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  
•       •       •

9554 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 07:00:49 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.


This I can agree with. Whether or not these encounters qualify as terrorism after they turn violent, they certainly don't qualify unless they turn violent. "Paper terrorism" is a ridiculous term, and Finch should feel ridiculous for using it.
 
2013-04-06 07:17:56 PM  
They are A branch of anarchism, generally someone who defines themselves as an "anarchist" in America is usually a communist.
 
2013-04-06 07:24:26 PM  
I know it's not a great movie and some coincider it a dreck but just hear me out on this...

Remember "The Village"?

I wondered after watching it the first time, how the department of homeland security would react to the village if it was a real construct. How would local,state, and federal authorities react if the village just happened to be made public knowledge.

On another note, we have the Amish and the Hutterites... Why don't the sovereign citizens take a clue from these people about how to live apart from society but maintain connections (loose as those connections are)?
 
2013-04-06 07:30:39 PM  

dksuddeth: 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?


Point of clarification: Might doesn't necessarily make "right", it just makes might... The fact that a woman is overpowered doesn't justify the rapist... The fact that the mugger has a knife in your ribs doesn't turn the event into a legitimate transaction...

And the fact that a government authority can force or coerce you into taking / not taking an action doesn't mean that they are justified.

It just means that they have the overwhelming power.

But as Chris Dorner taught us not long ago, it is not difficult to toss a wrench into the system, and send those in power into total panty-wetting chaos.


/God forbid
 
2013-04-06 08:06:33 PM  
Is it just me, or do these antigovernment tax-protester types only crop up during Democratic administrations?

RanDomino: "To them, a police officer is just a man in a Halloween costume," Finch said.

I kind of like these guys.


Do you see now why it is that left wing libertarians often find it so easy to jump over to right wing "libertarianism?"
 
2013-04-06 08:18:49 PM  
Just show them that playing cards can have red spades and black hearts and send them to deliver a monkey pipe to a red haired half leprechan.

/one wish only
 
2013-04-06 08:19:06 PM  

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


Something like this.
 
2013-04-06 09:12:42 PM  
You don't want to be a part of my country, get the hell out.

I am tired of the screaming writhing mass of chickenshiat morons that claim they need a gun to defend against the government and the follow up is the same people whining and moaning when we start to point out the crazies in their midst.

SCs are all over my home state and they are simply just not intelligent. Need a lesson, look up Schaffer Cox. He was arrested for setting up a system where for each of his "posse" that went to jail they would kill 2 cops or Judges. They had addresses of police and other officials that were on their hit list. He held his people's court in the local Denny's with his friends being the jury. Seems in line with the Constitution, oh wait, that paper only matters when it backs up your arguments.

This is why we think you are all deluded. Because the SCs we do hear about are completely off the rails. When you defend someone that believes that the country they live in is so awful that they will not follow the laws, you yourself start looking that crazy.

This is not about getting off the grid or being left alone. This is about a small subset of people that cannot deal with the fact that the rest of society is moving ahead without them. Instead of working in the system to change it, they act like petulant children and just cause everyone undue time and money, by attempting to use a legal system they neither understand or know how to work it. Schaffer Cox present some arguments in latin, using laws that do not exist in the US.

So in summation,

USA Love it or Leave it.
 
2013-04-06 09:38:17 PM  
thiefofdreams:  Need a lesson, look up Schaffer Cox.

*looks up Schaeffer Cox*

No, it isn't just me.  Cox was a just a cranky republican until Obama was elected.  Then he came unraveled.  I'll bet that most Sovereign Citizens are like Cox--Republicans who resent living under a Democratic administration.
 
2013-04-06 09:46:32 PM  

tirob: thiefofdreams:  Need a lesson, look up Schaffer Cox.

*looks up Schaeffer Cox*

No, it isn't just me.  Cox was a just a cranky republican until Obama was elected.  Then he came unraveled.  I'll bet that most Sovereign Citizens are like Cox--Republicans who resent living under a Democratic administration.


Basically all of them in my area are all Republicans that cannot handle that they do not run the government again. I live in Red State wonderland, hell we even have a political party that is for leaving the country.

The problem is that the community of Republicans defended Cox, and in doing so tied themselves to some crazy.
 
2013-04-06 10:00:32 PM  

lostcat: pedrop357: lostcat: So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.

Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges.  If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

There's one.


Let me ask a dumb question. I live out in an area where we are not completely dependent on government for anything. There are county and township services such as fire and EMS, and the road commission.

We're also a poor enough community that in the winter half the plowing is done by individuals, and the county sheriff is far enough out that all of us pitch in and look out for each other as a first line of defense. We pay our fair share of taxes regardless of how much we use (we get charged for township and county services we have no access to, etc.), and we're also all pretty much self reliant for food and most things.

Why do you assume that I owe society at large anything? Aside from my neighbors and those friends I have in town, why do I give a shiat about what happens in NYC and Chicago where I have no earthly desire to be or even interest in perpetuation of? Seems presumptuous that I MUST be involved in a social contract when I don't even really give a shiat what happens to anyone outside of my sphere of influence, as they surely don't give a shiat about me?
 
2013-04-06 10:15:44 PM  

thiefofdreams: USA Love it or Leave it.


Is it OK to mourn it?
 
2013-04-06 10:45:37 PM  

bunner: thiefofdreams: USA Love it or Leave it.

Is it OK to mourn it?


Bunker, I love you.
 
2013-04-06 10:53:44 PM  

pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.


There's a line between "libertarian" and "dangerously insane whackjob" and you just took a flying leap over it.

When the nice men come to take you to a cozy rubber room, please don't start shooting.
 
2013-04-06 10:57:52 PM  

pedrop357: See, someone might get sick from the fish, might need medical treatment, might seek treatment in an emergency room, might not have enough to pay, and might not pay, thus the government is justified in enforcing building codes, zoning rules, etc. (little of which have to do the with concept of getting sick from bad fish)


It might also be worth pointing out that  pedrop357 here has in other threads argued for the need for laws restricting a woman's access to abortion, so in addition to being tongue-chewingly insane, he's also quite the little hypocrite.
 
2013-04-06 10:59:57 PM  

Bravo Two: lostcat: pedrop357: lostcat: So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.

Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges.  If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

There's one.

Let me ask a dumb question. I live out in an area where we are not completely dependent on government for anything. There are county and township services such as fire and EMS, and the road commission.

We're also a poor enough community that in the winter half the plowing is done by individuals, and the county sheriff is far enough out that all of us pitch in and look out for each other as a first line of defense. We pay our fair share of taxes regardless of how much we use (we get charged for township and county services we have no access to, etc.), and we're also all pretty much self reliant for food and most things.

Why do you assume that I owe society at large anything? Aside from my neighbors and those friends I have in town, why do I give a shiat about what happens in NYC and Chicago where I have no earthly desire to be or even intere ...


By your mindset, why do you care about your neighbors. You didn't sign up to take care of them and defend them. Why should you care about school children getting enough to eat if they are not yours. Why care about roads or defense of the nation, or oil reserves or anything else that is not directly in your circle.

If fact, why are you even posting in here. This didn't happen your neighborhood, so by your mindset, why does it even matter to you.

Could it be that you are part of the society you live in, even if you don't want to be. That is how societies work. If you wish to remove yourself and be self-reliant I hear Somolia is really nice this time of year, they don't have a social contract there.

Oh and you should give a shiat about those other states because they produce, ship, and in general help get things that appear on store shelves as well as other goods. If you buy anything off a store shelf and eat it you assume it is safe because of the FDA. We the people have agreed that not having dangerous food items on shelf is a good idea.

P.S. I appreciate that your neighbors and you pitch in to help the community, but this is at it's basest level nothing more than the social contract that you have made with your community. It is part and parcel of being a society.
 
2013-04-06 11:05:54 PM  

Eponymous: And exactly how are these people different than anarchists?


As I understand it, in theory, the difference between a sovereign citizen and an anarchist is that an anarchist wants there to be no government for anybody, and a sovereign citizen wants to opt out of government, but thinks it's fine for everybody else to have a government.

Again, in theory, it should be possible for a sovereign citizen to build a little cabin out in the woods somewhere and live out his life in peace.  In theory, in he lived his life all along in the cabin and never bothered anyone, the rest of the world could just leave him along and we'd all be happy.  In practice, however, these sovereign citizens apparently like to drive around on public roads in unlicensed cars, carrying guns, and ready to open fire on police, so the theory seems to fail to hold up to reality.
 
2013-04-06 11:12:42 PM  

Corn_Fed: atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...

From your profile, and your comments, you do seem to have a bit of racial resentment.


Oh, yeah,  atomicmask's pretty fun.  Try telling him Muslims are decent people who deserve the opportunity to build mosques where they like and worship their god in peace.  That'll really get this thread going.
 
2013-04-06 11:14:48 PM  
All these sovereign citizens are conscious of are the privileges which they imagine they're entitled to. Never a whit of any sense of responsibility or obligation at all, unless it's to express a kind of spite toward the very existence of those two concepts.

Someone's little rant about the social compact is a sad example of such entitled thinking.

It smacks of blatant ingratitude, frankly.
 
2013-04-06 11:18:37 PM  

sheep snorter: /Cops are a bit of a problem when they refuse to arrest the sovereigns for not having drivers license and car insurance and forged documents, etc. Considering how normal people are treated when part of their registration is farked up.


How exactly do sovereign citizens get away with this anyway?

If I mouthed off to a cop and refused to show my license and registration, I'd get a beat down, lose my car, and spend at least a few weeks in jail, assuming I didn't just get shot in the back resisting arrest.
 
2013-04-06 11:19:51 PM  

dksuddeth: Corn_Fed: The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.

says the little statist who loves the boot on his face.


Oh, NOES!  He called you a "statist"!  You'll never live that down!
 
2013-04-06 11:31:43 PM  
BarkingUnicorn: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.


Indeed.  It's a dangerous precedent that you can make a criminal investigation go away by just killing a Prosecutor.

Is there any connection between the Colorado and Texas cases other than the involvement of white supremacists?
 
2013-04-06 11:36:45 PM  

ciberido: As I understand it, in theory, the difference between a sovereign citizen and an anarchist is that an anarchist wants there to be no government for anybody, and a sovereign citizen wants to opt out of government, but thinks it's fine for everybody else to have a government.

Again, in theory, it should be possible for a sovereign citizen to build a little cabin out in the woods somewhere and live out his life in peace. In theory, in he lived his life all along in the cabin and never bothered anyone, the rest of the world could just leave him along and we'd all be happy. In practice, however, these sovereign citizens apparently like to drive around on public roads in unlicensed cars, carrying guns, and ready to open fire on police, so the theory seems to fail to hold up to reality.


Disagree.  They believe they have the right to kill people who ask them to get license plates.  That puts them right on the same level as anarchists.  It's one thing to believe you should have the right to free yourself from society; it's another to actually act as you have and use deadly force.
 
2013-04-06 11:52:15 PM  

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


I really want that to be sovereigns, because it will be the end of them. But it was probably MI13.
 
2013-04-06 11:55:43 PM  

ciberido: pedrop357: See, someone might get sick from the fish, might need medical treatment, might seek treatment in an emergency room, might not have enough to pay, and might not pay, thus the government is justified in enforcing building codes, zoning rules, etc. (little of which have to do the with concept of getting sick from bad fish)

It might also be worth pointing out that  pedrop357 here has in other threads argued for the need for laws restricting a woman's access to abortion, so in addition to being tongue-chewingly insane, he's also quite the little hypocrite.


No I have not.  I have expressed that the position being ascribed to the anti-abortion side by the pro-abortion side is simplistic and incorrect.  I have also pointed out how objectionable laws on firearms would be if applied in kind to abortion.
 
2013-04-06 11:56:36 PM  

Eponymous: And exactly how are these people different than anarchists?


Anarchists don't believe in laws.
Sovereign citizens believe the legal system works according to some bizarre cargo-cult framework.
 
2013-04-06 11:57:46 PM  

ciberido: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.

There's a line between "libertarian" and "dangerously insane whackjob" and you just took a flying leap over it.

When the nice men come to take you to a cozy rubber room, please don't start shooting.


Perhaps if the term "social contract" wasn't almost solely used as a tool to coerce people, I would have a different view of it.
 
2013-04-06 11:58:59 PM  

fnordfocus: sheep snorter: /Cops are a bit of a problem when they refuse to arrest the sovereigns for not having drivers license and car insurance and forged documents, etc. Considering how normal people are treated when part of their registration is farked up.

How exactly do sovereign citizens get away with this anyway?

If I mouthed off to a cop and refused to show my license and registration, I'd get a beat down, lose my car, and spend at least a few weeks in jail, assuming I didn't just get shot in the back resisting arrest.


Hopefully you see something wrong with all or at least part of this.
 
2013-04-07 12:10:47 AM  

pedrop357: fnordfocus: sheep snorter: /Cops are a bit of a problem when they refuse to arrest the sovereigns for not having drivers license and car insurance and forged documents, etc. Considering how normal people are treated when part of their registration is farked up.

How exactly do sovereign citizens get away with this anyway?

If I mouthed off to a cop and refused to show my license and registration, I'd get a beat down, lose my car, and spend at least a few weeks in jail, assuming I didn't just get shot in the back resisting arrest.

Hopefully you see something wrong with all or at least part of this.


Saying I'd get shot for refusing to show ID is (mostly) hyperbole, but it's not exactly rare for civilians to go to jail for this, even when not driving.

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/florida-cops-tase-man-for -r efusing-to-show-id/
 
2013-04-07 12:13:49 AM  

ciberido: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.

There's a line between "libertarian" and "dangerously insane whackjob" and you just took a flying leap over it.

When the nice men come to take you to a cozy rubber room, please don't start shooting.


BTW, anyone who wants to take any action against me for expressing this viewpoint (or others) would be resisted with whatever means I could muster.

It's worth pointing out that the social contract of the 1930s probably called for people to keep white neighborhoods white and black neghborhoods black.  In the 1920s, it undoubtedly called for people to support their local and state governments in their mass sterilization efforts.  I'm sure the compact/contract of the 1950s called for everyone to report suspected communists and undoubtedly called for people to ostracize their communist neighbors and pay extra taxes for anti-communist programs and awareness programs.

The contract of the 1840s would have called for raised taxes to deal with runaway slaves and wayward women.

So pardon the fark out of me if I don't subscribe to or agree with an infinitely flexible, unwritten bullshiat concept that's been wrapped up in the euphemism "social contract"
 
2013-04-07 12:16:52 AM  

fnordfocus: Saying I'd get shot for refusing to show ID is (mostly) hyperbole, but it's not exactly rare for civilians to go to jail for this, even when not driving.

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/florida-cops-tase-man-for -r efusing-to-show-id/


I'd have to say that one incident in Florida from a year ago counts as "rare."
 
2013-04-07 12:22:46 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: fnordfocus: Saying I'd get shot for refusing to show ID is (mostly) hyperbole, but it's not exactly rare for civilians to go to jail for this, even when not driving.

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/florida-cops-tase-man-for -r efusing-to-show-id/

I'd have to say that one incident in Florida from a year ago counts as "rare."


If you pull me over, and I won't show you my driver's license, insurance, or registration, and my car has no plates, are you really going to just let me drive off without proving I have a license and the car isn't stolen?

And, I live in California, so if I mouth off to a Cop, it's pretty much a given I'll get the fark beaten out of me and go to jail.
 
2013-04-07 12:25:49 AM  

fnordfocus: Satanic_Hamster: fnordfocus: Saying I'd get shot for refusing to show ID is (mostly) hyperbole, but it's not exactly rare for civilians to go to jail for this, even when not driving.

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/florida-cops-tase-man-for -r efusing-to-show-id/

I'd have to say that one incident in Florida from a year ago counts as "rare."

If you pull me over, and I won't show you my driver's license, insurance, or registration, and my car has no plates, are you really going to just let me drive off without proving I have a license and the car isn't stolen?

And, I live in California, so if I mouth off to a Cop, it's pretty much a given I'll get the fark beaten out of me and go to jail.


So, the cops are as scummy (really, scummier) as these sovereign citizens yahoos.

That's reassuring.
 
2013-04-07 12:35:26 AM  
Lusiphur
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.

Why should I have to leave? The government's the one that didn't ask permission.


tirob
Do you see now why it is that left wing libertarians often find it so easy to jump over to right wing "libertarianism?"

Duh?
Right-Libertarians: bottom-right
Anarchists: bottom-left
politicalcompass.org
I sympathize with their anti-government stance but probably hate their economic principles (as far as they exist, which can probably be summed up as "capitalism freedom") just like I sympathize with the egalitarian economic goals of Communists (top-left) while despising their authoritarian political ideas.
Were we arguing about this before?
 
2013-04-07 12:59:09 AM  
fnordfocus
If I mouthed off to a cop and refused to show my license and registration, I'd get a beat down, lose my car, and spend at least a few weeks in jail, assuming I didn't just get shot in the back resisting arrest.

You sound attractive and successful.
 
2013-04-07 01:12:41 AM  

fnordfocus: If you pull me over, and I won't show you my driver's license, insurance, or registration, and my car has no plates, are you really going to just let me drive off without proving I have a license and the car isn't stolen?

And, I live in California, so if I mouth off to a Cop, it's pretty much a given I'll get the fark beaten out of me and go to jail.


Driving is a different story.  Was referring to people being tossed in jail for refusing to show ID when non-driving.
 
2013-04-07 01:16:50 AM  
What a person in a police Halloween costume might look like;

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-04-07 01:36:26 AM  
We all have to live by these laws. Most laws were written a long time ago. By slave owners. Possibly for profit. We didn't really get a vote in them. Sure we can vote now, but the system is kind of confusing to some.  Why do we only teach law in law schools to people that can afford law school? Wouldn't more people feel comfortable with the law if more people understood the law?
 
2013-04-07 01:49:10 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: fnordfocus: If you pull me over, and I won't show you my driver's license, insurance, or registration, and my car has no plates, are you really going to just let me drive off without proving I have a license and the car isn't stolen?

And, I live in California, so if I mouth off to a Cop, it's pretty much a given I'll get the fark beaten out of me and go to jail.

Driving is a different story.  Was referring to people being tossed in jail for refusing to show ID when non-driving.


The walking down the street minding your own business and then getting hauled in for lacking "papers" is what the libbiest libs were screaming about a couple of years ago.

Only it was in AZ, and the papers they were looking for were proof of legal residency. Didn't hear much out of the sovereign weenies then, did we?
 
2013-04-07 01:53:21 AM  

pedrop357: ciberido: pedrop357: See, someone might get sick from the fish, might need medical treatment, might seek treatment in an emergency room, might not have enough to pay, and might not pay, thus the government is justified in enforcing building codes, zoning rules, etc. (little of which have to do the with concept of getting sick from bad fish)

It might also be worth pointing out that  pedrop357 here has in other threads argued for the need for laws restricting a woman's access to abortion, so in addition to being tongue-chewingly insane, he's also quite the little hypocrite.

No I have not.  I have expressed that the position being ascribed to the anti-abortion side by the pro-abortion side is simplistic and incorrect.  I have also pointed out how objectionable laws on firearms would be if applied in kind to abortion.



I stand by what I said.  Any third party who doesn't know which of us to believe, is welcome to google for other threads in which you've posted on the subject.

But in fairness, rather than argue about what you've said in the past, consider this your chance to elucidate exactly what your thoughts on abortion are, and how they relate to your position vis-à- vis the "sovereign citizen" issue.
 
2013-04-07 01:54:48 AM  

pedrop357: ciberido: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.

There's a line between "libertarian" and "dangerously insane whackjob" and you just took a flying leap over it.

When the nice men come to take you to a cozy rubber room, please don't start shooting.

BTW, anyone who wants to take any action against me for expressing this viewpoint (or others) would be resisted with whatever means I could muster.



Yeah.  Add vague threats of violence on top of the derp.  That's bound to convince people how rational your position is.
 
2013-04-07 02:00:44 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: fnordfocus: If you pull me over, and I won't show you my driver's license, insurance, or registration, and my car has no plates, are you really going to just let me drive off without proving I have a license and the car isn't stolen?

And, I live in California, so if I mouth off to a Cop, it's pretty much a given I'll get the fark beaten out of me and go to jail.

Driving is a different story.  Was referring to people being tossed in jail for refusing to show ID when non-driving.


That's just the first example I found on Google.

My post and the article were about driving.  I don't think even the most authoritarian of cops expect me to carry my car registration when not driving.
 
2013-04-07 02:11:24 AM  

ciberido: eah. Add vague threats of violence on top of the derp. That's bound to convince people how rational your position is.


No not so much.  You made some nonsense comment about people taking me away for questioning the concept of the social contract and asking me not shoot them when they try to do so.  I wouldn't acquiesce to such thing, nor would I expect anyone else to.  I would resist as necessary such crap.  Nothing vague about it.
 
2013-04-07 02:12:08 AM  

ciberido: I stand by what I said. Any third party who doesn't know which of us to believe, is welcome to google for other threads in which you've posted on the subject.

But in fairness, rather than argue about what you've said in the past, consider this your chance to elucidate exactly what your thoughts on abortion are, and how they relate to your position vis-à- vis the "sovereign citizen" issue.


You brought it up, you elucidate as you feel necessary.
 
2013-04-07 02:13:39 AM  

fnordfocus: That's just the first example I found on Google.

My post and the article were about driving. I don't think even the most authoritarian of cops expect me to carry my car registration when not driving.


No, but some cops expect you to show ID at the drop of the hat.  Even made it up to the Supreme Court a few years back.
 
2013-04-07 02:28:24 AM  
Wasn't it the fark independents and the Conservatrolls that were completely behind the AZ requiring slightly off color people to produce their papers.

Oh and the stop and frisk programs that have been installed that target, sometimes in the extreme, minorities; I am going to guess that you all are for the cops stopping these practices too.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I mean a drug dealer is just a storefront being held down by government controls right?

Take the SC view to the extreme and it is just silly. Too bad it is not being taken to the extreme, it is being used by some domestically to actively jam up the courts and be public nuisances.
 
2013-04-07 02:36:40 AM  

pedrop357: ciberido: I stand by what I said. Any third party who doesn't know which of us to believe, is welcome to google for other threads in which you've posted on the subject.

But in fairness, rather than argue about what you've said in the past, consider this your chance to elucidate exactly what your thoughts on abortion are, and how they relate to your position vis-à- vis the "sovereign citizen" issue.

You brought it up, you elucidate as you feel necessary.


I deal with people like you all day. They stand for the government when we are bombing a country and are the first to buy flags from China to slap on their car. They are also the first to tell poor people to suck it up and get rich or die trying.

You have been somewhat abusive and abrasive to most of the people in the thread with differing view. This makes your point come off as rather crass and seems like you are just trying to out mean everyone else.

Perhaps you can take a step back for a minute and see it as we do. We care for our fellow man, we take care of him. We try to be good neighbors and feed the poor. We do believe in society as a whole. That each one of us is a part of this country and as such we all deserve the rights and respect due to each of us.

You do not. You believe in your own self and that is great. What you need to understand is there are people out there that take a stand offish view of society to show some form of mental instability. I am not saying you are mentally unstable, I am saying that the way you make your points is completely out of bounds.

Personal responsibility is one thing, but tell me, do you ever go to a doctor. Do you take medicine. You do know that those are all regulated and society has said that everyone should be taken care of in dire circumstance. That is part of the social contract we have made to take care of our country.

Perhaps you could tell me what exactly you have a problem with and we can go from there, because so far all you have sounded is angry.
 
2013-04-07 03:48:59 AM  

thiefofdreams: I deal with people like you all day. They stand for the government when we are bombing a country and are the first to buy flags from China to slap on their car. They are also the first to tell poor people to suck it up and get rich or die trying.


I sure as hell don't stand up for government bombing countries and I don't care at all for the faux patriotism you're describing

thiefofdreams: You have been somewhat abusive and abrasive to most of the people in the thread with differing view. This makes your point come off as rather crass and seems like you are just trying to out mean everyone else.


I acknowledge that I have been abrasive, and it's not for nothing.  Lots of bullshiat tossed my way.

thiefofdreams: Perhaps you can take a step back for a minute and see it as we do. We care for our fellow man, we take care of him. We try to be good neighbors and feed the poor. We do believe in society as a whole. That each one of us is a part of this country and as such we all deserve the rights and respect due to each of us.


So do I.  I donate a lot to charities, primarily Missions and things like 3square.   I also believe that we're all part of this country and deserving of respect and rights.  I view rights as a thing that the government is prohibited from infringing on and not as a series of entitlements (negative rights vs. positive rights).

thiefofdreams: You do not. You believe in your own self and that is great. What you need to understand is there are people out there that take a stand offish view of society to show some form of mental instability. I am not saying you are mentally unstable, I am saying that the way you make your points is completely out of bounds.


Total bullshiat and a leap apparently based on the fact that I don't subscribe to the view of the social contract as espoused here.

I rarely ever (really never) hear anyone use the term/euphemism "social contract" as anything but a device to compel/coerce others into basically obeying.

When was the last time someone said something like "Well, we don't like people growing marijuana in their home for their personal consumption, BUT the social contract means that we leave them alone because they're not hurting anyone?"  Rinse and repeat with a variety of things that are victimless or where the other person has mitigated most/all externalities.

The concept of "social contract" should work both ways and should compel society to largely 'put up' with things it doesn't like that don't actually hurt society, in the name of keeping society intact.  Since it's completely unwritten and is largely a device for individuals to justify various restrictions and compulsions on others, I'm going to continue to point out how this is bullshiat and actually antithetical to the concept of society.

I can easily imagine a person in the 1950s saying that the social contract and duty to each other requires everyone to report suspect communists to the government.  Do the same thing in the 40s with nearly everything war related-rationing, not questioning the government, etc.  The "social contract" as employed by interested parties in the 1840s would undoubtedly say that society requires people to report and turn in runaway slaves.
 
2013-04-07 04:22:53 AM  

pedrop357: thiefofdreams: I deal with people like you all day. They stand for the government when we are bombing a country and are the first to buy flags from China to slap on their car. They are also the first to tell poor people to suck it up and get rich or die trying.

I sure as hell don't stand up for government bombing countries and I don't care at all for the faux patriotism you're describing

thiefofdreams: You have been somewhat abusive and abrasive to most of the people in the thread with differing view. This makes your point come off as rather crass and seems like you are just trying to out mean everyone else.

I acknowledge that I have been abrasive, and it's not for nothing.  Lots of bullshiat tossed my way.

thiefofdreams: Perhaps you can take a step back for a minute and see it as we do. We care for our fellow man, we take care of him. We try to be good neighbors and feed the poor. We do believe in society as a whole. That each one of us is a part of this country and as such we all deserve the rights and respect due to each of us.

So do I.  I donate a lot to charities, primarily Missions and things like 3square.   I also believe that we're all part of this country and deserving of respect and rights.  I view rights as a thing that the government is prohibited from infringing on and not as a series of entitlements (negative rights vs. positive rights).

thiefofdreams: You do not. You believe in your own self and that is great. What you need to understand is there are people out there that take a stand offish view of society to show some form of mental instability. I am not saying you are mentally unstable, I am saying that the way you make your points is completely out of bounds.

Total bullshiat and a leap apparently based on the fact that I don't subscribe to the view of the social contract as espoused here.

I rarely ever (really never) hear anyone use the term/euphemism "social contract" as anything but a device to compel/coerce others into basically obeying ...


Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you realize I was not attacking and just honestly questioning.

I understand on the social contract, perhaps it is that we see the same thing from two different angles.

You see it as a means for the government and society to encroach on personal liberties. I remember the stories my grandfather told me when he was a farm in the great depression and how they could not have survived without aid from the government and society. I also remember us winning WW2 due to the country knuckling up and working their collective asses off for the greater good.

I still think there can be a greater good. I have to state that you views seem to be very jaded. There is still good in mankind. It is rare but the fact that you give to charities shows that even you see good in mankind.

Perhaps we should do more to look for the positive in life. I realized at work the other day that we only ever discuss the bad phone calls. We never discuss the good. I am finding this to be the way on issues these days. Both sides run the meaning out to the extreme end.

So as I see it the social contract is as Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" I see it as an act of love toward my fellow man, and hell I quoted Jesus and I am an atheist.

Just so you know the laws of the land are nothing more than a contract with society, a social contract if you will. The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Laws. They all depend on society to uphold them. One of the hallmarks of a civilized nation is when we stop casting our sick and poor out and begin to co-exist.

The thought that people can cast aside that contract and still use the perks of the social contract is selfish at best and hypocritical at worst. As I said before, I live in a town where one of these guys when to jail with co-conspirators for planning on killing cops and judges. I understand that some SCs just want to live off the land, but I have never met one that didn't strike me as very dangerous. They wanted to change the laws they did not like with force or laws that simply don't exist. This is a problem no matter how you want to slice it.
 
2013-04-07 06:57:34 AM  

RanDomino: .
tirob
Do you see now why it is that left wing libertarians often find it so easy to jump over to right wing "libertarianism?"

I sympathize with their anti-government stance but probably hate their economic principles (as far as they exist, which can probably be summed up as "capitalism freedom") just like I sympathize with the egalitarian economic goals of Communists (top-left) while despising their authoritarian political ideas.
Were we arguing about this before?


I made the point a while back that anarchists in Spain and Italy (the homes of the two strongest Anarchist movements in Europe) effectively disappeared after the rise of Fascism in those countries, and I suggested that part of the reason for that was that the local Fascists were for one reason or another able to co-opt a good many of them.  I backed that assertion up with an anecdote from a Spanish ex-fascist in which he had reported that he had personally witnessed a good many FAI people (local anarchists) take up arms for Franco, this probably after their movement was squashed in Barcelona by the Spanish Republican government.  You seemed skeptical that Anarchists could ever be capable of making this "left to right" move; I assure you that it happens all the time.

While Ron Paul style "libertarians" aren't Fascists, I think they are rightists in their own way.  I don't even like to use the word libertarian to describe them, for that matter; I think that they are Spencerians, i.e. effectively followers of Herbert Spencer, whose philosophy I would boil down to, "he who has the gold makes the rules."  Spencerians here have a lot of names for those who would try to regulate matters so that people with money don't run completely roughshod over the rest of the population--"Washington bureaucrats," "the elite," "the beast," etc.  We've both heard it all before.  This kind of rhetoric has appealed to more than one person who started out as a left libertarian such as you describe yourself.

/I'm from a Social Democratic tradition, as you may have guessed
/still sympathetic
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report