After discussing legal ownership vs rightful ownership in episode 005, I'd like to talk more about actual ownership.

Let's use for example the ownership of a T.V. (this is a simple example that every American should easily be able to understand).

If I go to COSTCO and buy a TV, I own it. Let's say for example I were to buy a 42" TV, from the moment I pay for it, it's mine. Even before getting it out of the store I would be its rightful owner, its legal owner, and its controller. I would be its absolute sovereign owner.

Now suppose I plan to take my new TV home in the back seat of my car but the box doesn't quite fit? Well, if I thought the TV might fit if I were to take it out of the box , I might try to do just that. Of course the TV would be much safer with the box and packing materials to protect it, but as its owner it would be up to me to decide whether or not to take the risk. I mean hell, it's my TV right?, I can do whatever I want with it. If I take it out of the box and the damn thing still doesn't fit then I would have every right to smash it to bits right there in the parking lot, assuming I cleaned up the mess.

Let's say I open the box, pull the TV out and find that it fits in the back seat just fine. Now the question becomes how to secure it?

Of course I don't have to secure it, I'm not required to protect it at all. Black's Law Dictionary says that owning something means having the right to enjoy it and do with it as one pleases, even to spoil or destroy it.

Since my TV belongs to me, and me alone, nobody has the right to decide for me how I secure my TV in my car or whether I secure it at all. Of course I can't leave it unsecured on the roof of my car and then drive off because that would be putting others in imminent danger. But as long as the TV is contained within my car I can do whatever I want with it. I could secure it with a rope or put a seatbelt around it or just leave it in there loose and drive carefully. My TV, my choice.

Now let's say I'm worried that the seatbelt might scratch the TV. Let's say I decide to leave the seatbelt off and simply keep one hand on the TV to steady it for the short trip home. Is that something that is ok for me to decide to do? or does that decision have to be made by some so called "authority"?; the decision about how I transport my TV inside my car.

Assuming I get the TV home undamaged, now what? By the way if my TV were to end up getting damaged in my car whose problem would that be? That's right, it would be my problem. Anyway, now the question becomes how to power the TV? Let's say it's rated for a standard 120 volt outlet but I want to experiment with connecting it to a 240 volt outlet just to see what happens. Let's say I am under the mistaken impression that running the TV at the higher voltage would be like a person taking speed; that the TV would somehow switch channels faster or show a clearer picture or a faster frame rate.

Again, is the decision to connect my TV to a higher voltage a decision I could make on my own? or would I need permission from some outside authority? Of course I wouldn't need permission, it's my TV, I own it. Nobody gets to tell me what to do with my TV. I am the authority when it comes to my TV. As owner of my TV I retain dominion over it, both the right and power of control.

Now, I'd like to change gears a bit if I may. Because I'd like to ask you a question about your body. Don't worry it's not anything too personal, I'd just like to know who is the legal owner of your body? Who is the legal controller of your body? Is it you?

Because as legal owner of a TV you can decide freely whether or not to restrain it with a seatbelt while transporting it in your car. Can you decide freely whether or not to restrain your body with a seatbelt in your car? No you cannot, can you? And why is that anyway?

Well it's simply because you are not the legal owner of your body, not under our current system.

The reason driving without a seatbelt on is illegal is because if people didn't wear seatbelts it would reduce the profits of car insurance companies.

Now don't get me wrong, of course car insurance company profits are not the only reason you are required to wear a seatbelt. The profits of the corporation that employs you are also a concern, because the more injured you are in an accident the more time you would need off work.

But what if I don't want to wear a seatbelt? What if I find driving more fun when there's more on the line? Or what if I don't want to have a slave belt digging into my shoulder on long trips. What if I just like the free feeling of being unrestrained while I drive?

After all, isn't being unrestrained the very definition of freedom? That's what the dictionary says. And whatever happened to "My body, my choice" isn't it supposed to be my body, my choice? Or is it only my body my choice when what I want happens to align with the agenda of the fortune 500?

Now to those of you who would say "So what Michael?, I'd wear a seatbelt anyway regardless of whether or not it was the law." If that's you then I would respond by saying that I don't think you should accept any infringement of your personal liberty, no matter how small, because it's a slippery slope.

Think about, if you cede your rightful authority over your body to the government when it comes to a minor issue like wearing seatbelts, then what would prevent the government from using that same authority to insist that you wear a mask during next year's flu season? You certainly wouldn't have any grounds to refuse that would you? I mean on what grounds could you refuse to wear a mask, for your safety, if you agree that the government has the authority to insist that you wear a seatbelt, for your safety? The answer is none, because you've already ceded the territory.

Of course it's much worse than that isn't it? Because we also submitted to vaccine mandates. We allowed the government to break the skin barrier; submitting to predatory corporations like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Hence the power of government expanded into an area that before had been outside of its jurisdiction.

Now here's a question for you: Given where we're at, given that the majority of Americans seem to have agreed that the government has the right to force its citizens to take an injection that is classified as experimental, something designed to change a person's DNA, haven't we kind of opened up Pandora's box? Haven't we inadvertently opened our selves up to future risks?; things that we haven't even considered?

Back in 1998 Elon Musk set out to revolutionize online payments. Paypal succeeded.

Then in 2004 Elon Musk set out to change electric cars from slow short range vehicles into fast, high-performance long range vehicles. Tesla motors succeeded.

Then in 2008 Elon Musk's company SpaceX succeeded in making a rocket that could go into outer space, come back down and land itself, get refueled and do it again.

Today Elon Musk is developing a computer chip to put into your brain. It's called Neuralink, and the technology behind it isn't just some vague idea. According to Wikipedia Neuralink is a physical chip that exists today. It is a 1,536 channel recording system that is capable of converting the analog signal of 1,536 groups of neurons into digital signals that can then be monitored by a computer. The Neuralink corporation has also invented a surgical robot to install the Neuralink chip in the human brain. The robot can fuse microscopic electrodes with brain tissue at the rate of 3 electrodes a second.

Now, the Neuralink corporation is struggling financially at the moment, but if you look into Elon Musk's history you'll find that he's already gotten Billions of dollars from the U.S. government for other corporations he owns.

One possible source of funding for Neuralink would be another government contract. For example Neuralink could be required as a kind of safety device in order to have a driver's license; it could be used to monitor a person's vital functions to ensure that they weren't falling asleep at the wheel. It may even be able to give the driver a jolt of pain to wake them up before they could get into an accident. And you couldn't really argue with its use being mandated could you? Basically it would just be another form of safety restraint "For Your Protection", "For Your Safety".

Of course implanting a microchip into the human brain would require FDA approval. But if there's one thing we've learned from all the insanity around Covid it's that FDA approval is apparently much easier to get than it used to be. It should come therefore as no surprise that in May of 2023 Neuralink was approved by the FDA for human trials.

Are you starting to see the benefits of insisting on human rights being the foundation of the law? Are you starting to see the benefits of having fixed principles that you fight fiercely to defend? Principles like absolute sovereign authority over your own body? I mean c'mon, what the hell is wrong with you? seriously. I can't believe I'm having to try to talk you into supporting one of the most basic and fundamental of all human rights, the ownership of your own body!!

I am mine. I am the owner of my body. My body is my property and my territory. It belongs to me and to me alone. When it comes to my body I have absolute sovereign authority. I have the right to heal it or to harm it. To protect it with a seatbelt or to put it at risk. To smother myself with a mask, or to breathe freely. To allow Elon Musk to put a microchip in my brain or to tell him to fuck off.