If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WREG Memphis)   For the record, filing fraudulent papers and pretending banks aren't real will not give you the right to squat in a $3 million house, nor will it let you run over police officers, Miss Soverign Citizen   (wreg.com) divider line 169
    More: Cool, Shady Grove, Illinois, squatters, police officers  
•       •       •

11356 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 8:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 10:53:45 AM

noitsnot: Ned Stark: dv-ous: Ned Stark: anfrind: kudayta: Last Man on Earth: kudayta: I'm on my phone right now and can't break down the whole violence argument for you. I suspect though that we largely agree on the foundations of political power, but use different language to describe the same phenomena.

Entirely possible, it's just that that whole line of phrasing has been so co-opted by the "taxation is theft at gunpoint" mentality that I find myself reflexively running away from it.  You may well be correct that we frame the same thing in different ways, however.

Yeah good example and I see how my phrasing introduced confusion. Sorry about that.

I don't think taxation is theft, but it is done (ultimately) at gunpoint. Hopefully that clears some things up for you.

Taxation is not based on a threat of violence.  It's based on a social contract: you live in a society that provides certain benefits, and in return you pay taxes to help pay for those benefits.

And if you try to opt out they'll throw you in prison and if you don't let them they'll farking shoot you. But uhhh no violence involved right?

You can opt out - just don't earn money.

If you're earning money, chances are pretty good you're using those public accommodations.

Yes, wandering the back alleys and eating from garbage cans wholly excluded from the normal flow of human affairs until you die of scurvy is totes a reasonable escape clause to a contract that you never signed but are somehow a party to. Consent is therefore legitimate.

You can't eat from those garbage cans - that's stealing.

We're sorry you aren't happy with the service agreement that comes with your life.  Please return it to any  customer care center and you will be refunded the full amount you paid for it.


Where have I voiced dissatisfaction?
 
2013-03-08 10:53:54 AM

ursomniac: Tea Party utopia


For what it's worth, the Sovereign Citizens are way out of the Tea Party's league. I like your Truman Show idea, but know that the Tea Party utopia would still have a functioning government, judicial system, municipal services, still have cops, and probably still have taxes too. The Sovereign Citizens are wayyyyy crazier, if you can believe it.
 
2013-03-08 10:59:46 AM

Ned Stark: dv-ous: Ned Stark: anfrind: kudayta: Last Man on Earth: kudayta: I'm on my phone right now and can't break down the whole violence argument for you. I suspect though that we largely agree on the foundations of political power, but use different language to describe the same phenomena.

Entirely possible, it's just that that whole line of phrasing has been so co-opted by the "taxation is theft at gunpoint" mentality that I find myself reflexively running away from it.  You may well be correct that we frame the same thing in different ways, however.

Yeah good example and I see how my phrasing introduced confusion. Sorry about that.

I don't think taxation is theft, but it is done (ultimately) at gunpoint. Hopefully that clears some things up for you.

Taxation is not based on a threat of violence.  It's based on a social contract: you live in a society that provides certain benefits, and in return you pay taxes to help pay for those benefits.

And if you try to opt out they'll throw you in prison and if you don't let them they'll farking shoot you. But uhhh no violence involved right?

You can opt out - just don't earn money.

If you're earning money, chances are pretty good you're using those public accommodations.

Yes, wandering the back alleys and eating from garbage cans wholly excluded from the normal flow of human affairs until you die of scurvy is totes a reasonable escape clause to a contract that you never signed but are somehow a party to. Consent is therefore legitimate.


You can't be in that back alley. You didn't help pay for its construction or maintenance. You're trespassing.

Nobody gives a shiat if you consented to anything or not. You are inside the borders of a sovereign nation, and that sovereign nation and the subdivisions of government within it are providing public goods to you (communication and transportation right of way, local and national defense, etc.) You will help pay for those things as proportionate to your means because we're not going to have any free riders. If you do not wish to be part of this system then go find some unclaimed property (land, sea, another planet, whatever) and go live there instead, because you can't stay here.
 
2013-03-08 11:00:35 AM
The place has been empty for 18 months. I wonder how long she could have lasted by keeping the crazy on the down low.
 
2013-03-08 11:03:22 AM

Gunny Walker: The place has been empty for 18 months. I wonder how long she could have lasted by keeping the crazy on the down low.


The realtor went to show the house and found the gate padlocked and her living in it. So not much longer.
 
2013-03-08 11:04:17 AM

The universe is laughing behind your back: Ned Stark: dv-ous: Ned Stark: anfrind: kudayta: Last Man on Earth: kudayta: I'm on my phone right now and can't break down the whole violence argument for you. I suspect though that we largely agree on the foundations of political power, but use different language to describe the same phenomena.

Entirely possible, it's just that that whole line of phrasing has been so co-opted by the "taxation is theft at gunpoint" mentality that I find myself reflexively running away from it.  You may well be correct that we frame the same thing in different ways, however.

Yeah good example and I see how my phrasing introduced confusion. Sorry about that.

I don't think taxation is theft, but it is done (ultimately) at gunpoint. Hopefully that clears some things up for you.

Taxation is not based on a threat of violence.  It's based on a social contract: you live in a society that provides certain benefits, and in return you pay taxes to help pay for those benefits.

And if you try to opt out they'll throw you in prison and if you don't let them they'll farking shoot you. But uhhh no violence involved right?

You can opt out - just don't earn money.

If you're earning money, chances are pretty good you're using those public accommodations.

Yes, wandering the back alleys and eating from garbage cans wholly excluded from the normal flow of human affairs until you die of scurvy is totes a reasonable escape clause to a contract that you never signed but are somehow a party to. Consent is therefore legitimate.

You can't be in that back alley. You didn't help pay for its construction or maintenance. You're trespassing.

Nobody gives a shiat if you consented to anything or not. You are inside the borders of a sovereign nation, and that sovereign nation and the subdivisions of government within it are providing public goods to you (communication and transportation right of way, local and national defense, etc.) You will help pay for those things as proportionate to your means because we're not going to have any free riders. If you do not wish to be part of this system then go find some unclaimed property (land, sea, another planet, whatever) and go live there instead, because you can't stay here.


So you agree that the "social contract" is total bunk and the system is just pay up or well take it from you?

Good. Glad we are moving towards a consensus.
 
2013-03-08 11:05:59 AM

noitsnot: You can't eat from those garbage cans - that's stealing.


That can't be right. Garbage is not private property when put out for disposal. Maybe if it's still inside the building or a fence, but when it's on the curb, it's free for the taking.
 
2013-03-08 11:06:45 AM
Ned Stark: So you agree that the "social contract" is total bunk and the system is just pay up or well take it from you?

Good. Glad we are moving towards a consensus.


Where did he "voice" that he thought it was bunk?
 
2013-03-08 11:10:19 AM

dv-ous: Ned Stark: So you agree that the "social contract" is total bunk and the system is just pay up or well take it from you?

Good. Glad we are moving towards a consensus.

Where did he "voice" that he thought it was bunk?


When he said no one cares whether anyone consents. A legitimate contract requires consent from all parties. Because that's what a contract is. An agreement to behave a certain way.

No consent, no contract.
 
2013-03-08 11:11:51 AM

Benjamin Orr: Gunny Walker: The place has been empty for 18 months. I wonder how long she could have lasted by keeping the crazy on the down low.

The realtor went to show the house and found the gate padlocked and her living in it. So not much longer.



No, then you just say, "Well we fell on hard time and the Bank is letting us stay here. They get a tax write off. We get a helping hand to get back on our feet. Win-win situation. We fully understand that this means that the house may be shown at anytime. What? First you've heard of it? Well, you know how these big corporations are. Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and what not. Hold on, I've got some paperwork in the kitchen. **Fake contract** It really benefits them because it means that they don't have to worry about deer and racoons tearing the place up. Here, let me give you my cell, so you can call me next time. We keep it kind of chilly in here. It'll give me a chance to turn the heat up a bit."

Then start checking the papers for new foreclosures cause your time is limited. I'm betting this woman could have bought some time because she brought the crazy on day one.
 
2013-03-08 11:12:28 AM

Ned Stark: Yes, wandering the back alleys and eating from garbage cans wholly excluded from the normal flow of human affairs until you die of scurvy is totes a reasonable escape clause to a contract that you never signed but are somehow a party to. Consent is therefore legitimate.


So a person that doesn't want to take part of society's rules gets to biatch about being left our of the 'normal flow of human affairs'?  I think that person need to review what a society is first.
 
2013-03-08 11:12:32 AM

Ned Stark: dv-ous: Ned Stark: anfrind: kudayta: Last Man on Earth: kudayta: I'm on my phone right now and can't break down the whole violence argument for you. I suspect though that we largely agree on the foundations of political power, but use different language to describe the same phenomena.

Entirely possible, it's just that that whole line of phrasing has been so co-opted by the "taxation is theft at gunpoint" mentality that I find myself reflexively running away from it.  You may well be correct that we frame the same thing in different ways, however.

Yeah good example and I see how my phrasing introduced confusion. Sorry about that.

I don't think taxation is theft, but it is done (ultimately) at gunpoint. Hopefully that clears some things up for you.

Taxation is not based on a threat of violence.  It's based on a social contract: you live in a society that provides certain benefits, and in return you pay taxes to help pay for those benefits.

And if you try to opt out they'll throw you in prison and if you don't let them they'll farking shoot you. But uhhh no violence involved right?

You can opt out - just don't earn money.

If you're earning money, chances are pretty good you're using those public accommodations.

Yes, wandering the back alleys and eating from garbage cans wholly excluded from the normal flow of human affairs until you die of scurvy is totes a reasonable escape clause to a contract that you never signed but are somehow a party to. Consent is therefore legitimate.


You are a party to it because you live here. If you don't like the provisions of the implied social contract that comes with being a member of a particular society, then you need to remove yourself from said society. Staying here indicates acceptance of that social contract. In other words, if you don't like it, leave.
 
2013-03-08 11:14:30 AM

Ned Stark: So you agree that the "social contract" is total bunk and the system is just pay up or well take it from you?


No, actually, he's saying quite the opposite.  You say you didn't consent, but you implicitly did when you accepted the benefits of living in a society.  If somebody delivered a big-screen tv to your door, and you decided to keep it, it wouldn't matter that you never explicitly agreed to pay for it.  You were enriched by the value of the tv, and now equitable exchange is warranted.  Now, if you were misled with something like "here, have a free tv, no need to pay for it," that would obviously be a different case, but let's assume that never happened.  Similarly, if someone takes the benefits of a society but refuses to accept the corresponding duties of a member, that society is within its rights to treat that person as a thief.  That's the very definition of a social contract.
 
2013-03-08 11:17:20 AM

Ned Stark: dv-ous: Ned Stark: So you agree that the "social contract" is total bunk and the system is just pay up or well take it from you?

Good. Glad we are moving towards a consensus.

Where did he "voice" that he thought it was bunk?

When he said no one cares whether anyone consents. A legitimate contract requires consent from all parties. Because that's what a contract is. An agreement to behave a certain way.

No consent, no contract.


I know nothing of social contracts, but most people living in this country seem to appreciate that the civilization that comes along with paying taxes is actually a really good deal. If you don't agree that's your prerogative but since those goods are being provided to you whether you want them or not, and since we can't let anyone ride for free, then you can either like it, lump it or leave. Your call.
 
2013-03-08 11:21:00 AM

Ned Stark: So you agree that the "social contract" is total bunk and the system is just pay up or well take it from you?


Thomas Hobbes laid his theory out more on compensation than consent, so that ancestors could make contracts that would be binding on their descendants.  Of course, once the side with more railroads and factories populist senators some new kind of deal general schemes to regulate interstate commerce executive police actions national security letters armed drones breaches its side of the contract...
 
2013-03-08 11:22:38 AM

Last Man on Earth: You say you didn't consent, but you implicitly did when you accepted the benefits of living in a society.


Wrong.  In order for that to be consent, you have to have had alternatives.  As the entire surface of the earth has been carved up by "sovereign states" of varying historical backgrounds and claims, I'd love to hear how an individual would go about opting out of the social contract she's born into.
 
2013-03-08 11:25:05 AM

Last Man on Earth: Ned Stark: So you agree that the "social contract" is total bunk and the system is just pay up or well take it from you?

No, actually, he's saying quite the opposite.  You say you didn't consent, but you implicitly did when you accepted the benefits of living in a society.  If somebody delivered a big-screen tv to your door, and you decided to keep it, it wouldn't matter that you never explicitly agreed to pay for it.  You were enriched by the value of the tv, and now equitable exchange is warranted.  Now, if you were misled with something like "here, have a free tv, no need to pay for it," that would obviously be a different case, but let's assume that never happened.  Similarly, if someone takes the benefits of a society but refuses to accept the corresponding duties of a member, that society is within its rights to treat that person as a thief.  That's the very definition of a social contract.


Terrible analogy. The TV can be just sent back. Can't get away from states. 100% of the hearts inhabitable surface is claimed by one or another.

And its pretty ridiculous to claim that "comply with these terms or leave your home your family and your friends and GTFO forever" is a reasonable choice.
 
2013-03-08 11:25:15 AM

chrylis: Last Man on Earth: You say you didn't consent, but you implicitly did when you accepted the benefits of living in a society.

Wrong.  In order for that to be consent, you have to have had alternatives.  As the entire surface of the earth has been carved up by "sovereign states" of varying historical backgrounds and claims, I'd love to hear how an individual would go about opting out of the social contract she's born into.


You can't. Deal with it.
 
2013-03-08 11:27:49 AM

Maestro1701: Bungles: Wait, a bail bond for non-violent squatting that's 25 times the amount than Pistorius got for shooting his girlfriend in the head?

In a completely different country? With their own court system and everything?


I'm not American or South African, so you're all just the same amorphous "foreign" to me.
 
2013-03-08 11:30:30 AM

thurstonxhowell: You can't. Deal with it.


Exactly my point.  I'm not saying that, for example, the federal government doesn't have the power to make things happen; I'm saying that most of what it does lacks moral justification and is simply an arbitrary exercise of power.  Any good intentions behind such actions are irrelevant.
 
2013-03-08 11:30:52 AM

chrylis: Last Man on Earth: You say you didn't consent, but you implicitly did when you accepted the benefits of living in a society.

Wrong.  In order for that to be consent, you have to have had alternatives.  As the entire surface of the earth has been carved up by "sovereign states" of varying historical backgrounds and claims, I'd love to hear how an individual would go about opting out of the social contract she's born into.


Are you going to complain that you can't opt out of the need to eat and breathe air too?  The occupation of the earth's surface is simply a fact of life.  Your options are to accept the social contract you were born into, move to another country with a social contract you find more acceptable, or you can essentially "opt out" by refusing to earn any taxable income, living off the grid, and never relying upon any sort of government service.  It's not our problem that you find all of your options unpalatable.
 
2013-03-08 11:31:05 AM
Property is theft
 
2013-03-08 11:32:48 AM
P. Barnes was not amused.
 
2013-03-08 11:33:44 AM

chrylis: I'm saying that most of what it does lacks moral justification and is simply an arbitrary exercise of power.


So, how, in your ideal world, would it work? Every nation disappears over night. What do you want to happen next?
 
2013-03-08 11:35:01 AM

chrylis: thurstonxhowell: You can't. Deal with it.

Exactly my point.  I'm not saying that, for example, the federal government doesn't have the power to make things happen; I'm saying that most of what it does lacks moral justification and is simply an arbitrary exercise of power.  Any good intentions behind such actions are irrelevant.


Most of what it does is demanded by the people living within its borders. The federal government does not pass laws for its own amusement. It does that because the citizenry requested them. If you don't like the people you live here with and the way this federal government exercises its power, then try to find a different country whose laws you like better and is willing to accept you (I hope you have some useful skills to contribute to them, or they're not going to want you) and see about emigrating.
 
2013-03-08 11:36:24 AM

Koalaesq: i've been up against Sovereign Citizens in court. They are scarily deluded people. Although watching the Judge's face when the "sovereign" referred to him as "Mr." and not "your Honor" was worth the price of admission.


USe to Run the Pro-se assistance desk at a Surburban DC-Metro courthouse, never could decide which group was more batshiat insane, the "sovereign citizens" yammering on about how the fring on the courtrrom flag meant this was a military tribunal with no jurisdiction over them, or the "Moorish Constitution" folks who believed Jefferson signed a treaty with a Barbary state that essentially exempted all black people from US laws
 
2013-03-08 11:37:28 AM

johncb76006: Didn't Obama say that she could have that house?


Profedius: We need that pic of Obama with the words "My Nubian brothers take what you want" in here stat!


static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-03-08 11:37:43 AM

thurstonxhowell: chrylis: I'm saying that most of what it does lacks moral justification and is simply an arbitrary exercise of power.

So, how, in your ideal world, would it work? Every nation disappears over night. What do you want to happen next?


Strongmen to start extracting wealth to pay for public works, laying down laws, and killing anyone who objects to strenuously, what else?
 
2013-03-08 11:48:30 AM

chrylis: Last Man on Earth: You say you didn't consent, but you implicitly did when you accepted the benefits of living in a society.

Wrong.  In order for that to be consent, you have to have had alternatives.  As the entire surface of the earth has been carved up by "sovereign states" of varying historical backgrounds and claims, I'd love to hear how an individual would go about opting out of the social contract she's born into.


Wrong. Of course you have alternatives. Simply find a society with a social contract you can live with. If you can't find one, there are actually remote parts of the world where you can turtle up and become a hermit, even though you are technically within a nation's borders.
 
2013-03-08 11:52:08 AM

UnrepentantApostate: The occupation of the earth's surface is simply a fact of life. Your options are to accept the social contract you were born into, move to another country with a social contract you find more acceptable, or you can essentially "opt out" by refusing to earn any taxable income, living off the grid, and never relying upon any sort of government service.


Option 2 isn't valid as a general alternative: I can't switch countries freely like I can US states, and even if I could, you'd still be sticking me with a forced choice.  Option 3 assumes the legitimacy of an institution to impose its will on individuals; you aren't "opted out" if the state can still tell you that you're not allowed to earn "taxable income".

thurstonxhowell: So, how, in your ideal world, would it work? Every nation disappears over night. What do you want to happen next?


I'm not an anarchist, though David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom has some interesting answers to that.  I'd be content with actually enforcing the limits of constitutional government (including the ability to amend, which intentionally requires a high enough hurdle that it's clear an overwhelming consensus exists to impose the changes on those who didn't agree).

The universe is laughing behind your back: Most of what it does is demanded by the people living within its borders. The federal government does not pass laws for its own amusement. It does that because the citizenry requested them.


I think you might actually believe that, in which case you need to take a long, hard look at what "citizenry" you're talking about.  Which citizens decided we needed Rapiscan products purchased by the shipload, or that the FBI should be able to secretly demand any records about you from anyone with no judicial oversight, or that it should be a felony to jailbreak your own cell phone?  Don't make the mistake of treating "the federal government" or "the citizenry" as cohesive blocs; they're composed of lots of individuals with competing personal interests, and much of the point of the US Constitution was to throw up roadblocks to petty empire-building.
 
2013-03-08 11:54:10 AM

Katolu: She's not "Moorish"?


thumbs.anyclip.com
 
2013-03-08 11:54:43 AM

hardinparamedic: Benjamin Orr: All that plus her threat to "take care of" the cops if they tried to evict her.

Plus that was the wrong neighborhood to fark with. Lots and lots money around that street.

Yeah. That's what got Shelby County SWAT involved was her threat to "take care of" the cops. Apparently she was also threatening to shoot News Channel 5 and 3 reporters if they didn't get off "her property".

Ever since the Kanes executed those West Memphis cops, the local guys don't fool around with these idiots.


First thing I thought of when I heard the story was the shooting in West Memphis.  I'm glad this one ended peacefully thanks to the SCSD.  I'm tired of hearing about this stupid whack job every time I turn on the news.  Now they can go back to reporting all the murders and robberies.  Plus, we have to devote lots of tv time to the other whack jobs coming to town the end of this month!
 
2013-03-08 12:03:27 PM
chrylis:
The universe is laughing behind your back: Most of what it does is demanded by the people living within its borders. The federal government does not pass laws for its own amusement. It does that because the citizenry requested them.

I think you might actually believe that, in which case you need to take a long, hard look at what "citizenry" you're talking about.  Which citizens decided we needed Rapiscan products purchased by the shipload, or that the FBI should be able to secretly demand any records about you from anyone with no judicial oversight, or that it should be a felony to jailbreak your own cell phone?  Don't make the mistake of treating "the federal government" or "the citizenry" as cohesive blocs; they're composed of lots of individual ...


I am more than well aware of that, thank you very much. I also don't care. Couple of things: First, just because nobody you know or talk to agrees with any of those things doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people in this country who do. Second, if a representative in government is doing things that are strongly opposed by his constituents then it is incumbent upon them to replace him. The actual reality is that these things you mention are simply not important enough to most people to cause any concern in their daily lives. Like I said, if you don't like the people you live here with then either put some effort into changing their opinions or go find someplace else to hang out.
 
2013-03-08 12:11:08 PM

Freakjob_0: Would rather have pictures of this $3 million house, than pictures of the suspect...


http://www.wmctv.com/slideshow?widgetid=75435

This is a very high dollar neighborhood in Memphis.

/sorry for the slideshow
 
2013-03-08 12:11:34 PM
I'm liking this "smugly agree with your opponents and declare victory" method of debate. Its fun. Like creationists talking about "micro"evolution.
 
2013-03-08 12:13:50 PM

Ned Stark: I'm liking this "smugly agree with your opponents and declare victory" method of debate. Its fun. Like creationists talking about "micro"evolution.


You you win or you die declare yourself winner?
 
2013-03-08 12:21:17 PM

Magorn: USe to Run the Pro-se assistance desk at a Surburban DC-Metro courthouse, never could decide which group was more batshiat insane, the "sovereign citizens" yammering on about how the fring on the courtrrom flag meant this was a military tribunal with no jurisdiction over them, or the "Moorish Constitution" folks who believed Jefferson signed a treaty with a Barbary state that essentially exempted all black people from US laws


I had never heard that one. . .and it's probably the dumbest I've ever heard.

It relies on absolute ignorance of the legal weight of a Treaty in US law (i.e. equivalent to a statute, and can be overruled/superceded by Constitutional Amendments).  Any one of hundreds of laws passed afterwards would have nullified it.

It requires total ignorance of the 14th Amendment and how it ruled all persons born in the US are US citizens.  The only way out of that is to be not subject to US laws, which was meant to cover Indian tribes and children of people with diplomatic status.

It requires total ignorance of world history.  Even if, somehow, all people of African descent in the US were treated as subjects of one of the Barbary States, those states were part of the Ottoman Empire. . .which broke up a century ago.
 
2013-03-08 12:22:56 PM

doubled99: Yes, of course the whole "sovereign citizen" thing is a scam, but who cares?
Why are so many people so fiercely eager to cheer on banks and govt squashing someone from staying in a house no one is using?


Define "no one is using" My house sits empty most of the week while I am at work. Yeah, I will call the cops if someone is there living in it when I get home tonight.
Also, define "squash". In many squatter cases, they simply ask you to leave ( how barbaric!), and possibly to pay for any damage caused, such as to door locks. The trial and jail time in this case seems to be for alleged violent crimes, not squatting.

That money in your savings account has sat there unused for months. You obviously don't need it. I'll just take all that.
 
2013-03-08 12:23:19 PM
dv-ous:

Andere Länder, andere Sitten.

Ländlich, sittlich.
 
2013-03-08 12:23:58 PM

chrylis: UnrepentantApostate: The occupation of the earth's surface is simply a fact of life. Your options are to accept the social contract you were born into, move to another country with a social contract you find more acceptable, or you can essentially "opt out" by refusing to earn any taxable income, living off the grid, and never relying upon any sort of government service.

Option 2 isn't valid as a general alternative: I can't switch countries freely like I can US states, and even if I could, you'd still be sticking me with a forced choice.  Option 3 assumes the legitimacy of an institution to impose its will on individuals; you aren't "opted out" if the state can still tell you that you're not allowed to earn "taxable income".


No Option 2 is a valid alternative. You are just not willing to accept the countries where you could move to with a little more then a plane ticket, as most are pretty war torn. Any nation that requires more would not be acceptiable to the soverign citizens anyway. Though most people should be able to find a Nation that they would be comfortable in, and move to that country as long as they are not idiots and make sure they acquire something to make them desirable to that society.

And "Opting out" means not earning any taxiable income, and living off what the land provides. It means sustinance farming for ytour food, and making your own clothes and shelter. It means not using the social contract for anything, as any use of it requires that you follow its rules.
 
2013-03-08 12:38:12 PM

Ned Stark: I'm liking this "smugly agree with your opponents and declare victory" method of debate. Its fun. Like creationists talking about "micro"evolution.


Who are you talking about? I don't have any opponents. What's happening is that you are whining about the fact that you have to share this country with people who don't agree with you, and we (or at least I) don't care about your problems. This is the world you live in. So live with it, or don't.
 
2013-03-08 12:47:29 PM

The universe is laughing behind your back: Ned Stark: I'm liking this "smugly agree with your opponents and declare victory" method of debate. Its fun. Like creationists talking about "micro"evolution.

Who are you talking about? I don't have any opponents. What's happening is that you are whining about the fact that you have to share this country with people who don't agree with you, and we (or at least I) don't care about your problems. This is the world you live in. So live with it, or don't.


Whining nothing, I explicitly approved of compulsive violence just ~10 posts ago! Chrylis kinda did too. Its a bit early to be this drunk, dude.
 
2013-03-08 01:10:42 PM

cman: Oooooo

I LOVE these threads

Woman rebels against banks (left YAY right BOO). Woman is part of the sovereign citizen movement (left BOO right YAY)


An idiot is an idiot, no matter what their political leaning.
 
2013-03-08 01:11:32 PM
www-deadline-com.vimg.net

Disagrees with subby
 
2013-03-08 01:18:03 PM

Silverstaff: Glockenspiel Hero: Wait, a black female sovereign citizen?  My head assplode.

Derp knows no limits of color and sex.

This specific derp being in that type is a little unusual, to be sure, but it's not like it couldn't happen.

That said, I always have a special mixture of scorn and pity for "sovereign citizens", they are to the law and government what TimeCube Guy is to physics, Jenny McCarthy and her fellow anti-vaxers are to medicine,Truthers are to history, and Young Earth Creationists are to archaeology.

My favorite rebuttal to their arguments is to ask two questions:
1. Where is a "sovereign citizen" who actually won in the long term?  Yeah, they can use lawsuits and liens and such to drag things out, but in the end they always get smacked down, HARD, by the system for all kinds of fraud, tax evasion and such.  Name one guy who's actually pulled off this scam and had the courts back it up and forced the government to bow to his "sovereignty".

2. If, huge if, this actually worked, why wouldn't more people do it?  You think if this worked that lawyers and judges wouldn't use it themselves?  Some super-secret backdoor way to ignore any laws you don't like, then why wouldn't lots of people use it, and why did you have to hear about it on some backwater of the internet or buy some guys book or go to his seminar or something.  Ever notice that the people trying to get other people to do this have a financial incentive to do so?


So, sovereign citizens are pretty much as successful as the birthers when it comes to getting legal recognition for their claims?
 
2013-03-08 01:37:02 PM

chrylis: anfrind: Taxation is not based on a threat of violence. It's based on a social contract: you live in a society that provides certain benefits, and in return you pay taxes to help pay for those benefits.

You're conflating two concepts, political legitimacy and political power.  Social-contract theory attempts to explain why some people over in Washington have the moral authority to demand that you cough up what you've earned (as did the idea of the divine right of kings); that's relevant to but clearly separate from the issue that what it means to have political power is that, regardless of whether you're George Washington or Joseph Stalin, you can send guys with guns to make other people do what you do demand.


This is well put. Thank you chrylis.
 
2013-03-08 01:39:46 PM
Soverign Citizens just make me want to punch someone.
 
2013-03-08 01:44:05 PM

Ned Stark: I'm liking this "smugly agree with your opponents and declare victory" method of debate. Its fun. Like creationists talking about "micro"evolution.


That tone might be my fault. I didnt want to come off sounding combative this morning, because I clearly don't know enough about poli sci to have an informed opinion. Consequently, I sounded smug instead.

/its not easy being me
 
2013-03-08 01:47:23 PM

Last Man on Earth: I don't agree with you on the violence thing by any means, but in general, it is a case of knowing that legal arguments work without having any clue WHY they work. Several posters have referred to it as cargo-cult law, and that's the best way I've hard of phrasing it. Absent any actual knowledge of how statutes, case law, and precedent function, they basically think they can find any little detail that's "off" and frame it as a legal technicality to get around the law. They post their "discoveries" online, where other sovereign citizens see the revelation, adopt it, and post their own in turn. In so doing, the framework of a philosophy is formed, with each person having a hodgepodge of half-baked notions reinforced by each other. It's actually very similar to the way conspiracy theories develop legs of their own over the internet.


Unfortunately, that's indecipherable from the way normal law works.
 
2013-03-08 01:55:33 PM

Last Man on Earth: You say you didn't consent, but you implicitly did when you accepted the benefits of living in a society.


That's like saying slavery was consented to by the slaves.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report