Societies

Chambers dictionary defines society as:

1. humankind as a whole, or a part of it such as one nation, considered as a single community. 

2 a division of humankind with common characteristics, eg. nationality, race or religion. 

3 an organised group or association, meeting to share a common interest or activity. 

4 a the rich and fashionable section of the upper class; b the social scene of this class section; c as adjective- a society wedding. 

5 formal company - he prefers the society of women. 

6 ecol a small plant community within a larger group. 

In this definition there are clearly two different understandings of what a society is. Definitions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 refer to abstract groups of people who are not consciously and willingly bound together but are theoretical a posteriori ways to divide and unite people. E.g., in order to say that humankind is a society, we have to previously separate humans from animals, for example. And if we take race instead, we could separate black people from white people. If we take economic/social class, we could separate the rich "upper" class from the working class. These are all abstract associations that are made after the fact. One single individual can belong to many of them without having done so purposely or willingly. "Society is nothing more than a term, a concept for the symbiosis of a group of human beings. A concept is not a carrier of life." Carl Jung, Volume 15 - Practice of Psychotherapy. This acceptation of the term would be similar to the fictional idea of "public", an abstract idea of the common ground which is formed solely by the interaction between all private entities and which could not exist without them.   

The only definition that is different and the one that better describes societies is the third. This one makes more sense as it infers a voluntary association between individuals who share a common interest, not individuals who were born a certain way. We can see that this is the correct definition when we find its etymological meaning:

1530's "companionship, friendly association with others," from Old French societé "company" from Latin societatem (nominative societas) "fellowship, association, alliance, union, community," from socius "companion, ally."

If societies are alliances, fellowships, unions... perhaps they are not random associations of people who actually have nothing to do with each other a part from being born in the same place, or with similar skin colour. Societies have names, mission statements, rules and memberships. Sounds familiar? To me, that sounds like a Nation or State or country. And within that State/society/corporation; with a name, a constitution, its law, and its members; there are franchises of other societies or corporations; with their names, purposes, rules and memberships. CONSENT is required in order to be a part of a society, your consent and the society's consent. Black's Law dictionary could not make this point clearer:

SOCIETY. An association or company of persons (generally unincorporated) united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose. In a wider sense, the community or public; the people in general. Gilmer v. Stone, 7 S.Ct. 689, 120 U.S. 586, 30 L.Ed. 734. 

SOCIETAS. Lat. In the civil law. Partnership; a partnership; the contract of partnership. Inst. 3, 26. A contract by which the goods or labor of two or more are united in a common stock, for the sake of sharing in the gain. Hallifax, Civil Law, b. 2, c. 18, no. 12.

There are public or civil societies and private societies. The concept is the same, and beyond the abstraction of the "public", each and every one of these societies need to materialise into some form. When they do that, they define their goals, interests, rules and memberships, and above all, men enter into them by consent because some men formed them. Natural law, where are law stems from, establishes that we are all equal under God, and if we are not, then that's slavery. That is why consent is needed. But when was that consent acquired?

Is the birth certificate a form of contract with the society one is born into? And if that's the case, is it a valid contract? To begin with, there wasn't full disclosure as a baby cannot understand. Second, there was a lack of equal consideration; and third, the baby did not have any intention to contract. The contract is therefore: null and void. Since governments are corporations and we clearly do not live in democracies, the "public" as we understand it does not exist. We are in fact surrounded by corporations operating in the public, franchises of franchises and we ourselves identify as legal corporations! Those legal persons are our membership into these societies, and these societies have man-made rules that we need to obey... Or not? Just as long as we diminish ourselves to the mere legal title; just as long as we consider ourselves... "members of the public".