What about Free Passage for Humans?

by James Jaeger

Globalists (also known as "free traders") have gone out of their way to make the passage and transit of inanimate objects ("products") EASY while making the passage and transit of people ONEROUS.

If humans have inalienable rights -- rights granted by nature, God or the universe -- shouldn't the right of mobility ("locomotion") be one of them? Does a government have the right to draw a circle on a map (a "country") and then require humans to pay some sort of a license fee to move in or out of that circle? If your answer to this philosophical question is "no," how does one justify passports and extradition treaties?

Does a country or government have the right to force or restrict the locomotion of human beings across imaginary lines? Do these restrictions violate the principles of the free market and federalism, a subset of the free market? And by removing the decision-making process of locomotion from the individual and placing it into the realm of "international law" and "extradition treaties" does this practice not make humans into little more than pawns of the state? Let's take a closer look at these dynamics.

Extradition Treaties:

Since, in practice, every state that's party to an extradition treaty has any number of "legal reasons" it doesn't have to cooperate with other parties to the treaty, citizens of all countries should realize more than ever that the game of "sovereignty" is one being played by the powerful against the powerless or the statists against the serfs. (1)

As exemplified by the current case of NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, the governments of the U.S., China, Russia, Cuba and Equator are using Snowden as a political pawn, machinating their extradition treaties solely in accordance with the political expediencies between each state as they vie for power and existential justification.

As this case reminds us, citizens are moved around or restricted from movement at the whim of states. Maybe it's time citizens of the world demand that passports be abolished and people given the same rights even a mere sack of potatoes has under the precepts of "free trade".

Maybe it's time extradition treaties be declared null and void on the grounds that no state -- or collective agreement such as the European Convention of Human Rights -- has the right to sit in judgment on human locomotion. After all, if the state can restrict the locomotion of humans isn't it violating the principle of federalism, an application of free trade? And aren't the globalists always screaming about free trade, the idea that goods should be able to move around the world without restriction? What about services? Maybe humans that provide services should be able to move around as well to expedite commerce, as was done in mid-nineteenth century Europe. Let the best countries attract the most and most able citizens the fastest? Isn't that freedom? Isn't that commerce and real free trade?


How can globalists scream for the free passage of a sack of potatoes yet scream for passports and expedition treaties that restrict the free locomotion, or national return, of a human being? This is another inconsistency that indicates that the globalists are attempting to build a worldwide police state where populations are restricted to farms as slaves producing goods that only they, and their global government, will benefit from. They have the passports and WE THE PEOPLE stay put and toil.


Just as the United States was founded as a republic -- NOT a totalitarian-prone democracy -- so should the world be modeled on this concept of true freedom. But what is a republic, a greatly misunderstood term?

In a republic laws can only be passed with a supermajority of the vote, not a mere majority of 51%. Thus, the difference between a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC is there are inevitably MORE LAWS in a democracy. Obviously there are more laws because they are easier to pass.

Philosophically a "law" is a policy that restricts human activity. It's something that specializes in STOPPING, rather than STARTING or CHANGING.

Pragmatically most laws are "do not statements" -- statements to stop or not DO: Do NOT walk on the grass; do NOT park here; do NOT drive this way; do NOT go when red; do NOT travel without a passport.

Mathematically the formula for "The Law" is: Laws = 1/Freedom. Translated, this means that freedom varies inversely with law -- the more laws, the less freedom. People know this instinctively, but they put it out of their heads, "justified" by the idea that "my elected officials are citizens like myself and they will only pass laws that will stop the bad guys and provide me with security." Well if one thinks this, they are na´ve. They are even foolish if they champion DEMOCRACY, because democracies easily turn into totalitarian states due to the fact that they enact more laws, more easily. Hitler's Nazi Germany is a perfect example. Nazi Germany started out as a democracy and quickly became a dictatorship.

So when you see TV pundits, talking heads and congressmen referring to the U.S. as a "democracy," know that these people are either ignoramuses or traitors to the republic established by the Founders.

So democracies are inherently less free than republics because they can pass laws more easily. Democracies therefore always have much larger governments than republics because the basic unit of a government is the "law" or the "statute." The U.S. Constitution, the highest law in the Land, stipulates AND guarantees that the United States is to be a "republican form of government."


The next concept necessary to an understanding of why passports and extradition treaties should probably be abolished is the concept of federalism.

Federalism is much more than . . .

"a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units"

. . . as dictionaries attempt to describe it.

Not stated in this "definition" is that the "central authority" in this case is the "federal" government in Washington DC and the "political units" are the fifty states. What is usually left out of the definition is the idea that federalism is desirable because it's an application of the "free market" -- a concept that's anathema to most of cultural Marxist-infested academia in the West.

In short, we have and demand federalism so we can have a FREE MARKET of governance. If we have fifty states and a citizen doesn't like the way he is being governed or taxed in New York or Pennsylvania, he can move to New Jersey or Delaware where taxes are lower and government more just. This places Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware into competition with each other. But this is what free market competition is all about. Individuals get to decide what the best state to live in is, not their government. They then move there and create products and services that enhance the quality of life in that state. The other states, seeing this, are thus forced to change or get rid of laws that make their state undesirable.

This is what we have in America and its one of the reasons the nation became strong over the past 237 years. You don't have to get a passport or license to travel or move from New York to Delaware. The rest of the world's states should follow this pattern and abolish their passports and all immigration laws. The idea is:




In the U.S. the citizens are the sovereigns, NOT the state or the government. This was the NEW idea that the United States was based on when the Founders launched the NEW WORLD ORDER in 1776. What George Bush I and his cronies are trying to launch is a cheap imposture, actually a re-packaging of the OLD WORLD ORDER.

Thus, the lower the taxes and the better a state or country is MANAGED (misnomered "governed"), the MORE citizens or people it will attract. Better "governed" usually translates into lower crime, better roads/facilities, higher quality of justice, fewer taxes and maximum freedom. The state stays out of your business, life and bedroom and protects your property, life and liberty. It does this by NOT passing endless laws that restrain citizens' every desire and movement.

If people flood out of New York because it has become a tax-happy, police state with endless zoning laws that drive contractors to suicide, that state will soon experience an exodus of citizens AND a reduced tax base. And this is a GOOD thing, contrary to what socialists and Marxists scream in the name of "democracy," "security" and the "general welfare". Such want the unlimited expansion of the state to take care of THEM (while yapping about the poor, yet personally donating little or nothing TO the poor). They -- like the corporate monopolist Rockefeller who once stated "competition is a sin" -- feel the same way about the competition inherent in federalism. They are in effect thus saying that "federalism is a sin."

If federalism is a sin, then what they are actually calling for -- overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly -- is more "central government," a euphemism for "big government" or "world government". And again, what are governments made of but "laws." Thus, the bigger the government (or trade routes) the more laws required; the more laws, the less freedom, as we discussed above. The equation can also be expressed as Freedom = 1/Laws.

Passports and Free Trade:

So the inhibition of federalism, is really the inhibition of freedom because the inhibition of freedom is the inhibition of free markets and federalism is an expression of the free market.

Thus to be consistent, those screaming for free trade should also be screaming for free passage -- no passports, the relics of war paranoia(2). Free passage of people around the world promotes both federalism and free trade ultimately because it allows brainpower to gravitate to and from the most and least able, free nations. The most able and free nations will thus create competition amongst all nations and, in doing so, the world will become a freer and better place for all.

If people can simply move or travel in and out of any country without permission or oversight from any government, all of the laws attendant to immigration and international trade, hence global government, will be made obsolete.(3) By demanding the right to locomote to or from any point in the world to any other point, the world's physical commerce will explode as the Internet's commerce has already exploded.

So-called terrorism and other criminal activities will attenuate because people will become more affluent; they will more-freely mingle, they will feel less trapped and antagonized by endless government and its freedom-killing "laws." Freedom is not anarchy as statists would suggest: government foments anarchy because it abuses the power of sovereignty. Most people recognize the merits of a reasonable number of well-thought-out laws -- groundrules that define the game of life -- and they react responsibly and socially to such. Limited republican government promotes this state of affairs whereas democracy and totalitarianism promote the exact opposite.

A "free market" is thus a market that is unrestricted by government interference. We do NOT have a free market, nor ever will if half the value of EVERY transaction -- money tendered -- is dictated by the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee through the setting of interest rates and "elasticity" of the money supply.

When Congress partners with the large New York banks to monopolize the money supply (by printing Federal Reserve Notes, functionally similar to "Bills of Credit" described in Article I of the Constitution), it undermines limited government, free markets and federalism.(4)


The globalists -- also known as free traders -- are hypocrites to the degree they impose passports and extradition treaties on human entities when they advocate free passage for all non-human entities.

Their true intentions are not free trade at all but MANAGED trade. This includes MANAGED locomotion of the world's citizens.


For this reason -- and because of the abuses of the world's transportation system by those who obfuscate transparency in the name of security -- citizens, no matter what country, should refuse to elect or support politicians that advocate or advance restricted locomotion.

Such apologists of restricted locomotion are little more than agents of one world government and totalitarianism, for the calculus of their actions can result in nothing less. Multinational traders that use profits to fund congressional campaigns are global parasites. They have no allegiance to any country yet they want all other citizens to be chained to some country through passports and under threat of extradition treaties.

Such global parasites are in the business of purchasing the loyalties of governments when such governments should, and must, be loyal to voting citizens -- not artificial entities. Those with dual citizenships are machinating for some advantage over people who have picked a team, unless they leave that team for a better team in the free and open light of competition.

Those who advocate free passage for goods yet regulate the free passage of humans are not only hypocrites, they are enemies of humanity because their actions contribute to the establishment of a global police state. Such are people that hire congresses that are so out of touch with the elements of freedom they see fit to fund a 5 zettabyte surveillance facility in Utah and then instruct the mainstream media to avoid reporting on it. Is it any wonder such Congress has an approval rating of less than 20% -- an excellent reason to vote them all out. A congress that can't keep their oath of office or limit their terms is a congress than can't limit the government or keep the republic.

(1) Extradition is the official process whereby one country transfers a suspected or convicted criminal to another country. Between country, extradition is normally regulated by treaties. It is an ancient mechanism, dating back to at least the 13th century BC, when an Egyptian Pharaoh negotiated an extradition treaty with a Hittite King. Through the extradition process, a sovereign (the requesting state) typically makes a formal request to another sovereign (the requested state). If the fugitive is found within the territory of the requested state, then the requested state may arrest the fugitive and subject him or her to its extradition process. The extradition procedures to which the fugitive will be subjected are dependent on the law and practice of the requested state. The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, because one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation, and the desire for the right to demand such criminals from other countries, have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve. When there is no extradition agreement in place, or when applicable extradition agreements are inapplicable, a sovereign may still request the expulsion or lawful return of an individual pursuant to the requested state's domestic law. This can be accomplished through the immigration laws of the requested state or other facets of the requested state's domestic law. Similarly, the codes of penal procedure in many countries contain provisions allowing for extradition to take place in the absence of an extradition agreement. Sovereigns may, therefore, still request the expulsion or lawful return of a fugitive from the territory of a requested state in the absence of an extradition treaty. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with several nations, including the People's Republic of China, Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, North Korea, and Bahrain. By enacting laws or in concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. See for more from Wiki.

(2) King Henry V of England is credited with having invented what some consider the first true passport, notwithstanding the earlier examples cited, as a means of helping his subjects prove who they were in foreign lands. The rapid expansion of rail travel and wealth in Europe from the mid-nineteenth century led to a unique dissolution of the passport system for thirty odd years before WWI. The speed of trains, as well as the numbers of passengers that crossed many borders, made enforcement of passport laws difficult. The general reaction was the relaxation of passport requirements. In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was a relatively straightforward procedure. Consequently, comparatively few people held passports. The Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire maintained passport requirements for international travel, in addition to an internal passport system to control travel within their borders. Most countries issued passports but countries that demanded travelers have a passport were considered backwards. See "passports" at for more quoted from Wiki

(3) Consider this approach to so-called immigration reform in the US. If movement barriers -- people and products -- in and out of all countries in the world were abolished and people could go where they wanted unfettered by the state, the world would eventually reach an equilibrium, if by no other process than macroscopic Brownian motion and/or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since heat always flows from hot to cold, those countries that were on fire with productivity would eventually share their heat with those countries that are not. Many people want to move from Mexico to the United States, but many of the elite in the US are actually moving to Mexico. If governments of the world's countries can't force their citizens to stay by withholding visas (passports), they will be forced to change conditions to so that their citizens will want to stay voluntarily. Governments however, do not generally want to expose their countries to the free market, thus they force their citizens to stay. This is what much be resisted and changed. When the world's countries are "united" in a global federalism modeled on freedom, transparency, competition and the precepts the Framers used to establish the United States, you will see an age of enlightenment like no other. Rather than the dystopian future Hollywood screen writers are stuck in, we could have a world tapestry based on cooperation at the national level and competition at the nation level.

(4) With the current NSA Whistleblower case of Edward Snowden, we can easily see how many of the nation's congressmen are traitors to the republic. Almost all of Congress, with the exception of a few like Rand Paul, have been bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex. It's thus no surprise that they support the surveillance state and are abettors in crime building a police state through the PATRIOT Act and other "laws" such as the NDAA. Add in the dimension that some of the information Snowden may have pertains to the international bankers and their crimes, and we can see that the puppeteers are doing their best to hide and salvage their criminal global empire. And what's sad is much of the mainstream media, with the exception of a few like Kirsten Powers, seem to be taking their marching orders from the government. Yet to be more fully disclosed to the public is the 5 zettabyte data center being constructed in Bluffdale, Utah. Known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center, this system is capable of Storing data on the order of magnitude of zettabytes and even possibly yottabytes. It is scheduled to be completed in September of 2013 at a cost to $2 - 4 billion. A zettabyte is three orders of magnitude more than a terabyte and a yottabyte is five orders of magnitude larger than a terabyte. The scale goes like this: kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte, petabyte, exabyte, zettabyte, yottabyte. Each is 1,000 times larger than the previous level. Thus a yottabyte is a system that can store 10 ^ 24th power bytes of data or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of data. This is enough capacity to store every phone call, email, web page, tweet, facebook page, photograph, song, picture, TV show, radio show, motion picture, video and computer program generated by all 7 billion people on earth for over 100 years. Do we really need this for our security as envisioned by Senator Lindsay Graham, Senator Peter King, James Woolsey, Karl Rove, Jane Fineberg, John McCain, James Clapper, William Hague, Harry Reid, Dick Cheney, General Hayden and General Alexander? Of could this facility, and its creators have something else in mind?

ORIGINATED: 23 June 2013

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute