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.

(LA Times)   Police departments receive training in dealing with 'sovereign citizens'. Regicide?   (latimes.com) divider line 378
    More: Interesting, sovereign citizens, Contra Costa County, Santa Rosa County, oaths of office, finches, money orders, West Memphis, monarchs  
•       •       •

9547 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 11:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-06 03:16:54 PM

pedrop357: rebelyell2006: pedrop357: If the focus was on that shiat, I'd be posting totally different things. Instead, we get a lot of talk about how people can't complain about the government because they use the internet or how their use of roads means they've signed some social contract and agree to everything society wants to impose on them and have no justification trying to escape any of it by distancing themselves from society. Part of the problem seems to be an improper blending of these "soveriegn citizens" with the less assholy 'individualist' types. That, and the police seem to be setting the stage to start conflating anyone who exercises their rights with these "sovereign citizen types".

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the police are confusing civil rights advocates with the sovereign citizen nuts?

Re-read the bolded part for the answer.

The police seem to be, at best, dismissive of people who exercise their rights.  At worst, they're openly hostile and abusive. Now we have more people whipping up hysteria about 3rd and 4th rate groups that also like much more vociferously exercise their rights and of which a very few have been involved in violence against cops.

One takeaway from this is that the police who already seem to think their safety is the most important thing around and any slight thing that might be construed as a threat is worthy of overwhelming force will now be even more likely to use force against people who exercise their rights under the misguided impression that the person in question is one of those 'sovereign whatevers that kills cops'


How satisfying is it to see a douche get tasered?  Really satisfying.  Probably not a constructive attitude in the long run, but you can't deny it feels right.
 
2013-04-06 03:18:48 PM

ScaryBottles: These people are like a really really biatchy woman married to a really nice guy or vice versa. They do whatever they feel like, screw around, beat em up, say things that are unforgivable and every other type of offense or indignity they can perpetrate against their spouse because they know Mr. Nice Guy/Girl would never dream of saying shiat. They are spoiled pathetic children who have been convinced by equally moronic people like RON PAUL! that the rules can be whatever they say they are if they just stick their head far enough up their own ass.


www.trilobite.org
 
2013-04-06 03:24:43 PM

drxym: I'm not sure what training is necessary. If someone is breaking laws and pretending the laws don't apply to them, then arrest and charge them. Let the prosecutors, the judge and jury decide why they're being belligerent dicks, not the police.


Maybe the training is geared towards dealing with these lunatics without just beating the everloving shiat out of them for being such aggravating cocksuckers.
 
2013-04-06 03:31:03 PM

SuperSeriousMan: I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.


I wasn't aware they'd come up with a way of not paying Federal Highway Taxes at the gasoline pump.
 
2013-04-06 03:37:51 PM

pedrop357: Most people here were talking about government use of roads, bullshiat "contracts", the idea that people using the internet owe allegiance to the government, and talk living off the grid, so I'm responding in kind.


Fair enough.

Although when people bring that stuff up the impression I get is "Those farking hypocrites, have they no shame or self-awareness?" rather than "you used a road/the internet, therefore you have to do whatever the government says."

The sovereign citizen types you described would be 5th and 6th rate nobodies if the lefty authoritarians would cool their jets

What does that mean?

What do you mean by "5th and 6th rate nobodies" because as long as they're doing what they're currently doing they're somebody.

Can you name these "lefty authoritarians" and tell us what do they need to do to "cool their jets" and turn the Sovereign Citizens into "nobodies"?
 
2013-04-06 03:39:10 PM

rebelyell2006: pedrop357: The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does. Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?

It's not that they do not want to participate in society, it is that they reject social standards for cooperation and seek to play life by their own arbitrary rules while remaining in society.


Sort of this. The problem isn't that they want to be left alone. There are plenty of people who want to be left alone, and manage it just fine while still fulfilling the bare minimum of social and legal requirements. I know a software engineer who lives in a cabin on something like 5 wooded mountainous acres in upstate ny. He works remotely, grows his own food, has solar power and a water wheel in a little river to make power, and basically sees people in person for maybe a total of one week a year.

He also still pays his taxes, has a real licences, has valid plates, etc. He lives apart from society, is left alone, but is still compliant with all laws that apply to him by virtue of living within the borders of the US and making use of the full rights and privileges that cone along with that.

Sovereigns, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge that they are bound by any laws. Which would be mostly ok, if they kept completely to themselves in walled compounds, but they don't. They drive on public roads, go into town, often actually LIVE in largish population centers, and do so while flaunting their disregard for our society or our rules. They put themselves into situations where confrontations will occur, and then react violently when confronted. They aren't trying to be left alone, they're paranoid attention whores who WANT to make a statement.

I say once these people are apprehended, the cops escort them to the nearest border and drop them off on the other side.
 
2013-04-06 03:39:39 PM

DrPainMD: cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

Why not leave them alone anyways? If you buy gas, you're paying for roads. Ditto for hundreds of other things. Even if a person pays no income tax, he's paying taxes. Probably in excess of the services received.


So if Jorge hops the border, pays some guy in Texas for twenty acres with melted down gold jewelry and starts a small goat farm without power/sewer/phone----that's all cool? Jorge never goes to town, as he makes his own clothes out of the goatskins. Never goes to the doctor, as he is eating a healthy diet of goat cheese and veggies he grows on his property.

He's just a man, doing his own thing. Do we leave him be?
 
2013-04-06 03:40:54 PM

1000Monkeys: What does that mean?

What do you mean by "5th and 6th rate nobodies" because as long as they're doing what they're currently doing they're somebody.

Can you name these "lefty authoritarians" and tell us what do they need to do to "cool their jets" and turn the Sovereign Citizens into "nobodies"?


I think it's the screeching about how these guys have the audacity to reject government and all the nonsense that comes up about how they use roads and/or the internet.

The people around here who whine about police profiling of non-white people, about patriot act abuses, etc. seem to be OK with overblowing the threat from a group that is almost entirely low grade whackos who dick around with the court.
 
2013-04-06 03:42:30 PM

Amos Quito: Kittypie070: please pardon the repost

[feedlol.com image 668x401]



Here's another:

[www.history.com image 605x412]

What a "Paper Terrorist's"  "Terror Paper" might look like.


Do you think King George saw this as anything OTHER than "terrorism" - a challenge to HIS "authoritay"?


Great, so you're calling George Washington and the rest of the founders terrorists.

I'll remember that.
 
2013-04-06 03:43:42 PM

Kittypie070: Amos Quito: Kittypie070: please pardon the repost

[feedlol.com image 668x401]


Here's another:

[www.history.com image 605x412]

What a "Paper Terrorist's"  "Terror Paper" might look like.


Do you think King George saw this as anything OTHER than "terrorism" - a challenge to HIS "authoritay"?

Great, so you're calling George Washington and the rest of the founders terrorists.

I'll remember that.


fark off kittypoop.  You know exactly what he was saying.
 
2013-04-06 03:46:02 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: FarkinHostile: True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.

Which is why we decided to make the biggest best armed gang of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not perfect, but to borrow a phrase from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."


Yep. Many people forget that *WE* are the government.
 
2013-04-06 04:04:28 PM

SuperSeriousMan: Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.

I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I'm thinking about $10,000 per month would be an amicable fee for clean air, clean water, non-contaminated food, access to roads and bridges, etc etc and so forth.


[I'mOkayWithThis.jpg]
 
2013-04-06 04:24:52 PM

DrPainMD: Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.

If you ask any federal prosecutor, and he's honest with you, he'll tell you that we're all criminals. Each and every one of us commits at least one (probably several) federal felonies every day. Read The Clean Water Act and its associated case law. There's no question that we all violate that one almost daily. And, before you say that you don't violate it, be advised that those tasked with enforcing the law can't agree on what constitutes a violation, the courts that hear the cases can't agree on what constitutes a violation, and the Supreme Court seems to just flip a coin when presented with a CWA case, so don't tell me you know that you don't violate it. The CWA aside, there are thousands of criminal laws and ten thousand regulations with criminal penalties, and that most of these "crimes" are victimless; if you're minding your own business and not bothering anybody in the slightest, that's no guarantee that you are acting legally.


I'm certain that my infant son's recent diaper caused his nursery to become out of compliance with the California air quality standards, and have been dreading a strongly worded letter from the AQMD.
 
2013-04-06 04:24:53 PM

atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary


Wow that some mighty fine false equivalence you have their Jim Bob. Let me show you why.

In your first example you cite license and registration, two documents that you  voluntarily agreed to carry when you went down to the DMV to file for the  privilege of driving on the public road that we all share and pay for. A privilege that you can lose by the way if you fail to follow the rules you and everyone else agreed to when they got their license.

In your second example you cite non specific papers for walking down the sidewalk, and as far as I know their is no department of Nike, so the papers you talk about are nonexistent. But let's say you meant the officer wanted some form of proof of identity. Since you not required to carry any proof of identity to use the sidewalk, you can simply state that you do not have any and if he tasers you, you can charge him with assault. Because this is America, we are a land of laws where everyone is expected to follow the law equally, because we are all guaranteed to be protected and receive equally the benefits of the law because we have that right.

Unless you live in 1934 Germany, where a group of citizens who believed they were more sovereign than anyone else took over the government. Since they were more sovereign they believed they can make up whatever rules they wanted and take the property of people that they viewed as not being sovereign at all. If you lived in 1934 Germany than it really doesn't matter what papers you carry or how sovereign you think you are, if someone more sovereign than you has a problem with you then they have a solution for you.

And that is the problem with these sovereign citizen weenies. They feel that they are entitled, and have the right to more privileges and protections than anyone else, because they think that they are more insert excuse here than other people, and because of that they feel that their rights, real or imaginary, supersede other less  insert excuse here people.
 
2013-04-06 04:29:24 PM
I was at a supermarket and noticed a sticker on the back of an SUV. It was a notice that the people inside were on a "religious pilgrimage" in their "church/home" and therefore were not subject to local driving laws. It also said that they had access to any roads, highways or easements and interference by law enforcement officers would be considered harassment and a violation of some USC code. I wish I had waited to see who was driving it.
 
2013-04-06 04:31:18 PM

AndreMA: SuperSeriousMan: I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I wasn't aware they'd come up with a way of not paying Federal Highway Taxes at the gasoline pump.


You can buy it for agricultural purposes and pay less tax...
 
2013-04-06 04:31:50 PM

srtpointman: I was at a supermarket and noticed a sticker on the back of an SUV. It was a notice that the people inside were on a "religious pilgrimage" in their "church/home" and therefore were not subject to local driving laws. It also said that they had access to any roads, highways or easements and interference by law enforcement officers would be considered harassment and a violation of some USC code. I wish I had waited to see who was driving it.


shiat, I wish you took a picture.
 
2013-04-06 04:31:55 PM
"To them, a police officer is just a man in a Halloween costume," Finch said.

I kind of like these guys.


Bonzo_1116
Yep. Many people forget that *WE* are the government.

download.gamespotcdn.net
 
2013-04-06 04:32:07 PM
So if these people are not on their own personally-owned piece of land, they're illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol should just keep deporting them to whatever foreclosed house they've squatted in.

Squatted.
 
2013-04-06 04:37:28 PM

noitsnot: AndreMA: SuperSeriousMan: I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I wasn't aware they'd come up with a way of not paying Federal Highway Taxes at the gasoline pump.

You can buy it for agricultural purposes and pay less tax...


Typically, it's only diesel (red-dye) that is found that way, and no one'(at least not here) is saying these people are doing that.
 
2013-04-06 04:39:07 PM

ScaryBottles: Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists?  A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda.  While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning in the last few years.  News agencies should really refrain from using it.  It is now commonly applied to any sort of criminal, rather than according to its actual meaning.

They crossed the line of "harmless crazies" when they began blowing away cops. Oh I forgot these were probably just "isolated incidents." Wow I find myself putting so many thing in quotes these days I wonder if I'm becoming cynical.


FBI says six LEOs have been killed by SCs since 2000, so yeah, they're isolated incidents.

I'm more intrigued by the spate of prisons director, DA, and sheriffs' killings we've seen lately.
 
2013-04-06 04:39:37 PM

srtpointman: I was at a supermarket and noticed a sticker on the back of an SUV. It was a notice that the people inside were on a "religious pilgrimage" in their "church/home" and therefore were not subject to local driving laws. It also said that they had access to any roads, highways or easements and interference by law enforcement officers would be considered harassment and a violation of some USC code. I wish I had waited to see who was driving it.


So if they were carjacked they won't try to call the police, I guess.
 
2013-04-06 04:40:31 PM

AndreMA: SuperSeriousMan: I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I wasn't aware they'd come up with a way of not paying Federal Highway Taxes at the gasoline pump.


Adverse possession of gasoline.
 
2013-04-06 04:43:50 PM

Rabbitgod: And that is the problem with these sovereign citizen weenies. They feel that they are entitled, and have the right to more privileges and protections than anyone else, because they think that they are more insert excuse here than other people, and because of that they feel that their rights, real or imaginary, supersede other less  insert excuse here people.


Well, no, that's not really the problem. That's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that they feel marginalized and powerless, largely because the kind of people that go in for "sovereign citizen" bs ARE completely powerless. They aren't terribly bright, and suffer from enough personality disorders that they never attain any power in the workplace or community. They hold hugely unpopular beliefs, so they always feel like the majority votes against them and they never really manage to attain any measure of political popularity or influence. They generally fall into lower socio-economic classes, have little in the way of formal education, and are looked down on by the majority of society, largely for reasons that are beyond their control (it's hard to be popular when you're mildly insane).

So they take these very real power imbalances, and blow them out of proportion. It's actually a very common defense mechanism: no one wants to feel like a small-time loser, so they inflate the strength of their oppressors to ludicrous proportions. Set themselves up as the brave but oppressed David fighting an overwhelming Goliath. Better to be a poor, oppressed, freedom fighter than a chump with nothing going for them.

So, with that, they take their personal shortcomings, and imagine that they are the result of an all-powerful oppressive force, the Government ("with help from the Sheeple! All those people who are happy and successful and call them mean names in person. They only THINK they're happy and successful because they're stupid. Not like me. I'm miserable because I know the truth, and am being oppressed for my enlgihtenment!"). They don't have any REAL gripes with the government, so they see no valid path to addressing their concerns, and thus instead do the only thing they can think of: attempt to opt out. But people won't let them opt out. They still get called names at work, and the teller at the bank still gives them funny looks. So they get angry, and ascribe even more sinister motives to their oppressors.

Then they get violent, because in their minds at this point, they are under full out assault, and they need to defend themselves. And then they die in a police standoff, and the circle of life is complete. Meanwhile, others like them use that as further proof of government oppression, while completely writing off the intricate series of events that led to the situation.

So the problem isn't really that they feel self-entitled. The problem is that these people are pathetic losers who got one too many wedgies in school.
 
2013-04-06 04:53:48 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.

So you're admitting your smug sociopathic view on society is propped up by the rest of us keeping society running. You could have at least said 'thanks'.


He thinks he smart, smarter than most, so he think his brilliant revelation that American rights and laws don't mean dick all outside the US is something no one else in the history of forever has ever conceived of.
 
2013-04-06 04:58:58 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Adverse possession of gasoline.


Make their own bio-diesel. It's actually incredibly simple, once you have some practice. But these people want to be sovereign, so I shouldn't have to tell them that. Grow some bootstraps and look into it yourself.

Stop whining about shiat and go live in a self-contained compound if you want. So long as you stay in the compound and don't venture out, I'm sure no one will bother you. In fact, you can probably get by with paying almost no taxes if you live in an unincorporated area with no property taxes. And since you make no income, you don't actually have to file anything. Don't bother anyone else, stay in your walled hell-hole, stop stockpiling rocket launchers, grow all the drugs you want but don't take them out of the compound, and basically STFU and go away. This shouldn't be a problem if you legitimately want to be left alone, right?

If you DO venture out, clearly you don't REALLY want to be left alone, in which case STFU and deal with living in a first world country. Or move.
 
2013-04-06 05:01:59 PM

Lusiphur: BarkingUnicorn: Adverse possession of gasoline.

Make their own bio-diesel. It's actually incredibly simple, once you have some practice. But these people want to be sovereign, so I shouldn't have to tell them that. Grow some bootstraps and look into it yourself.

Stop whining about shiat and go live in a self-contained compound if you want. So long as you stay in the compound and don't venture out, I'm sure no one will bother you. In fact, you can probably get by with paying almost no taxes if you live in an unincorporated area with no property taxes. And since you make no income, you don't actually have to file anything. Don't bother anyone else, stay in your walled hell-hole, stop stockpiling rocket launchers, grow all the drugs you want but don't take them out of the compound, and basically STFU and go away. This shouldn't be a problem if you legitimately want to be left alone, right?

If you DO venture out, clearly you don't REALLY want to be left alone, in which case STFU and deal with living in a first world country. Or move.


They would never be allowed to grow/manufacture their own drugs.  Why can't they stockpile rocket launchers?

The moment they came out for any reason, they abdicate all the autonomy you talked about a second ago?  Gee, sounds like they really can't do their own thing.
 
2013-04-06 05:11:16 PM

pedrop357: The moment they came out for any reason, they abdicate all the autonomy you talked about a second ago? Gee, sounds like they really can't do their own thing.


Yup. Welcome to society.
 
2013-04-06 05:16:50 PM

pedrop357: They would never be allowed to grow/manufacture their own drugs.


They would, because as long as they kept it on their own compound far from civilization, no one would know or care about.

pedrop357: Why can't they stockpile rocket launchers?


Because a cache of military-grade weaponry on US land in the hands of people who don't believe the US has a legitimate right to rule represents a clear and immediate danger to the government. And because it would be impossible for them to bring those items INTO the compound without violating transportation laws, or interacting with the rest of society. Those are the rules: you want to be left alone, you don't interact with society. You interact with society, you follow the majority of the laws that we as a society have enacted.

pedrop357: The moment they came out for any reason, they abdicate all the autonomy you talked about a second ago?  Gee, sounds like they really can't do their own thing.


Sure they can. On their land, on their time. They don't actually have autonomy, because we have a government. They can get reasonably close to autonomy, but only if they keep to themselves. If they want FULL autonomy, they are welcome to move to a part of the world that doesn't have a strong central government. What they DON'T have the right to do is to unilaterally declare that they can pick and choose what laws get applied to them. If they are unhappy with a law, they are welcome to follow the usual process to get it changed (either entering politics, or protesting peacefully, or any of the number of other ways that citizens enact meaningful change). If they choose not to do that, they have abdicated their right to complain.

No one has the right to declare themselves above the law.
 
2013-04-06 05:17:05 PM

sirgrim: pedrop357: The moment they came out for any reason, they abdicate all the autonomy you talked about a second ago? Gee, sounds like they really can't do their own thing.

Yup. Welcome to society.


So we can dispense with this idea that society is a voluntary thing or that one can truly choose to limit their interactions with society as well as giving up some of the privileges AND protections that come with society.

People like to say nonsense like "Go be in your compound and you can be left alone all you want", but that's never allowed.  Then they go on like the poster I was replying to with rules that will apply ("stop stockpiling rocket launchers") and then apparently the elimination of the whole autonomy/being left alone thing the moment they come out.  The latter could be read as them not having the same autonomy WHILE in society, but that's implied and leads me to believe the far more common thing that once they interact it becomes a stepping stone to forced interactions and the dissolution of their autonomy while OUT of society.

In short, the concept of society stops being a fairly benign concept and is instead a coercive, compelling entity that doesn't forgive even slight attempts to leave or limit the influence of that society.
 
2013-04-06 05:23:55 PM

Lusiphur: pedrop357: They would never be allowed to grow/manufacture their own drugs.

They would, because as long as they kept it on their own compound far from civilization, no one would know or care about.


In which case, as soon as someone finds out, they no longer get left alone.  So much for doing their own thing.

Lusiphur: pedrop357: Why can't they stockpile rocket launchers?

Because a cache of military-grade weaponry on US land in the hands of people who don't believe the US has a legitimate right to rule represents a clear and immediate danger to the government. And because it would be impossible for them to bring those items INTO the compound without violating transportation laws, or interacting with the rest of society. Those are the rules: you want to be left alone, you don't interact with society. You interact with society, you follow the majority of the laws that we as a society have enacted.


While interacting with society, I can understand the requirement of following all the rules, but why does that requirement continue into their little compound where society offers no protections or benefits?

You're not actually serious or even remotely sincere about the concept of being left alone away from society.

They would also be raided and killed if they began making their own weapons inside their little compound without interacting with society.

This is the more extreme example of a group 'leaving' society, but even the mild attempts are shut down.
 
2013-04-06 05:24:18 PM

BarkingUnicorn: ScaryBottles: Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists?  A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda.  While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning in the last few years.  News agencies should really refrain from using it.  It is now commonly applied to any sort of criminal, rather than according to its actual meaning.

They crossed the line of "harmless crazies" when they began blowing away cops. Oh I forgot these were probably just "isolated incidents." Wow I find myself putting so many thing in quotes these days I wonder if I'm becoming cynical.

FBI says six LEOs have been killed by SCs since 2000, so yeah, they're isolated incidents.

I'm more intrigued by the spate of prisons director, DA, and sheriffs' killings we've seen lately.


Fair dues but I think we can agree that these guys are more than just "harmless kooks"
 
2013-04-06 05:24:21 PM
To be honest, the authority postures imposed on society are essentially to keep order with money that has no value, backed by weapons and designed to keep it flowing in the direction of that authority.  It's old news.  You might as well play along, though because the whole charade is eating itself with or without your participation and there's no need to die for the belief that it's a con.  It is a con.  And, so what?  Smile, wave, pay your bills, hand cops your license, give them their revenue, watch the implosion.  And when it falls over, it will be replaced by another con.  On the upside, we have the most order, clean water, cheap food, best roads and highest standard of living since Rome.  Rome imploded, too.  It all does.  Don't act like you can change the word with a handgun and phony plates.  Squinty, cheap little men are always going to gather together to subvert any useful system of governance.  They're not important.  Your well being is.
 
2013-04-06 05:27:13 PM

pedrop357: So we can dispense with this idea that society is a voluntary thing or that one can truly choose to limit their interactions with society as well as giving up some of the privileges AND protections that come with society.


Are you an idiot, intentionally dense, or trolling? You CAN limit your exposure to society, so long as you STAY OUT of society. It's like a club: you don't have to follow the by-laws of the club if you're not a member and don't enter the clubhouse, but as soon as you step foot in the club-house, or try to use the rights and privileges of being a member of said club, you have to follow its rules, by-laws, and regulations.

pedrop357: In short, the concept of society stops being a fairly benign concept and is instead a coercive, compelling entity that doesn't forgive even slight attempts to leave or limit the influence of that society.


You are actually painfully stupid, and your logic has holes in it that are big enough to fit your moms ass through. "You have to follow the rules of society when entering society? Clearly, this means that society will FORCE you to interact with it!"
 
2013-04-06 05:32:43 PM

pedrop357: sirgrim: pedrop357: The moment they came out for any reason, they abdicate all the autonomy you talked about a second ago? Gee, sounds like they really can't do their own thing.

Yup. Welcome to society.

So we can dispense with this idea that society is a voluntary thing or that one can truly choose to limit their interactions with society as well as giving up some of the privileges AND protections that come with society.

People like to say nonsense like "Go be in your compound and you can be left alone all you want", but that's never allowed.  Then they go on like the poster I was replying to with rules that will apply ("stop stockpiling rocket launchers") and then apparently the elimination of the whole autonomy/being left alone thing the moment they come out.  The latter could be read as them not having the same autonomy WHILE in society, but that's implied and leads me to believe the far more common thing that once they interact it becomes a stepping stone to forced interactions and the dissolution of their autonomy while OUT of society.

In short, the concept of society stops being a fairly benign concept and is instead a coercive, compelling entity that doesn't forgive even slight attempts to leave or limit the influence of that society.


Yup. Welcome to society.
 
2013-04-06 05:33:25 PM

Lusiphur: pedrop357: So we can dispense with this idea that society is a voluntary thing or that one can truly choose to limit their interactions with society as well as giving up some of the privileges AND protections that come with society.

Are you an idiot, intentionally dense, or trolling? You CAN limit your exposure to society, so long as you STAY OUT of society. It's like a club: you don't have to follow the by-laws of the club if you're not a member and don't enter the clubhouse, but as soon as you step foot in the club-house, or try to use the rights and privileges of being a member of said club, you have to follow its rules, by-laws, and regulations.


You can indeed limit your exposure.  BUT, the overarcing theme here seems to be that once you interact with society, it becomes a permission slip for that society to have influence over your activities away from that society.

pedrop357: In short, the concept of society stops being a fairly benign concept and is instead a coercive, compelling entity that doesn't forgive even slight attempts to leave or limit the influence of that society.

You are actually painfully stupid, and your logic has holes in it that are big enough to fit your moms ass through. "You have to follow the rules of society when entering society? Clearly, this means that society will FORCE you to interact with it!"


You will be right when society ceases to impose mores on someone who lives 20-50 miles away from town.  Can that person grow marijuana that they smoke in their house?  Can they manufacture their own meth for personal consumption?  Can they build a garage or addition to their house?    The moment anyone finds out, in comes society to impose its rules.
 
2013-04-06 05:34:51 PM

sirgrim: pedrop357: sirgrim: pedrop357: The moment they came out for any reason, they abdicate all the autonomy you talked about a second ago? Gee, sounds like they really can't do their own thing.

Yup. Welcome to society.

So we can dispense with this idea that society is a voluntary thing or that one can truly choose to limit their interactions with society as well as giving up some of the privileges AND protections that come with society.

People like to say nonsense like "Go be in your compound and you can be left alone all you want", but that's never allowed.  Then they go on like the poster I was replying to with rules that will apply ("stop stockpiling rocket launchers") and then apparently the elimination of the whole autonomy/being left alone thing the moment they come out.  The latter could be read as them not having the same autonomy WHILE in society, but that's implied and leads me to believe the far more common thing that once they interact it becomes a stepping stone to forced interactions and the dissolution of their autonomy while OUT of society.

In short, the concept of society stops being a fairly benign concept and is instead a coercive, compelling entity that doesn't forgive even slight attempts to leave or limit the influence of that society.

Yup. Welcome to society.


Good.  Now that we've established that society is more like the Borg and less like the Federation (to dredge up one example), we can also get rid of the incredulity or shock when some people use force against enforcement agents of that society when they attempt to force conformity.
 
2013-04-06 05:35:58 PM

Lusiphur: Rabbitgod: And that is the problem with these sovereign citizen weenies. They feel that they are entitled, and have the right to more privileges and protections than anyone else, because they think that they are more insert excuse here than other people, and because of that they feel that their rights, real or imaginary, supersede other less  insert excuse here people.

Well, no, that's not really the problem. That's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that they feel marginalized and powerless, largely because the kind of people that go in for "sovereign citizen" bs ARE completely powerless. They aren't terribly bright, and suffer from enough personality disorders that they never attain any power in the workplace or community. They hold hugely unpopular beliefs, so they always feel like the majority votes against them and they never really manage to attain any measure of political popularity or influence. They generally fall into lower socio-economic classes, have little in the way of formal education, and are looked down on by the majority of society, largely for reasons that are beyond their control (it's hard to be popular when you're mildly insane).

So they take these very real power imbalances, and blow them out of proportion. It's actually a very common defense mechanism: no one wants to feel like a small-time loser, so they inflate the strength of their oppressors to ludicrous proportions. Set themselves up as the brave but oppressed David fighting an overwhelming Goliath. Better to be a poor, oppressed, freedom fighter than a chump with nothing going for them.

So, with that, they take their personal shortcomings, and imagine that they are the result of an all-powerful oppressive force, the Government ("with help from the Sheeple! All those people who are happy and successful and call them mean names in person. They only THINK they're happy and successful because they're stupid. Not like me. I'm miserable because I know the truth, and am being oppresse ...


I think we're both right but with a difference.

The psychology I was describing was that of the people who start and lead these kind of movements. They eventually, regardless if they started out as con men or imaginary Davids, really do feel entitled  because they are white, black, ginger, god's chosen, FSM's chosen, tall, rich, poor, insert excuse here, and claim that the oppressor is the opposite, the anti, the other.

The psychology you described gets prayed upon by the psychology I described. The guy I described walks up to your guy and tells him he's right, that he's not a loser, and then he tells him who's at fault for his low position in society, and how to fight them, at that he will be rewarded with a high position within the correct society now, and after it takes power.
 
2013-04-06 05:36:48 PM

pedrop357: While interacting with society, I can understand the requirement of following all the rules, but why does that requirement continue into their little compound where society offers no protections or benefits?


Because they DO get society's protections and benefits while on their compound, whether they believe it or not. So long as you are located within the political boundaries of the United States, you are obligated to follow the rules of living here, or to live with the consequences of breaking those rules.

pedrop357: You're not actually serious or even remotely sincere about the concept of being left alone away from society.


No, but only because you're playing word games. You aren't actually trying to "be left alone from society". You're trying to attain full legal autonomy. That is impossible, so long as you remain under the jurisdiction of the United States. If that is your ultimate goal, there is a pretty simple and well-established process for leaving US jurisdiction. You are more than welcome to avail yourself of this process, and no one will try to stop you.

I, on the other hand, am merely proposing a compromise solution that gives you the maximum amount of privacy ("being left alone") possible while remaining within United States Jurisdiction. There is no alternative. You either accept that, try to change the relevant laws through legitimate political action, or you leave. Those are your options, if your actual goal is to be "left alone". Pick one, and go for it. Or, STFU and go back to flipping burgers.
 
2013-04-06 05:43:49 PM

Rabbitgod: They eventually, regardless if they started out as con men or imaginary Davids, really do feel entitled  because they are white, black, ginger, god's chosen, FSM's chosen, tall, rich, poor, insert excuse here,


Oddly, this is the chief ally of the people running the con.  We don't see ourselves as American.  We see ourselves as black, white, brown, straight, gay, metalheads, Beatles fans, Niners fans, (no WAI, yo STEELERS!), goths, old people,. young people, Gen Xers, boomers, millennials, X- Box users, PS3 users, headbangers, classical fans, bikers, Presbyterians, and any one of the endless sub factions thereof.  And boy is that handy for keeping people from noticing your hand is in their pockets.  And, every four years, they trot out two sockpuppets in what is more than anything else, a demographic survey to see which subcultures are buying which flavor of kool aid and they install one and and we all cheer and drink high five each other or weep and rail at the stupidity of our guy not winning and nothing changes.  And that is essentially, our form of government.  That and sketchy IOUs with pictures on them.  Meh.
 
2013-04-06 05:47:50 PM

Lusiphur: No, but only because you're playing word games. You aren't actually trying to "be left alone from society". You're trying to attain full legal autonomy. That is impossible, so long as you remain under the jurisdiction of the United States. If that is your ultimate goal, there is a pretty simple and well-established process for leaving US jurisdiction. You are more than welcome to avail yourself of this process, and no one will try to stop you.


Your point would have TONS of validity in an era with a smaller government.  In a time where a person in the country can be fined, arrested, whatever for growing marijuna on their property or making unauthorized additions to their house based on the whims of 50.0001% of the people OR just the local government, it's not so.

The idea that people can leave is technically valid.  Though the same could be said of people who disagree with any particular law.

It amazes me that some people can't understand that a society that seems to understand no true limits is bound to have people who eventually tire of that and reject all of it.  It's how people will put up with a lot of shiat to a certain point and then just go 'no more'.

These guys are assholes because they just like to dick around with the courts and play license plate games, but they have done a wonderful job of showing just how unbending and outright sinister society as an entity can be

Also, the notion that a person could ever go find an island or something and start a nation as some here have suggested, is also impossible.  The moment a group or even 10,000 people got together and claimed a previously unclaimed island as their new sovereign territory that no longer answers to the US, the US would send ships to take it from them.
 
2013-04-06 05:52:55 PM

pedrop357: The moment a group or even 10,000 people got together and claimed a previously unclaimed island as their new sovereign territory that no longer answers to the US, the US would send ships to take it from them.


For FREEDOM!  *snort*
 
2013-04-06 06:13:38 PM

pedrop357: You can indeed limit your exposure.  BUT, the overarcing theme here seems to be that once you interact with society, it becomes a permission slip for that society to have influence over your activities away from that society.


That doesn't follow at all. You're skipping multiple steps in your logic. Show, carefully and using sound logic, how the conclusion flows from the premise.

pedrop357: You will be right when society ceases to impose mores on someone who lives 20-50 miles away from town.


Thinking of things in terms of physical distance is outdated. The fact is, you cannot simply opt out of all society, and as such have to consider how your actions impact the larger population. Let's look at some of the examples you mentioned:

Growing pot - this one is actually completely benign. If you are growing for personal consumption, not selling it or transporting it outside of your property, and not growing huge amounts, you're not going to be bothered. I know several people that grow a pot plant or two for personal use. They've never had any problems with the law. Not one. Sure, if someone finds out, there might be problems, but that's something that we as a society are confronting now and working to change the laws. The system is working.

Manufacturing Meth - The problem with Meth is that it creates way too many externalities. For example, many of the by-products of meth manufacture are highly toxic and incredibly dangerous. Your home is most likely not set up to deal with this kind of industrial waste in a manner that assures the safety of your neighbors. Meth labs are also liable to explode. You are not set up for manufacturing volatile substances safely. When (not if) they explode, you will create a toxic environment that could seriously damage the people around you, even 20-50 miles away.

Building Codes - These were instituted for your, your family's, and your visitors' protection. You can live in whatever shanty you want, and in fact if you live in an unincorporated area, you probably don't have to deal with any but the most basic of building codes. But lets say you are a rugged individualist, and build a garage that isn't up to code. That's fine for you, but what if it catches fire? All of a sudden, firemen have to put themselves in danger to keep your burning shack contained. Or lets say you have a family. You and your gorgeous 600lb toothless wife might be able to make the decision to place your life in danger, but your children are essentially being held hostage in a firetrap. As a society, we have decided that keeping your children safe superceedes your right to build whatever you want whenever you want it.

Again, all of theses rules are subject to change, and if you disagree with them, you are welcome to try to change them.

pedrop357: It amazes me that some people can't understand that a society that seems to understand no true limits is bound to have people who eventually tire of that and reject all of it.  It's how people will put up with a lot of shiat to a certain point and then just go 'no more'.


You're welcome to reject it. The process begins with buying a plane ticket, and ends with you formally and officially giving up your US citizenship at an embassy.
 
2013-04-06 06:17:44 PM
Even nonviolent sovereigns can cause headaches through what Finch calls "paper terrorism."


Aaaaand here is where the establishment falls flat on its face.
 
2013-04-06 06:32:29 PM
Funny to see a bunch of white guys complain on the internet about police harassment.
 
2013-04-06 06:34:23 PM

Satanic_Hamster: srtpointman: I was at a supermarket and noticed a sticker on the back of an SUV. It was a notice that the people inside were on a "religious pilgrimage" in their "church/home" and therefore were not subject to local driving laws. It also said that they had access to any roads, highways or easements and interference by law enforcement officers would be considered harassment and a violation of some USC code. I wish I had waited to see who was driving it.

shiat, I wish you took a picture.


I actually did. I'll see if I can dig it up.
 
2013-04-06 06:53:50 PM
Used to be, before the world got so much smaller, that if you were a "sovereign citizen" there was another place you could go to to create your own society. Sarawak comes to mind.

Maybe we should encourage these people to blast off to the stars.
 
2013-04-06 06:56:04 PM

Bong Hits For Mohammed: Even nonviolent sovereigns can cause headaches through what Finch calls "paper terrorism."


Aaaaand here is where the establishment falls flat on its face.



Is a "paper terrorist" anything like a "paper tiger"?

The cool thing about the "War on Terror" is that a "terrorist" can be redefined by the Establishment at will to mean whatever is convenient for the day.

Hand a cop a stack of papers? You're a "paper terrorist".

Type something on Fark that the Establishment doesn't like? You're a "cyber terrorist".

Fail to file your taxes? You're a "tax terrorist".

And that's why the War on Terror is WAY cooler than the War on Drugs.
 
2013-04-06 06:56:33 PM

Amos Quito: Here's a reality check, kids: Whoever has the clear power advantage in any given situation is THE AUTHORITY.

It doesn't matter whether it is parent vs toddler, teacher vs  student, employee vs  boss, citizen vs  cop, or victim vs  mugger. The party with the most power RULES.

Of course you can always challenge the cop with a gun in your face, the mugger with a knife in your ribs, or the bureaucrat with a paper in its hand, but in each case, you risk potentially dire consequences in so doing - so the natural instinct toward of self-preservation and continued breathing would suggest that cooperation is usually advised.

At this moment, the body with the greatest POWER in the US is (obviously) the Federal Government, followed by State and local governments - which are (generally) backed by the former. They have the AUTHORITAY and the raw power to enforce it. They DON'T appreciate resistance, and you would do well to cooperate.

Of course it is the nature of those who "have" to want MORE - be it money or power, or what have you - and you may have noticed that the Supreme Power is by no means satisfied with the power advantage they have, but continually works to grab and consolidate MORE power - which means removing "power" (rights and liberties) from the "lesser entities" (states, locals, and common rabble). They are ESPECIALLY interested in removing from the latter any means, method or ability that might present a CHALLENGE to their power - their AUTHORITAY.

Which may be why they call *anyone* who doesn't recognize and bow before their authority "terrorists".

Are you a terrorist?

I know I'm not. I give due respect to anyone who can put the gun in my face, or the knife in my ribs.

Common sense, don't you think?


then it shouldn't be an issue for you if we start pointing our guns first, right?
 
2013-04-06 06:57:55 PM

MSFT: Funny to see a bunch of white guys complain on the internet about police harassment.



www.hollywoodreporter.com

"Kiss my ash."
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report