Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

What is a PERSON?

Suppose that the word person (by definition) has been misconstrued in
meaning. Suppose that in our society, a person is a LEGAL ENTITY, a thing, an
artificial construct and not a living being? Suppose that you are blissfully
ignorant of this deception, and truly believe that you are a person.

What if your government considers a person to be a corporate entity? And what

if, without your knowledge or consent, you are legally responsible for a corporate
entity that bears your name? And as a consequence you are bound by rules and
laws that were meant to govern commerce, not people?

What ill consequences might arise from your ignorance? And who might benefit
from this misunderstanding? Lets look.

So what is a person? Is a person a thing, is it a legal entity, or is it a living

being? That needs to be clear.

This article pursues the concept of the person and exposes our system of
identification as a most damnable and contemptuous crime.

Im that person
Imagine you arrive at the front desk of your local government office and youre
asked if you have any personal ID. Yes, no problem you say, as you flash your
photo ID card or passport saying, Im the person.

Suppose a person is actually a LEGAL ENTITY. Havent you just and agreed to
act on behalf of that artificial person in your capacity as a living being? Havent
you have just agreed to continue the deception? And since you consented to this
monstrous deception, would it shock you that corporatised governments use that
consent to treat you as a LEGAL ENTITY, an artificial person, in all that it does
and in every court in the country? Does it shock you that government demands
every self-serving compliance it can get away with? That it owns your drivers
licence, your passport, your birth certificate, your kids, your education, their
education, your health, your property title, your car?

And how would you feel to learn that every time you use the word person, you
endorse a criminally deceptive legal perversion that underpins the most heinous
crime in human history; the theft of your life, your identity, your freedom, and that
of your family and friends?

EXODUS What is a person? 1

What is a person?

Oxford Dictionary defines identification as:

a means of proving a persons identity, especially in the form of official papers.

[emphasis added]

Google provides a multitude of answers to the question original meaning of

person? My trusty Mac summed all of them succinctly.

ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French persone, from Latin persona, actors
mask, character in a play, later human being.

Lets go right back to its Latin origins persona, actors mask, character in a play.
The word person denotes a mask, a presumed character, a concealment of
sorts, something under the covers that only deliberate inquiry may reveal.
So what might the word person be hiding?

Lets start by defining the legal meaning of the word person. There are two
persons identified in law: these are natural-person and artificial-person.

Natural persons
Lets try to define Natural person. Several definitions emerge from Google:

a human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

EXODUS What is a person? 2

natural person refers to a human being as opposed to a legally-created
entity, like a Corporation, Limited Liability Company, General
Partnership, Limited Partnership, etc.
A natural person is any human being, with legal capacity commencing
from the time of birth.
A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a
A living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to
natural persons without their express consent.

All resources agree on human being, but there seems far too much divergence
of opinion to clearly define natural person. Qualifiers and dis-qualifiers abound;
none are definitive.

Further research brought the website natural-person.ca into focus, particularly

because it offers some words of caution.

Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words
person and individual. There are only two persons in law, a human
being, and everything else: a natural-person is a legal entity for the
human-being. An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human

Did you spot it?

In almost every Statute, there are two types of persons, and both are legal
entities; one for the living being, and one not a living being. But did you notice it
does not say that a natural-person is legally OF the living being, but is an
entity FOR the living being? Is it logical that if the natural-person is a legal
entity FOR a living human, then natural-person has no humanity to it. (E.g. a
door FOR a shed is a door; it cannot also be a shed.)

Whatever happened to the breathing? What happened to all that flesh and

Well, according to your LEGAL status, flesh and blood doesnt exist. The
definition of the phrase natural-person does not include the living beings Life
characteristics; those life elements which prove life is present, have been
disqualified. A natural-person is something constructed to serve a human being,
and so must be some thing other than human. It does not live. This natural-
person is dependent for all its actions upon a living, breathing human being.
Does this surprise you? And would it surprise you to know you were not
supposed to notice this distinction like it is masked in legality and deceit?

EXODUS What is a person? 3

Person or human?

Lets examine this idea.

There are only two persons in law, a human being, and everything else. Sounds
simple enough. Whats to explain further?

Every human being is considered by the legal system to be a person. You are a
member of the (legal) person club, and as an unknowing member of that club, a
natural-person entity has been created for you. It hides under the mask of
person and, deceptively, shares your name. And if you accept your
membership by flashing your ID card, you are accepting and confirming that you
are an artificial person.

Artificial persons

The word artificial means made or produced by human beings rather than
occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural. So an artificial
person is seemingly a man made copy but of what?

An artificial person is a legal entity that is not a human being, but for certain legal
purposes is considered by virtue of statute to be a natural person.

Is your understanding complete yet, or is the wolf still circling?

Government created an artificial thing that is non-human, a Legal Entity, and

labelled it an artificial person. Government statutes also create a natural person
entity, which enables the living being to act for the artificial person and be
bound by rules applicable only to artificial persons.

So what does this mean?

Most people will accept that there is something about government that doesnt
feel right; that our current social structure doesnt really benefit us, or our ailing
environment. In a world of beauty and abundance, we work unreasonably long
hours in concrete cities, foregoing our own desires, to barely scrape by. Why? To
fit into a system of controls that existed long before each of us was born.

But think about it. If the system doesnt benefit you, who does it ultimately
benefit? It must work to someonesadvantage. Its just not you!

EXODUS What is a person? 4

And now were starting to understand how this all came to pass.

Government is not stupid. It recognised that a real, live human-being was an

indispensable factor in activating this legal entity, to give it life and activity. i.e.
to open envelopes, vote to uphold government, write letters, pay on demand, get
the kids vaccinated, attend court, apply for a license, pay registration fees, pay
the extortion fee (fine) for parking longer than 60 minutes all so that
government could make money from your existence. Which it inevitably does.
Surprised? Dont be. Government is a corporation after all!

But how many people really know and understand that what we consider
government is not real government, that it only masquerades as such? Theyve
hidden this fact well, and for a very long time.

So what else have governments hidden? Youve guessed havent you? Persons.
Government recognised that it needed to mask this person scam and keep it
from public view. Otherwise, who would play along? Without your agreement
(albeit by deceit) to play along, to represent the LEGAL ENTITY, government
knows it cannot exercise control over your being. Government knows that it
cannot legitimately exercise authority over living beings, as it is itself the creation
of living beings. In the natural hierarchy, human trumps institution every day of
the week.

So, to facilitate its system of control, government went back to Latin. and
presto! There was the word persona a mask. The word fitted its purpose to
perfection! And by misconstruing its meaning in common usage, living breathing
human beings unknowingly accept the obligations imposed by law on the Legal
entities created in our names.

The definition of person now makes perfect sense, doesnt it? An actors mask,
a character in a play. And what better mask than to have a Natural Person act
as a bridge to the LEGAL ENTITY the artificial person? Better yet, why not put
the natural person (an entity created for the living being) in the same court
(pun intended) with the non-living artificial person, so that Lawyers can put more
knots in the corporate noose that today has us all hanging by our necks?
By skilfully using the word person for both entities, government has hidden the
mask right under your nose. We have been led to believe that a person is a
human being full stop. So we accept the legal ownership of the person LEGAL
ENTITY (created by government) and in the process forego our basic human
rights to the will of government.

Blacks Law Fictionary Dictionary (9th Ed.) says this about Artificial Persons:
Artificial person. (17c) An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given
certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who

EXODUS What is a person? 5

for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being .
Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; juridical person; legal person; moral
person. Cf. LEGAL ENTITY

Persons, persons, persons! Read it again. Pause on every phrase. Let every one
sink in.

Is your person a legal entity that bleeds you of every life characteristic you
possess, a lifeless entity that will be treated as more or less human? And if
persons are given certain legal rights and duties, then do persons also have
unalienable rights rights that do not depend on government granting or
withdrawing them? You would have to think not, surely.

Personally speaking.


Wikipedia asserts that the purpose of identification (ID) is to verify aspects of a

persons personal identity, and there arent many who would disagree with that
definition. Now consider.

When a person, who does not understand what person actually means, hands
over their personal ID to another person, they give up their persona and becomes
the person behind the mask. They assume the role of the LEGAL ENTITY
person, a mask they believe is their real human person.
Use of the word person on a daily basis is almost impossible to escape. It is so
ingrained into our language, our conversations, even our news reports.

For example, two witnesses reported a young person departing at high speed.
Witness definition? A person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident,
take place.

Another example, many were horribly shocked, some bystanders needing

psychological counselling.

Bystander definition? A person who is present at an event or incident but does

not take part.

Another example, the defendant appeared in court in person.

The labels and roles we are attributed in our society all invariably point back to
the word person which, as we know, is a LEGAL ENTITY.
EXODUS What is a person? 6
Collectively speaking.

People is a collective word. Persons is also a collective word. So what is the


According to OxfordDictionaries.com:
The words people and persons can both be used as the plural of person, but they
are not used in exactly the same way.

People is by far the more common of the two words and is used in most ordinary
contexts: a group of people : there were only about ten people : several thousand
people have been rehoused.

Persons, on the other hand, tends now to be restricted to official or formal

contexts, as in : this vehicle is authorized to carry twenty persons : no persons
admitted without a pass.

Did you catch that one? Observe that a group of people, about 10 people,
several thousand people describes living, flesh-and-blood human beings.

Persons, conversely, is a quantity of individuals to be ruled, to be restricted, to

be governed, to be authorized, to be (or not to be) admitted without a pass.
As the linguistic context switched from people to persons, so too the social
context switched from not ruled to ruled.


Twists and turns permeate the topic of the person, as all the above indicates. if
you really want to get to the bottom of a person (excuse the pun I did not
mean to be personal!) a thorough and comprehensive article entitled
Personalism, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1 is essential (but
not easy) reading.

The term person comes from the Latin persona, whose origins are traceable to
Greek drama, where the , or mask, became identified with the role an
actor would assume in a given production. Such usage is carried over today in
the word persona, referring to characters in fictional literature or drama,
or second identities which people adopt for behavior in given social contexts.
Its introduction into the mainstream of intellectual parlance, however, came with
theological discourse during the patristic period, notably the attempts to clarify or
define central truths of the Christian faith. These discussions focused primarily on
two doctrines: the Trinity (three persons in one God) and the incarnation of the

EXODUS What is a person? 7

second person of the Trinity (the hypostatic union of two natures divine and
human in one person).

Notice the bold portions. Are you seeing a trend here? Throughout the patristic
period, the word person was cultivated to denote separation, or multiple

In a later paragraph it is described as an:

elusive concept which in some respects wholly inverts the original

connotations of exteriority in the early meanings of mask and role: person
comes rather to denote the innermost spiritual and most authentic kernel of the
unique individual.

Observe how the (innermost spiritual) persona is seen to be an element within

the person, as though separate from the individual; as though the persona has
an assumed (greater) importance.


Keep reading Personalism, and after describing the Eastern, European and
American influences and histories of personalism, the real message begins to

Dignity refers to the inherent value of the person, as a someone and not merely
something, and this confers an absoluteness not found in other beings.

Dont run away yet theres a tiger lurking here. Consider this.

If dignity is the inherent value of the person, then self-respect, pride, self-esteem
and self-worth are human attributes that transform something into someone.
The absoluteness of those attributes are not found in other beings. Join the dots
and human dignity is what makes a person, agreed?

But what are these other beings that do not have dignity and do not therefore
qualify as persons? Are they animals? Lets look further.

In stressing the uniqueness of persons vis--vis all other entities, personalists

influenced by Thomism (Thomas Aquinas) designate the essential dividing line of
reality as that which separates personal and non-personal being.

Now were getting closer! Does a non-personal being suggest an artificial-

EXODUS What is a person? 8
Here classical-realist personalists reject the Hobbesian (Thomas Hobbes) notion
of dignity as theprice set on an individual by the commonwealth, and ally
themselves rather with Kant (Emanuel Kant) in his assertion that dignity is
inherent and sets itself beyond all price. (Emphasis mine)

Apparently theres division in the ranks. It seems that (notional) dignity was
once considered the price set on an individual by the commonwealth, but
German philosopher Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 12 February 1804)asserted
that dignity is beyond all price, because it is inherent.

Sounds like Kant knew his stuff! Is there a change in tone here, as first seems to
be the case? Or did Kant realize that if you want to disguise a non-living being as
a living being youd damn well better give both dignity or youve blown your

The mask

Continuing from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Swiss theologian

Hans Urs presented the following viewpoint:
Von Balt, for example, wrote: Few words have as many layers of meaning
as person. On the surface it means just any human being, any countable
individual. Its deeper senses, however, point to the individuals uniqueness which
cannot be interchanged and therefore cannot be counted. In this deeper sense
persons cannot, properly speaking, be counted, because a single person is not
merely one in a series. and thus exchangeable for any other.

Von Balthasar goes on to say: If one distinguishes between individual and

person (and we should for the sake of clarity), then a special dignity is
ascribed to the person, which the individual as such does not possess. We
will speak of a person when considering the uniqueness, the incomparability
and therefore irreplaceability of the individual. (Emphasis mine)
But it seems Kantian psychology won the day.

In an article entitled Causality Versus Duty, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand
If genius denotes extraordinary ability, then Kant may be called a genius in his
capacity to sense, play on and perpetuate human fears, irrationalities and, above
all, ignorance. His influence rests not on philosophical but on psychological

EXODUS What is a person? 9

Further demonstrating her point, Rand also wrote.
Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a
skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the
rudiments of rationality.

The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea

(based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly
clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it
will paralyze a readers critical faculty a mess of evasions, equivocations,
obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading
nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and subsub-clauses, a
meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary
thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to
the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable all of it resting
on a zero: the absence of definitions.

EXODUS What is a person? 10

What greater evil?

Lets examine Rands reference to propagating an outrageously evil idea. Which

of the following would be the greater evil?
1. To propagate an outrageously evil idea? Or.
2. To give an existing evil idea the face of acceptability so thoroughly and
uniformly that no one would ever recognise its evil nature or purpose?
How would you achieve what question 2 proposes? How would you whitewash
an evil idea thoroughly?

There are no prizes for the correct answer; youd dispel the notion that the idea
was evil in the first place; make it acceptable, normalise it, gloss it over, change
the words so it means something different, even remove the words entirely. And,
because this must be done thoroughly and uniformly, youd hit the most receptive
nerves possible through the most common resources at your disposal.

Scrubbing scripture
For clues, lets look back through history, before the times of the many
philosophers mentioned in the Stamford University article, specifically to the
Wycliffe Bible (1380) (by LAMP POST Inc. 2008)
1. James 2 v9:
But if ye taken persones, ye worchen synne, and ben repreued of the lawe, as
2. Romans 2 v11
For acceptioun of persones is not anentis God.
3. Acts 10 v34
And Petre openyde his mouth, and seide, In trewthe Y haue foundun, that God is
no acceptor of persones;
Now this was written is in 1380. There was no TV and no internet in those days.
No emails, faxes or even Gestetner duplicating machines. WTF is a typewriter..
it might be asked, much less a Biro?

But there were philosophers, the practice of which examines the fundamental
aspects of the nature of existence, to provide man with a comprehensive view of
life that serves as a base and frame of reference for all his actions, mental or
physical, psychological or existential.

Even without a detailed language translation, it is very clear from the 1380 biblical
quotations above that persons was not an acceptable idea to God, to say least.
God is no acceptor of persones and acceptioun of persones is synne.

EXODUS What is a person? 11

Philosophers disagreed. Immanuel Kant, and others proceeding him, decided
that persones should be granted dignity, even at the expense of individuals of
living human beings.

Surely that conflicts with the scriptures quoted above! Did these dudes turn the
tables, psychologically and philosophically? Did they give an existing evil idea the
face of acceptability so thoroughly and uniformly that no one would ever
recognise its outrageously evil nature or purpose?

Lets look at more evidence.

Lets take the exact same references as above this time from the (King James
Bible) KJB printed by Hodder & Stoughton for the International Bible Society NIV
edition 1995.

1. James 2 v9:
But if you show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law
2. Romans 2 v11
For God does not show favouritism.
3. Acts 10 v34
Then Peter began to speak: I now realise how true it is that God does not show

Now Compare the 1380 quotations with their 1995 equivalents. Three times the
word person has been removed. Three times the word favouritism has been

Lets explore this idea further.

First, God declares persons to be sinners and unacceptable; adopting a
person, or a presumed character, it is an act of concealment.

625 years later, God apparently has second thoughts. Favoritism is now the sin,
and persons are now unclassifiable, equally acceptable with all others, and
absolved from sin. The evil of persons that God first warned of has,
miraculously, completely vanished. Now your life, your dignity, your inherent
value that defines you as a someone and not merely something, all means
naught because God does not show favouritism.

How clever is that? And how morally and criminally reprehensible?

Today, despite what God may have said in the past, artificial persons are
considered completely acceptable because favouritism is the new sin. So too are
natural-persons, juristic persons, juridical persons, legal persons, moral persons

EXODUS What is a person? 12

So. who are you?

When you interact with government and the law, will you be treated as an
artificial person, a natural person, or your real living breathing self?

Do you do governments bidding? Do you comply with their every statute and
law? DO you suffer every rule and regulation? Agree to every financial
impediment and our constant state of debt? Accept every act of corporate back-
scratching and profitable environmental irresponsibility? And bow to a state of
tyranny and militaristic terror?

How many millions of us listen up, sit up, pay up and shut up. then teach our
children that government is for their personal protection and benefit?

Why do we religiously believe we must carry a small card to validate our

existence, when offering that ID constitutes nothing more than agreeing (with
government) that you will act as some thing you are not?

Why do thousands cry tears of blood every week when stripped of their ID or
drivers licence, when that card has really belonged to, and defined, an artificial
person from day one?

Have you been beguiled to believe the artificial person, which government so
cleverly masked in word play, is you?

Do you understand the criminality of stripping you of your life characteristics, or

the inverted morality involved in such a scheme?

Are you a flesh-and-blood, thinking, living being? Or an artificial person that your
ID endorses every time you present it?

Your consent
Where, on any ID card you have ever seen it stated, written or encoded that you
are a living being, to the exclusion of all others?

You havent. And do you see why not? If others are not expressly excluded then
legal entities, natural and artificial persons, can also be identified in the same

As a card-carrying person, you are considered no different to a natural or

artificial person. You have the same rights as a corporation. Every time you offer
EXODUS What is a person? 13
up your ID card, you grant government your consent to this arrangement. Every
time you open an envelope addressed to someone that you think is you, but is
really the person that shares your name, you grant government your consent to
be that person- and to be treated accordingly.

Goodbye inalienable rights, hello dictates of government!

Your consent to be treated as a person is all Government wants from you. And,
by these methods and many more, you submit to all their statutes, laws, thievery
and corruption all because you have been taught that your ID is really you.
What does your official ID card actually prove? Its not proof of your true identity
that government wants. What they want from you is your agreement to act as the
person they created.

Remember the phrase Consent of the Governed? Is its real meaning clearer

You hold the key

Despite all the lies, masks, obfuscations, falsifications, artificialities, political

constructs and bloody-minded corruption (revealed over centuries), what still
remains untainted and unblemished? What stands head and shoulders above all
else simple, pure, honest and without reproach?
You. The fact that you live.

Some feel incompetent to run their own lives, yet feel supremely competent to
run the lives of others. Government are incompetent dependents on one hand,
yet belligerently skilful manipulators on the other.

By nature, government is dependent. Your life, every breath that you take, is the
life force on which they depend. Your life is their power, the only power they
have. They give you an ID, as though you never had life before they granted it.
They made a natural person entity in your name, which ensures you interact
appropriately with the legal and economic systems they have created around
you. By exercising whatever force they consider necessary, they use this entity to
strip you bare of the very life force they depend on.

But that entity is not you. It is a mask, and its name admits that fact.

EXODUS What is a person? 14

Reclaiming you ID

Get a life? NO! You have it already.

Take back your life force. Grasp hold of those characteristics that clearly and
unmistakably prove you are a unique expression of your creator. Take charge of
those life characteristics as a breathing, flesh and blood human being. Identify
those characteristics. Claim them. They belong to you.
Forget the Birth Certificate BS. Thats one of their masking filters, a document
used by government to create the natural person. A Birth Certificate only proves
that thing of theirs got birthed. But that thing is NOT you! You were born.
So why not carry a method of identification that reflects those life characteristics
while distinguishing you from other living humans? What life characteristics might
that identification reflect?

1. Write down the year, month and day on which you were born.
2. Now write down the exact minute of your first breath, using 24 hour time e.g.
1547 (3.47pm)

Cant recall? Doesnt matter. You were the one who took that breath, so
who can argue? If youre unsure, let the number come to you intuitively.
Write it down, right now. Own it from this moment on. Its now your
exclusive property. It proves that you live.
Natural persons never took a first breath and never will! Artificial
persons never took a first breath and never will! But you did. You live.
3. Now add your blood group to the list, e.g. AB+.
Now you have another identifier that proves you live. Artificial persons
and natural persons dont have any life blood; you do!
4. Now assemble all that into a number that is uniquely you.
5. Add the name your parents gave you.
Dont use the Ms. Natural PERSON or MR. ARTIFICIAL PERSON kind
of name that appears on your drivers licence or birth certificate, but the
name you actually go by.
6. Add a portrait photo of you to show that you are alive.
Dont use a copy of the one on government records showing who the
natural person is. Thats an artificial creation of theirs so any photo of
you on their books is a fraudulent misrepresentation of their making. And
dont be afraid to SMILE! Or pose! It shows you are alive!
7. Be sure to state that this Life Characteristic identification data relates to a
living being to the exclusion of all others.

Does this data more accurately reflect your life characteristics? Shouldnt that
information be included on any identification that genuinely identifies you as a
living being?
EXODUS What is a person? 15
Create your Unique Living Being Card. No, you will not need government
authorisation to obtain one. Governments make and authorise persons. You are
a living being, atop the natural hierarchy, so only you can authorise your card. No
persons may apply, not even natural persons! Thats impossible they dont
have a blood group, and have never drawn breath.

Such a card is not meant to used to prove to others who you are. Its purpose is to
prove that you are NOT any other entity, real, fictional, natural or artificial; that
you are NOT a person; that you are a living breathing being. And the inclusion of
life characteristics make this distinction certain. (DNA coding may later be used in
addition to the life characteristics mentioned above).

Man is an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness, and that each human
being has the sovereign right to their own life and to that which is required to
sustain it. It is now time to correct the injustice of Corporate government. Their
days are numbered. by the ULB numbers of Unique Living Beings, and by the
quantities of folk (can I use the word people?) who will present ULB cards when
asked for identification. And by doing so, in peaceful defiance, we will stop
consenting to act on behalf of these false entities, created by government for its
own benefit.

Ken Bartle, Jan 2014

1 Williams, Thomas D. and Bengtsson, Jan Olof, Personalism, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

About the author:

http://wakeup-world.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Ken-Bartle.jpegA 30
year pioneer of solar house design in Australia, Ken Bartle has worked
alongside Australias top architects, researched planned housing development in
the United States and authored 4 professional publications. He has amassed 16
state, national and international awards, and delivered a paper to the World
Renewable Energy Congress in 2007.

Exposure to building contracts and Land Planning regulations gave him a firm
grasp of legal documentation, so when his son Scott first embarked on
his expose of corrupt government in Australia, the pieces quickly fell into place for
Ken. Aided by over 35 years study of Objectivist philosophy, the practical and
moral nature of our corrupted government system soon became clear.

EXODUS What is a person? 16

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it
and a moral code that glorifies it. ~ Frederick Bastiat 1850

Ken believes man is an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness, absent of

limits, and that each human being has the sovereign right to their own life and
that which is required to sustain it. And today, grounded in both legal and
philosophical understandings, Kens work is to help correct the injustice and
remove the limitations of corporate government.
Learn more at AbsentLimits.net

EXODUS What is a person? 17