not sovereign, when in any respect or respects it is liable to be controlled (like certain of the states in India) by a paramount government (e.g. by the British empire). Brown [says], “In the intercourse of nations, certain states have a position of entire independence of others, and can perform all those acts which it is possible for any state to perform in this particular sphere. These same states have also entire power of self-government; that is, of independence upon all other states as far as their own territory and citizens not living abroad are concerned. No foreign power or law can have control except by convention. This power of independent action in external and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.” [Wools. Pol. Science, I. 204].

 

(Webster’s)

SOVEREIGN, a. suv’eran. [We retain this babarous orthography from the Norman sovereign. The true spelling would be suveran from the L. supernes, superus.]

1. Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe.
2. Supreme; superior to all others; chief. God is the sovereign good of all who love and obey him.
3. Supremely efficacious; superior to all others; predominant; effectual; as a sovereign remedy.
4. Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation; as sovereign authority.

SOVEREIGN, n. suv’eran.

1. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control. Some earthly princes, kings and emperors are sovereigns in their dominions.
2. A supreme magistrate; a king.
3. A gold coin of England, value 20s or $4.44

Reborn in Canada

[Download a PDF of this article]

Government surveillance dragnets are now ubiquitous in America, so only attempting to maintain what semblance of individual privacy you have left might be not enough. While you may be able to present yourself out in public under an assumed name, this is insufficient if you are trying to perform some task that necessarily requires you to go on a paper trip first. Surreptitiously expatriating to a foreign country is another option to consider if you are truly serious about evading the invasive gaze of Big Brother.

 

 

According to the author, there are more legal identity documents that Canadians must have, even on their person, compared to Americans. As he describes it:

 

“Most of your identification will be issued by the provincial government…[f]ederally issued identification in Canada consists of the Canadian passport and the vital social insurance card. Provincially issued identification consists of birth certificates, medical identity cards, driver’s licenses and provincial identity cards…[s]o just about every Canadian carries proof of citizenship with him in his wallet in two forms: proof of birth in Canada and the social insurance card…[a] person arrested or detained by police in Canada with only a provincial identity card and driver’s license will almost always be asked about their citizenship. In the United States this would be rare unless you are Hispanic or speak with a foreign accent.”

 

Gee, I never thought of Canada as a police state before; I had always thought of it as an eccentric, albeit less alcoholically inclined, version of Alaska.

Acquiring originally generated Canadian ID, like on any well-handled paper trip, requires the use of a mail drop through which to correspond with the government. Sands appears to prefer using the infant identity method for getting a birth certificate, provided you narrow your pool to those children who were born in one province, yet, who died in another. Naturally, this could be a problem should Canadian bureaucrats ever decide to cross-reference their birth and death records of such infants, but Sands just shrugs it off as not being a current problem because it’s not being done yet (keep in mind that this book was written back in 1999).

Next, it it suggested that secondary identification be gotten before continuing onward with the rest of the primary documents. Library, voter registration, and universal medical insurance cards are all useful in “proving” residency. Supposedly, it is possible to acquire all these, armed only with the knowledge of what is on the birth certificate, but I am greatly skeptical of Sand’s claim that if any of the forms for these documents requires you to give a social insurance number (SIN), then you should just fabricate one out of thin air.

When it comes to getting the provincial identity card and a driver’s license, Sands recommends getting the former one first. He says:

 

“The procedure is simple, if you have prepared in advance. In Canada you will be asked for one piece of primary identification and one secondary piece. The primary piece is your birth certificate. The secondary piece can be any identification with your signature on it. The biggest challenge is to review the various facts of your new identity. Write it all out on a sheet of paper: birthdate, birthplace, parents’ birthdates, mother’s maiden name, etc. When you go for the provincial identity card, the clerk will take your identification, ask you a few questions as to address and other personal data, and take your photograph. In most provinces, your card is mailed to you a few weeks later.”

 

With regard to the latter piece of government-issued identification, Sands says they are similar for the provincial identity card; for instance, he claims that Alberta demands a proof of provincial residency, such as a lease agreement or mortgage.

After jumping through some more hurdles, you are then ready to apply for the coveted social insurance card. Although it is technically possible to apply for a SIN by mail, more likely than not the intrepid paper-tripper will have to show up in person for an interview. Here, whatever acting skills you have honed while using your earlier Level One IDs becomes pivotal in convincing the interviewing bureaucrat of your legend.

Applying for a Canadian passport is initially just a matter of filling out yet another form, but there is a catch. Just as with applying for US passports, there must be a witness or guarantor who is willing to vouch for your authenticity. Either that, or you must file a Declaration in Lieu of Guarantor, which automatically triggers an investigation by the passport office. Needless to say, inviting government investigations of your paper trip, or playing around with the technicalities of getting a work visa to the United States, pales in comparison to simply getting an individual to vouch for you, however, this requires you to once again rely upon your acting skills.

There are some areas that need to be shored up during the course of “hardening” your alternate Canadian identity. Sands recommends giving yourself an employment reference through the assistance of a secretarial service. Although a diploma mill could be used, it might be better to “creatively” apply as a transfer student to a Canadian university in your field of study as if you were in your junior or senior year. Opening a bank account should be a snap once you have all your primary identification, and the debit card will serve as another piece of supporting legal ID. Getting credit cards, telephone service, and even renting an apartment should be similarly easy once you have a company front available as an “employer reference.”

At this juncture, I should mention briefly about the Canadian secret police. They are known as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and because there is no oversight of this agency by any other branch of government, their powers are quite extensive. Sands describes their behavior thusly:

 

“CSIS could start investigations of any group or individual if they felt a person or group threatened national security…[e]ssentially, this allows CSIS to start files on anyone at any time…[p]erhaps the most privacy destroying aspect of CSIS is its reaching of ‘agreements of principle’ with many Canadian provincial governments. These agreements in principle allow CSIS officers access to data on individuals held by the province. As pointed out previously, the amount of data is massive. Driver records, health records, tax data, etc., are all held by the province. Most provinces allow CSIS to troll through these databanks at will.”

 

Because CSIS is civilian run and technically not “law enforcement,” like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the latitude of what they can get away with is literally enormous. Imagine, if you will, absolutely no official limits placed upon the FBI; CSIS is literally a snitch’s dream come true – all the privacy invasion without the threat of incarceration.

Although I can appreciate the wisdom of the “two-wallet” method in avoiding the need to carry two sets of ID in different names while crossing the border, it still avoids the crux of the issue regarding paper-tripping itself. If you cannot rent a private mail box or purchase the assistance of a mail-receiving service without giving proof of your identity, you are screwed before you even start. Even if you somehow surmount that problem, then if you need to provide a SIN at any point before getting the SIN itself, you are totally screwed, especially if you are caught and prosecuted for fraud (or some such violation of mala prohibita).

Trend Sands’ Reborn in Canada is a most unique look into how paper-tripping could work in Canada, although I am concerned that if there were a break in the chain of going on a paper trip, then it would seem to me to be better not to attempt it at all. Ultimately, it would require a current, updated knowledge of the Canadian government’s own administrative rules and legislative statutes to discover whether or not paper-tripping is still even possible (the same could be said for the American situation as well). Although, if playing a game of wits with the bureaucracy sounds like a fun hobby to you, then perhaps going on a paper trip here in America, or up in Canada, might suit you better than the arduous task of moving along towards the right side of the other (not so) thin line.

The Origins of War in Child Abuse

In light of the systematic atrocities associated with contemporary public schooling, some dissidents have questioned whether the oppression of children is only limited to government schools. These folks usually conclude that parents are also responsible for stifling the healthy maturation of their own children. This has lead to a serious factional dispute regarding whether spanking is coercive upon children or not (if so, then it would be just as morally repugnant as when the government initiates violence by performing civil asset forfeiture against an American’s property).

 

 

Psychohistory is the academic discipline of psychoanalyzing historical figures and events. Retroactively psychoanalyzing dead individuals is admittedly unconventional, even for psychiatrists, so the validity of interpretations that a psychohistorian gives for patients he has never met is, perhaps, subjective at best. If approached in a context closer to anthropology, then maybe psychohistory could be understood, and taken, more easily.

The vast majority of the author’s book seems to me to be nothing less than a house of horrors. German children suffered by being tightly swaddled for hours or days on end, commonly stewing in their own dried urine and smeared feces. Greco-Roman children were subjected to routine beatings, anal rape, and helplessly watched their siblings being ruthlessly murdered by their parents. One of the more heinous acts of child torture was that practiced by the Australian Aborigines:

 

“The initial ritual of Aboriginal boys is accomplished by throwing them into a trench called ‘The Old Woman’ with a bull-roarer called ‘The Mother’ (her womb), repeating their birth by going through a birth tunnel with an umbilical rope attached, being covered by ‘the menstrual blood that can cause you to die,’ and then sub-incising them with ‘a slit made on the underside of the penis’ that is said to create a powerful vagina. The men then have intercourse in the split on the underside of the penis, ‘like a split-open frankfurter.’”

 

However, child rape was not limited to “godless savages,” for even the “civilized” did essentially the same thing:

 

“In antiquity, since ‘women were an alien and inferior species,’ sex with wives was a rare duty engaged in mainly to provide offspring, and men were addicted to raping young children, both boys and girls, in order to prove their virility and dominance. Their rapes were almost always agreed to by their parents, who often pimped their children and slaves for a price, rented them out to neighbors as servants to be raped, sold their virgin daughters for marriage for fifty pieces of silver, gave their children to pedagogues for sexual use, made their children serve at their banquets so they could be raped after dinner, went to war to rape the children of enemies, and handed over their children to the brothels, bath-houses and temples that could be found in any city of antiquity. Physicians advocated the rape of children as a way to overcome depression and as a cure for venereal disease. Most political leaders kept children to rape, like Nero, who roamed about daily, raping boys who he found in the streets and in brothels…[w]ealthy Romans kept large harems of both sexes to rape…[a]s with most societies today, the rape began when the children were about seven years old; although the ideal age was 12 – 14, many of the images show them younger. Petronius depicts men raping a seven-year-old girl, with women happily clapping in a long line around the bed. Being raped was simply part of growing up.”

 

Add to this nauseating mixture of mothers ritualistically cannibalizing their infants, and I think you get the picture. Obviously, there is a quite a bit more gore, but for the sake of whatever propriety I have left, I will omit the more grotesque descriptions from this literary review.

DeMause claims that these utterly barbaric childrearing practices across disparate cultures are what are truly responsible for war. To put it as simply as I can, he asserts that the children are suffering from a kind of schizophrenic Stockholm syndrome; in other words, the abused begin identifying with their abusers, and thus, they want to either win their genuine affection, or sado-masochistically experience their trauma again through the medium of war. This is explained by deMause through the use of “dissociative alters” and iconic imagery, such as that of the “Killer-Mother” archetype. While I am greatly skeptical about this being the chief reason for war (since he neglected to mention more important incentives, such as a central bank’s motive to use a purported war as the pseudo-justification for lending even more money to a national government), I can appreciate to a certain degree how deMause’s explanation goes so far as to explain how some individuals are tricked into “fake patriotism” this way, since they sincerely believe they should die for the Motherland.

There is one problem with deMause’s thesis I must point out, since neither he nor the anti-spanking advocates did so. On one hand, he admits that the evolution of childrearing psychogenic modalities has improved while overall human violence has dramatically declined over time, yet then on the other hand, he acts as if it’s still a grave threat to humanity:

 

“The crucial task of future generations will be to raise loved children who grow up to be peaceful, rather than walking time bombs. In addition, the ability to solve future global economic problems will depend upon improving childrearing around the world.”

 

While he may very well be correct about this, he is vague as to whether this should be the prerogative of parents or the government. Considering the rampant abuse by various Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies, I find his silence on this pivotal question greatly disheartening. What he does advocate for is “peace counseling,” which is a method for mediating disputes between violent parties. Although I appreciate his attempt at applied diplomacy, what in the world does peace counseling have to do with childrearing? It’s almost as if deMause is only interested in mitigating the effects of what he considers to be bad parenting by promoting a modified form of citizen diplomacy; although it’s also quite possible that he only cares about preventing angry Arabs from setting off suitcase nukes. Admittedly, this is only speculation on my end as to his personal interests.

Another major problem lies with the anti-spanking advocates recommending this book in the first place. Again, if deMause is correct that “peaceful parenting” is on the rise and overall human violence is already going the way of the dodo bird, then what exactly is the problem here? When compared with all the other very serious threats to our Liberties, why would some dissidents emphasize peaceful parenting so much? True, peaceful parenting is a non-reformist method of raising your children (and in that respect, much like homeschooling), and as an application of not spanking, it is certainly deserving of being judged whether or not it is effective in raising better children, but I am wary of its niche promotion within a few libertarian circles, especially with regard to what some constitutionalists see as a potentially tacit acceptance of the CPS’s heavy handed tactics (for the good of the children, of course). Most importantly, I should also mention that deMause only mentioned spanking twice in passing, and he certainly did not recommend any non-spanking forms of childrearing at all; this further increases my puzzlement about why the peaceful parenting advocates recommend this book to further their cause, since the author himself has virtually nothing to say about spanking in the first place!

Lloyd deMause’s The Origins of War in Child Abuse is a gross historical overview on ancient child abuse. I disagree with many of deMause’s subjective interpretations, and his neglect about the more important causes of war (especially those that are a cold-hearted profiting from mass death). While I can understand where the peaceful parenting advocates are coming from by recommending this book, I think they can do a better job of promoting a book that mentions what they consider to be the evils of spanking in actual detail. This book is absolutely useless if you want to learn about non-spanking childrearing practices, unless for some strange reason you actually enjoy reading about the intricately gory details of crimes committed against the most innocent of humans in times long past.

How to Disappear in America

[Download a PDF of this article]

Several misconceptions exist about the extent of self-determination. Many assume that because you have arranged your life in such a way, you can’t ever just up and leave, even if not doing so would be to enable your overly demanding parents or an abusive spouse. Misunderstandings about lifestyle choices, and the ability to radically change them, is what perpetuates the all too common modern feeling of being trapped in your own life.

 

 

A family of origin, or “FOO,” are those humans that you are genetically related to and/or grew up with; “deFOOing,” therefore, is the process of permanently ostracizing them from your life, usually by removing yourself from close geographical proximity, as well as being financially dependent on them. So, in one sense, going on a paper trip is the epitome of defooing, because you are not only cutting off all contact, but also creating an entirely different paper trail that, if you do it right, would make it difficult for even skip tracers to find you. Such a tool in the proverbial toolbox would be invaluable, if your goal is to just simply disappear.

In terms of legality, it’s not “against the law” to disappear. Unless you are under the care of a legal guardian, or on parole, then (generally speaking) you are free “move” anytime you’d like (and you aren’t legally required to say “good-bye,” either). Too many socially engineered “norms” have inculcated behaviors that may very well be detrimental to your freedom, and putting those whom you are trying to get away from “on notice” that you are upping and leaving is a fool-proof way of shooting yourself in the foot.

You will need to seriously ponder your traveling conditions, such as what to take along with you to your new life, how you are traveling, where you are going to temporarily live, where you are going to permanently live, and, most importantly, when you want to leave. Obviously, it is much better to take your time and gratuitously plan everything, and then slowly acquire whatever you need, because the more time you have, the better your chances of successfully disappearing will be; however, if your situation is continuously hazardous (for instance, if you happen to be a battered spouse), then you have little choice other than immediately leaving. Transitional locales would include very large metropolitan cities, as well as large university towns.

As the author likes to put it, “Cash speaks all languages,” especially when disappearing. He proposes four ways of financially supporting yourself:

 

  1. Live off your own cash, property, or other assets that you can sell, trade, or invest.
  2. Live off another person, or persons, as a companion, lover, or provider of other immediate personal services.
  3. “Get a job,” even with no SSN, credit, or references.
  4. Start your own business based on your skills and the needs of the community.

 

Needless to say, the first two options are the easiest, although certainly not realistic for most. Option four is possible if you have some start up capital, know your respective market, and you have the drive to succeed as an entrepreneur. But for most people, I would even venture to say this about a good chunk of paper-trippers, the only realistic option is to get hired. Unfortunately, this will involve quite a bit of acting to convince your potential employer that you are qualified and experienced in the field to do the job excellently, but seeing that using disguises is a basic skill for paper-trippers, it shouldn’t be too hard to pull it off well.

Reid’s book really shines in its chapter on using low-profile techniques. Most of these are really nothing more than common sense privacy methods, coupled with considerations specific to paper-tripping, as well as some skip-tracing avoidance. For example, Reid recommends:

 

“Keep your home, job, personal activities and hobbies well separated, even self-contained. Don’t let heat in one area endanger any of the others…[o]n the job, avoid giving background information to fellow workers. If you’re planning to stay on the job only a short while, however, make an effort to plant false and misleading information in the minds of the other workers, such as your favorite pastimes, places you’d like to travel or live someday, and your plans for the future. Insulate your private self by keeping your personal interests and ideas to yourself alone. Share the spurious with the curious.”

“Avoid attending church. If you must, however, use an alias when attending, and make contributions in cash, never by check. If you are asked by inquisitive neighbors what church you attend, either name one of a different faith than theirs, or deny interest completely. Give the minister totally false information about yourself, as these good folks are great gossips when approached by snoops…[a]void membership in political groups or civic organizations. As a rule these groups are filled with super sneaky, nosey individuals more willing than not to stab someone in the back if it suits their selfish purposes. Total snakes.”

“Protect the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of your friends. Use a code of your own making to disguise the actual names and numbers, or try to memorize what you need to know. You’d be amazed at how much you can remember in this area if you make the effort. Try to avoid carrying this coded address book with you. Cops always flash on such items, and so-called ‘rings’ are usually busted this way. A smart thing to do would be to carry a dummy book of names and numbers selected at random from the phone book. Keep your working book stashed in a safe place. This practice protects you, too, inasmuch as suspicion is cast on you should some of your friends be busted and their names appear in your book.”

 

As you can see, Reid’s suggestions are geared towards preserving personal privacy. It wouldn’t be a stretch either to imagine how they would also be useful for vetting someone into your little dissident group.

There are noticeable redundancies this book shares with The Paper Trip III. The chapters on mail drops, Social Security numbers (SSNs), and “Living with New ID” seem to have been copy/pasted into place, albeit with some minor editorial subtractions and additions. There was also a chapter dedicated to the three levels of ID that were virtually similar, but here I found some clarification about them that I didn’t quite understand before. Generally speaking, the levels are correct, but you have to approach it backwards, that is to say, Level Three ID establishes the foundation for your alternate ID (these documents would include your birth certificate and Social Security card), Level Two ID comprises your “walking around” ID (such as a driver’s license or US passport), and Level One ID is simply a persona you adopt (since there are no government issued identification documents to “validate” it). While it is possible for you to conjure up a Level One ID out of thin air, a Level Two ID is dependent upon the existence of Level Three ID.

Not only are there these redundancies, but also unavoidable differences from Reid’s earlier book. There is no information whatsoever on how to go about acquiring a birth certificate, a US passport, or a driver’s license. Although the introduction and ending of the chapter about SSNs seems to be unique, the meat of it was still lifted from the other book.

Barry Reid’s How to Disappear in America is a unique look at what is essentially starting over, but on paper. This book is good for providing a clearer picture of paper-tripping itself as whole, not so much on its specific techniques, although my unanswered questions from The Paper Trip III did get answered. I think this book is best used in conjunction with Reid’s earlier book, although since they are so similar to each other, and considering the amount of time that has passed, it would have been more efficient if Reid had just simply written a “Paper Trip IV” containing updated Obama regime era information. For those who still doubt the necessity for paper-tripping, I offer this parting thought from the author himself:

 

“A solid set of ID in another name is what can truly be called ‘freedom insurance.’ With the growing threat of arrest and prosecution for leading a ‘free’ life, it’s plainly comforting to have the option to cut and run, even if you choose not to. Obtaining alternate ID should be done before you get into trouble. Take the time to do it right. In an emergency many other matters will compete for your time. In the future first-class ID may become more difficult to obtain, too. The best ID to obtain is obviously that which is issued directly by government agencies themselves. Using forged, stolen, or counterfeited ID is a bust in itself…[w]ith government issued ID you can effectively erase the curse of jail or prison record. Tens of thousands of ‘free’ Americans carry with them the permanent label of ‘felon’ or ‘ex-con.’ The real crime begins only after a person leaves the joint; legal and social ostracism continues all their life. What better reason to disappear?”

 

I can think of no better reason to go on a paper trip than as a way of making sure you have an escape hatch of sorts that will protect you from tyranny. Hey, if Jan Karski was able to change IDs as often as people typically change bedsheets, why can’t we do the same as well?