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
 
2013-04-06 08:46:25 AM
zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.

Farking hypocrites.
 
2013-04-06 08:47:53 AM
I bet Wright was a riot during 4th of July parties.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-06 08:56:37 AM
Best quote is at the end: Finch asked how he justified working for a government he considered illegitimate. "He told me he needed the money to live out his ideology," he said.
 
2013-04-06 08:57:30 AM
Is the teacher named P Barnes?

totalfratmove.com
 
2013-04-06 09:27:29 AM
Many sovereigns - including the father-son team in the Arkansas shooting - hold seminars of their own in which they charge for lessons on redemption and tax avoidance. "You pay them in cash for them to tell you money has no value," Finch said.

Laughter OL
 
2013-04-06 09:30:10 AM
I found a sovereign in the comments.

Mr. Wiggles at 4:01 AM April 06, 2013

It's really strange how people always want to confront someone who wants to be left alone, If you ask me I think the one who messes with the person who wants to be by him or herself is the one who needs his head checked out.

I have a book on this subject and I do read about what these guys are talking about and what they do say is true to a point the problem with their message is that some of the laws they speak of has been changed by stacking law o  top of laws and or they are now outdated.

Just leave em alone.


Freak!
 
2013-04-06 09:41:45 AM
Leave Reggie alone!
 
2013-04-06 09:43:07 AM
"When all else fails deploy the self-propelled Cockpunch 5000 -- when fully fueled it's capable of delivering 180 cockpunches per minute for up to two hours at impacts customizable all the way up to 'Earnie Shavers on PCP,' and, in a major upgrade over the Cockpunch 4000, the 5000 has a built-in webcam that provides streaming video of the cockpunches set to 'Yackety Sax."
 
2013-04-06 09:47:46 AM
Remember: title IV flag says you're schwag.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-06 09:57:51 AM
TFA: "To them, a police officer is just a man in a Halloween costume," Finch said.

Sounds like somebody isn't sufficiently respecting their authoratah.
 
2013-04-06 09:59:24 AM
LOL... Should have read a couple more paragraphs before posting

TFA: "Your antennae should immediately go up," he tells officers. "They refuse to recognize your authority, and that creates a dangerous situation."
 
2013-04-06 10:19:39 AM
Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.
 
2013-04-06 10:33:35 AM
sovereigns

If they don't want to play by the rules, the don't deserve a euphemistic title.  "Dangerous assholes" is staying.
 
2013-04-06 10:38:01 AM
Hey US:  If you are a big enough company.  You feel you can do that too.  They probably owe more in taxes too.
 
2013-04-06 10:49:42 AM
Reason #132 why we need involuntary institutionalisation. Peoples be delusional.
 
2013-04-06 10:50:14 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: Is the teacher named P Barnes?

[totalfratmove.com image 590x300]


Yup, P Barnes knows what to do.
 
2013-04-06 11:20:31 AM

PreMortem: Reason #132 why we need involuntary institutionalisation. Peoples be delusional.


As long as I get to decide who we institutionalize.
 
2013-04-06 11:21:30 AM
Came for P. Barnes. Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-04-06 11:26:54 AM
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.
 
2013-04-06 11:32:58 AM

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.


At which point unless they're Les Stroud living completely off the grid in Alaska, they are still a burden to some infrastructure in the country.

And we all know how well it turns out sometimes when someone goes of and lives in a mountain shed on government land for 20 years, right, Ted Kaczynski ?
 
2013-04-06 11:42:01 AM

Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.


I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-04-06 11:50:54 AM

BullBearMS: I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...


Just because you're crazy doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.
 
2013-04-06 11:57:53 AM

Generation_D: zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.

Farking hypocrites.


Politics is the new religion.
 
2013-04-06 11:58:52 AM

BullBearMS: Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.

I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


Except these people are in fact terrorists, and dangerous.
 
2013-04-06 11:59:40 AM
 
2013-04-06 12:00:15 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-06 12:00:24 PM

Generation_D: zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.


'zactly.

FTA: Once he threatened to sue a deputy who pulled him over.

How's that work, seeing as how you don't recognize government authority, sovereign?
 
2013-04-06 12:00:43 PM
You think Bill and Hillary play by the same rules you do?
The Bush Dynasty? (die-nasty)

Really?

Know what makes a religion a religion? When it gets enough muscle to be reckoned with. Sovereign Citizens lack only this one feature, or you don't understand the Clintons. Or, inner city gangs that go nationwide.
 
2013-04-06 12:02:25 PM
Shoot on sight?
 
2013-04-06 12:02:40 PM
BullBearMS:
I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzoXQKumgCw
 
2013-04-06 12:03:33 PM
After what they did in West memphis in 2010, I say shoot first, Ask questions later.

/ knows the son of the assistant chief who was shot in the second shoot out.
// He flew his own dad to the trauma center.
 
2013-04-06 12:03:59 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 12:05:49 PM

Mister Peejay: BullBearMS:
I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzoXQKumgCw


That's awesome... I'm freaking crying
 
2013-04-06 12:07:23 PM

Generation_D: 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.

At which point unless they're Les Stroud living completely off the grid in Alaska, they are still a burden to some infrastructure in the country.

And we all know how well it turns out sometimes when someone goes of and lives in a mountain shed on government land for 20 years, right, Ted Kaczynski ?


Ted was a pretty big user of the US Post Office though.
 
2013-04-06 12:09:57 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.


But you're not a control freak, right?

I always love this counter response that basically says that the government owns all of us because we used or once used some service that was provided or regulated by the government.

Non contaminated food exists on numerous farms and slaughterhouses without a single government official doing anything.  It's surprisingly easy for families that eat what they raise/grow to just follow basic sanitary practices even without the watchful eye of the government.

They paid for most of that stuff whether they wanted too or not.  If they put fuel in their vehicles and purchased tires, they've paid for access to the roads and bridges for example.
 
2013-04-06 12:10:31 PM
Regicide?

Well great, now I'm going to have to go fire up Halo 4 again. It hasn't even been 12 hours since I played last...
 
2013-04-06 12:10:42 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: "When all else fails deploy the self-propelled Cockpunch 5000 -- when fully fueled it's capable of delivering 180 cockpunches per minute for up to two hours at impacts customizable all the way up to 'Earnie Shavers on PCP,' and, in a major upgrade over the Cockpunch 4000, the 5000 has a built-in webcam that provides streaming video of the cockpunches set to 'Yackety Sax."


That is beautiful.
 
2013-04-06 12:10:52 PM
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.
 
2013-04-06 12:12:40 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.


Whats fun is if you required payment in gold since they wouldn't recognize paper money
 
2013-04-06 12:12:55 PM
You are infringing on my freedom of movement.
 
2013-04-06 12:13:08 PM

hardinparamedic: / knows the son of the assistant chief who was shot in the second shoot out.
// He flew his own dad to the trauma center.


That has to hurt, to see your own father shot and dying like that.
 
2013-04-06 12:14:33 PM
The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.
 
2013-04-06 12:15:55 PM
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.
 
2013-04-06 12:15:57 PM
"He had renounced his U.S. citizenship."

a) that doesn't excuse you from any laws or taxes

B) deport the farking moran
 
2013-04-06 12:18:57 PM

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.


No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?
 
2013-04-06 12:19:48 PM

tillerman35: The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.


That's the problem.  If someone wants to live 'away' from society, or limit the interactions and influence of society, they have to be harassed, abused, and/or forcefully pulled back in.

The attitude of some seems to be "let's mess with them until they push back, then we can justify why we were pushing them."

People always talk about how if someone doesn't like some aspect of society, they should "go live off the grid" or some other nonsense, THEN we have this issue where it's basically proven that there's no such thing as allowing people to live even slightly off the grid.

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?
 
2013-04-06 12:20:58 PM

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.


In which case I hope we see a lot more repeats of that that father and son team.
 
2013-04-06 12:23:07 PM
I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.

Granted there are a handful of serious whackjobs who are a serious danger to those around them, but the vast majority aren't doing anything that should remotely qualify as terroristic or threatening enough to paint a movement as large as they claim with such a brush.
 
2013-04-06 12:27:30 PM
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.
 
2013-04-06 12:28:54 PM

JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.

Granted there are a handful of serious whackjobs who are a serious danger to those around them, but the vast majority aren't doing anything that should remotely qualify as terroristic or threatening enough to paint a movement as large as they claim with such a brush.


THAT is why I sympathize with them despite disagreeing with a lot what they do.

How the government responds to a bunch of C rate rabble-rousers should tell us how the government would deal with any truly effective movement for change, especially one that would push for more individual autonomy.  It's also highly effective in weeding out the high grade authoritarians among us.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:10 PM
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.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:34 PM
Anybody know what happened to P Barnes' taser-bait? I'm curious as to how that all worked out.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:55 PM
what BS. the man is going to make use of old school physical training and a BatMan Utility Belt filled with weapons and restraints the second they feel someone crosses a perceived line. these are people who receive two weeks paid vacation for killing an unarmed civilian.
 
2013-04-06 12:29:57 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 12:31:04 PM

pedrop357: But you're not a control freak, right?


No, I was making a joke.  Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.
 
2013-04-06 12:31:58 PM

JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.struggle with reading comprehension, and have difficulty paying attention.


fark sovereigns. I think "terrorist" is an appropriate classification.
 
2013-04-06 12:32:20 PM

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.


and you wonder why they're just shooting the cops right away...............
 
2013-04-06 12:32:44 PM
Treat them like Emperor Norton.
 
2013-04-06 12:32:53 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 12:34:31 PM
I'm pretty pro sovereign citizens... provided they renounce US citizenship and agree to be parachuted down into Somalia. I'd even be fine with the gubmint paying for a one way trip.
 
2013-04-06 12:35:36 PM

SuperSeriousMan: Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.


You may want to check this link.
 
2013-04-06 12:36:25 PM
I can understand not recognizing the authority of a police officer. Ok, FBI says 6 cops a year killed by these people.... How many people do cops kill every year? And I'm expected to respect them. Fear, yes. Respect. Nah. Repect is earned.
 
2013-04-06 12:37:10 PM

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.


No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

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)
 
2013-04-06 12:38:12 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: 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.

No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?


I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think.  Yes, the 2001 attacks were the work of terrorists.  We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops.  While cops are not military I would not classify them as civilian either.  The only thing I disagree with you on is that I don't think the sovereigns attack cops to advance a political agenda.  The confrontations with police are an unfortunate outcome of their delusional thinking but they don't go out of their way to attack cops.  Nor do they do so as a means of advancing their cause. It only happens when they are pulled over or otherwise confronted by a cop, which they mistakenly interpret as an attack on their freedom.  If they were running around looking for cops to attack and claiming that by attacking the cop they were helping their cause then I would agree that they are terrorists.
 
2013-04-06 12:39:54 PM

Ima4nic8or: Fuggin Bizzy: 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.

No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?

I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think.  Yes, the 2001 attacks were the work of terrorists.  We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops.  While cops are not military I would not classify them as civilian either.  The only thing I disagree with you on is that I don't think the sovereigns attack cops to advance a political agenda.  The confrontations with police are an unfortunate outcome of their delusional thinking but they don't go out of their way to attack cops.  Nor do they do so as a means of advancing their cause. It only happens when they are pulled over or otherwise confronted by a cop, which they mistakenly interpret as an attack on their freedom.  If they were running around looking for cops to attack and claiming that by attacking the cop they were helping their cause then I would agree that they are terrorists.


Unless they are intentionally breaking the laws by speeding or using fake license plates, and thus intentionally creating confrontations that can lead to violence.
 
2013-04-06 12:40:19 PM

earthworm2.0: I can understand not recognizing the authority of a police officer. Ok, FBI says 6 cops a year killed by these people.... How many people do cops kill every year? And I'm expected to respect them. Fear, yes. Respect. Nah. Repect is earned.


Last I read, police kill around 300-400 people each year, with nearly all of them being classified as self-defense (usually by the department that employs the officer).  Non-police kill around 50-70 police officers each year, with all of them being considered murder.  In a typical year as many or more police officers will die in traffic crashes as are killed by non-police.
 
2013-04-06 12:40:25 PM
 We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops
But some cops need killing
 
2013-04-06 12:40:53 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.struggle with reading comprehension, and have difficulty paying attention.

fark sovereigns. I think "terrorist" is an appropriate classification.


You really think 1 in every 1000 of the people in this country is a terrorist?

Yet somehow you can still look outside and I doubt it much resembles a warzone (assuming you're not in Detroit).
 
2013-04-06 12:42:35 PM

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.


Many, many, many moons ago I worked for a small mortgage servicer and these guys were a frequent thorn in our sides. They'd mail on fake checks with explanatory pamphlets that would say since paper was good enough for the govy, should be good enough for us. They'd file fake release of liens for their mortgage, and then contest the case through ridiculous, nonsensical (but amusing) filings that read like a new Nicholas Cage movie.

Too bad they didn't stay harmless nutters.
 
2013-04-06 12:42:44 PM
I'm a little incredulous that anyone can support these types of people.  They don't "just want to be left alone" or "live off the grid," they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to follow laws.  Here is a good test to determine if your philosophical belief is stupid: apply it universally and see what happens.  What would happen if everyone decided what and how much taxes they pay, and how those taxes are used.  What would happen if everyone carried a list of laws that personally applied to them and they only had to follows those laws.  Does society as we know it disintegrate, and we revert into a Somalia-like collection of warlord ruled clans? Yes?  Then your philosophical belief is probably stupid.
 
2013-04-06 12:42:47 PM

SuperSeriousMan: pedrop357: But you're not a control freak, right?

No, I was making a joke.  Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.


Oh fark off.

Everyone's always making a joke when their straight post in a sea of straight posts is responded to in a manner they don't like.

Basically this is the Jon Stewart car; talk politics, then go "gee shucks I'm a comedian" when someone calls him on his shiat.
 
2013-04-06 12:42:49 PM

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.


If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.
 
2013-04-06 12:44:27 PM

BigLuca: I'm a little incredulous that anyone can support these types of people.  They don't "just want to be left alone" or "live off the grid," they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to follow laws.  Here is a good test to determine if your philosophical belief is stupid: apply it universally and see what happens.  What would happen if everyone decided what and how much taxes they pay, and how those taxes are used.  What would happen if everyone carried a list of laws that personally applied to them and they only had to follows those laws.  Does society as we know it disintegrate, and we revert into a Somalia-like collection of warlord ruled clans? Yes?  Then your philosophical belief is probably stupid.


Perhaps we could compromise and make it easier (or stop deliberately making it hard) for people to live more on their own.

When the law treats minor "off the grid" no different than completely "off the grid", why bother being half-assed about it?
 
2013-04-06 12:44:51 PM
Ya know, there are some places in the middle east(or Detroit) where if you used CIA airlines to drop these sovereigns off, without weapons,
It would be farking hilarious to see them challenge local laws. Especially that big new tattoo on their forehead dissing the locals.
All embassy's would be closed that day........

/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.

//Yea I know, you try to deal with a person foaming at the mouth and a herd of nutjob sovereign lawyers who would be arrested as they showed up with the same infractions. Its like the free car giveaway at the cop station for all drug dealers in town.

///Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.
 
2013-04-06 12:45:46 PM

rustypouch: If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.


Ah, the old "if you don't like it, you can just get out" canard.  Let's try that with gay marriage or voter ID and see if anyone agrees.
 
2013-04-06 12:47:47 PM
rustypouch:
If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

when the government doesn't follow the rules, why should we?
 
2013-04-06 12:48:01 PM
How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?
 
2013-04-06 12:48:09 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-06 12:48:27 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?


if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?
 
2013-04-06 12:50:09 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?


Sovereign citizens are not mountain men. They are just people who want to play by rules they make up as they go along. Like the postal worker mentioned in TFA.
 
2013-04-06 12:50:28 PM

sheep snorter: pasted idiot image here


I bet you like small penis jokes because you're scared of guns, aren't ya?
 
2013-04-06 12:50:45 PM
And exactly how are these people different than anarchists?
 
2013-04-06 12:51:21 PM

dksuddeth: sheep snorter: pasted idiot image here

I bet you like small penis jokes because you're scared of guns, aren't ya?


This thread is getting farking hilarious!
 
2013-04-06 12:51:53 PM
If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.
 
2013-04-06 12:52:53 PM

dksuddeth: rustypouch:
If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

when the government doesn't follow the rules, why should we?


For a clear, very modern example of this, look at how the Colorado government is proposing to deal with marijuana legalization.

The people voted, they said they wanted marijuana legalized for people over 21.  The legislature could have read that as mandate to tread carefully with the regulatory power they were granted, but instead are choosing to rule, regulate, tax, and prohibit as much as possible.  The end result will be one only trivially different then criminalization and many of the problems that legalization was supposed to solve will remain.
The government certainly isn't honoring the spirit of the ballot initiative, and in some cases are subverting the actual word of the initiative as well.
 
2013-04-06 12:52:54 PM
I know one of these guys, who refused to pay income tax. It wasn't that big a deal, though, since he didn't have any income. He also made his own licence plate. But I think he stopped using it when his son convinced him what a stupid idea that was.
 
2013-04-06 12:53:22 PM
Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.
 
2013-04-06 12:53:56 PM

rebelyell2006: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

Sovereign citizens are not mountain men. They are just people who want to play by rules they make up as they go along. Like the postal worker mentioned in TFA.


That is probably the best, most concise description I've read yet.
 
2013-04-06 12:54:16 PM
I feel like my goal in life, now, is to become a judge so I can have a flag with gold fringe.  Hell, I'll even throw in a UN flag.
 
2013-04-06 12:54:18 PM

pedrop357: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?


The ISP is regulated by a government that they don't recognize?
 
2013-04-06 12:55:16 PM

Milo Minderbinder: If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.


So a person CAN live off the grid and be left alone?  Please show anywhere that something like that is possible.

If they maintain registration and use taxed fuel, they can still drive that vehicle on public roads when they want to interact with society and they will be left alone?  Doubtful.
 
2013-04-06 12:55:51 PM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?

The ISP is regulated by a government that they don't recognize?


That's between the ISP and the government.
 
2013-04-06 12:56:15 PM

Makh: Hey US:  If you are a big enough company.  You feel you can do that too.  They probably owe more in taxes too.


Burma Shave
 
2013-04-06 12:56:18 PM

pedrop357: No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.


Certainly living in the borders of a nation protected by the best and most expensive military in the world, inside one of the most stable nations in the know galaxy that is the defacto reserve currency of the known universe means they should be left alone and allowed to reject the very authority of the government that provides them the blanket of peace they wish to wrap themselves in.

There are plenty of small nations and parts of the world they could easily go to so they could relax in the peace of using only 'real' currency, no pesky governments to make sure that the person upstream doesn't dump sludge from oil wells and raw sewage in your drinking water and no hassle from the those mean old coppers making sure your POS 1974 GMC pickup with bad tires and busted back glass asking it should be on the road.  Go there, and rejoice in nirvana that being a sovereign will bring to all and prove to the rest of the world how wrong the idea of a 'social contract' is.
 
2013-04-06 12:56:30 PM

maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.


Citation, please, regarding SCOTUS and arrests for lacking an ID.
 
2013-04-06 12:57:19 PM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?

if they pay the ISP, what's the problem?

The ISP is regulated by a government that they don't recognize?

That's between the ISP and the government.


Then the so-called 'sovereign citizen' isn't playing by his own rules; he's supporting and obeying a government he does not recognize as legitimate.
 
2013-04-06 12:57:35 PM
Meh, the cops treat everyone who disrespects their authority the same, they get all tasey and bullety.   Do we really need to make distinctions?
 
2013-04-06 12:59:03 PM
What annoys me most about these people is that "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.
A citizen is a member of a political community or society. Sovereignty means not recognising any power higher than your own. You cannot be a member of a group if you aren't bound by the rules of that group.
 
2013-04-06 12:59:47 PM

wingnut396: Certainly living in the borders of a nation protected by the best and most expensive military in the world, inside one of the most stable nations in the know galaxy that is the defacto reserve currency of the known universe means they should be left alone and allowed to reject the very authority of the government that provides them the blanket of peace they wish to wrap themselves in.


Ahh.  When the government acts the way it does to citizens in this country, "blanket of peace" is not the euphemism I would choose.

Just say "the government protects all of us, thus it owns us" and just farking be done with it.
 
2013-04-06 01:00:32 PM

pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.

So a person CAN live off the grid and be left alone?  Please show anywhere that something like that is possible.

If they maintain registration and use taxed fuel, they can still drive that vehicle on public roads when they want to interact with society and they will be left alone?  Doubtful.


That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.
 
2013-04-06 01:02:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Then the so-called 'sovereign citizen' isn't playing by his own rules; he's supporting and obeying a government he does not recognize as legitimate.


Are you sure you're not applying your own definition f what their rules are, aka strawman?

He's voluntarily interacting with an individual or company, how is that not playing by his own rules?
 
2013-04-06 01:02:12 PM
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 they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.
 
2013-04-06 01:02:31 PM
I can't believe that all of you are taking the side of Big Borther in this. We are all free white men (women and minorites do not count). Just look at this blatant abuse of power that all of you are championing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqZBeDW3rWY
 
2013-04-06 01:02:36 PM

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.


That's all well and good until something goes wrong. If a crime is committed on their property, they still want police protection. If someone gets sick or injured, they still want to use ambulances and hospitals. If there's a fire they still want the FD to come out.

And even then, you're assuming they won't want sewer hookups, electricity, telecom connections of any kind, own a car, use roads, bank, have any kind of insurance, etc.

What happens to Rugged Individualist when there's a severe drought? He dies or he goes on the dole, and we pick up the tab.
 
2013-04-06 01:03:16 PM

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 they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.


California laughs at your post.
 
2013-04-06 01:03:51 PM

pedrop357: rustypouch: If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

Ah, the old "if you don't like it, you can just get out" canard.  Let's try that with gay marriage or voter ID and see if anyone agrees.


But those people are actively trying to make the country a better place. Sovereign citizens seem to be  taking advantage of everything that a prosperous, stable country has to offer, while resenting having to contribute. If these people want to be left alone, let's go all out. If I had the power, I'd refund every cent of taxes they had ever paid, and exempt them from all future taxes, under the condition that they wouldn't have access to anything that government provides.
 
2013-04-06 01:03:59 PM

Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.


I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.
 
2013-04-06 01:04:53 PM

maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.


I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.
 
2013-04-06 01:05:00 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: 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.

That's all well and good until something goes wrong. If a crime is committed on their property, they still want police protection. If someone gets sick or injured, they still want to use ambulances and hospitals. If there's a fire they still want the FD to come out.

And even then, you're assuming they won't want sewer hookups, electricity, telecom connections of any kind, own a car, use roads, bank, have any kind of insurance, etc.

What happens to Rugged Individualist when there's a severe drought? He dies or he goes on the dole, and we pick up the tab.


Awful lot of "mights" in there.
 
2013-04-06 01:05:16 PM
Sovereigns assert that the U.S. Treasury has set up a secret money account for every American, which can be reclaimed through a bizarre set of legal filings known as redemption. They say everything from taxes to traffic tickets can be disposed of by drawing on the secret Treasury accounts through elaborate legal claims and mountains of paperwork.

So the government set aside money (which has no value) for *every* citizen to access as long as you fill out the right forms. But they don't tell anyone about these accounts. That's like me setting aside college funds for my kids and not telling them, and just letting the money sit there. (which in reality, I'd set aide college funds for my kids, not tell them about it, and the use the funds for a TV) And you can use this money (which comes from taxes) to pay for taxes? There's a divide by zero error in there somewhere.
 
2013-04-06 01:05:50 PM
So what exactly makes them terrorists since they have not done anything violent to create fear in order to change political agendas? Having lots of paperwork and giving cops a hard time  was never considered terroristic before..

Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power. Cops and citizens seem to have forgotten that. Unless the cop is authorized and supported by the community he works in, he is just a gang member with different bling.
 
2013-04-06 01:06:04 PM
They had me when I could keep Asian Hookers in my personal dungeon.
 
2013-04-06 01:06:26 PM

pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.

I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.


100% control? Isn't that an overstatement?
 
2013-04-06 01:10:00 PM

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 they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.


Can we do that with Mexicans as well...or is that not allowed since they're only "undocumented Democrats"
 
2013-04-06 01:12:15 PM

Milo Minderbinder: pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.

I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.

100% control? Isn't that an overstatement?


Good point.  I meant 100% not in the absolute sense, but 100% in the relative sense.

People (falsely) claim that one can live "off the grid" , BUT then they usually follow up by with some caveat that basically opens up the door for people to be treated as though they're completely "on" the grid the moment they have any interaction.
So, let's say we have our caveman living far away from anything, using no government services.  Every now and then he does have a desire to interact with people "in town", so he registers one vehicle, keeps up on licensing, etc.
That singular interaction is used as justification for the government to regulate everything, far beyond the vehicle, no differently than if the person lived in the city down the street from city hall.  Ie., now his cave has to have running water, meet building code, etc.

It's this all-or-nothing approach that seems to factor into some of these people taking the "nothing" approach.
 
2013-04-06 01:12:23 PM
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...
 
2013-04-06 01:14:29 PM

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...


Bingo.

Look at the degree to which they justify government power over people-hey you use the internet which the federal government had a hand in building 40 years ago, thus you have to tolerate the local government telling you your hand built cabin 20 miles from nowhere has to meet urban building standards.
 
2013-04-06 01:15:52 PM
BigLuca:
I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.


the founders should have done the same thing as well instead of starting to shoot the kings soldiers
 
2013-04-06 01:21:08 PM

pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: pedrop357: Milo Minderbinder: That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.

I best most people wouldn't have any problem with that except that any interaction becomes a justification for 100% control.  He drives on public roads and does this, thus the government can regulate his cave and the food he grows in it, etc.

100% control? Isn't that an overstatement?

Good point.  I meant 100% not in the absolute sense, but 100% in the relative sense.

People (falsely) claim that one can live "off the grid" , BUT then they usually follow up by with some caveat that basically opens up the door for people to be treated as though they're completely "on" the grid the moment they have any interaction.
So, let's say we have our caveman living far away from anything, using no government services.  Every now and then he does have a desire to interact with people "in town", so he registers one vehicle, keeps up on licensing, etc.
That singular interaction is used as justification for the government to regulate everything, far beyond the vehicle, no differently than if the person lived in the city down the street from city hall.  Ie., now his cave has to have running water, meet building code, etc.

It's this all-or-nothing approach that seems to factor into some of these people taking the "nothing" approach.


Hmmmm. Some of my home is not up to code, but that has no real impact until I try and sell it, and in doing so, interact with society. Is someone really going around and telling our caveman what kind of cave he can have?
 
2013-04-06 01:21:21 PM

pedrop357: 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.

No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

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)


The fish stocked by the government?
 
2013-04-06 01:21:26 PM
How should police deal with "Sovereign Citizens"

www.trbimg.com

leisureguy.files.wordpress.com

The same way they deal with "Newspaper Delivery Ladies", apparently.
 
2013-04-06 01:23:01 PM

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
 
2013-04-06 01:25:40 PM
Most "sovereigns" I know simultaneously refuse to acknowledge government, while happily applying for government disability handouts.

Look, police can be--and often ARE--douchebags. But claiming not to need license plates, a driver's license, etc. makes YOU just as much of a douchebag.
 
2013-04-06 01:26:07 PM

atomicmask: So what exactly makes them terrorists since they have not done anything violent to create fear in order to change political agendas? Having lots of paperwork and giving cops a hard time  was never considered terroristic before..

Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power. Cops and citizens seem to have forgotten that. Unless the cop is authorized and supported by the community he works in, he is just a gang member with different bling.


gifrific.com

Anyone who doesn't is, buy the new ObamOrwellian definition, a "terrorist".
 
2013-04-06 01:27:48 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 01:28:38 PM
While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?
 
2013-04-06 01:28:55 PM
Doesn't matter to me. I couldn't claim Sovereign Citizenship if I wanted to. I was born on a military base which is U.S. property, so I am a U.S citizen whether I like it or not (which I do).
 
2013-04-06 01:29:18 PM

BigLuca: maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.

I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.


I agree with the non violence approach, violence begets violence. But now almost every city in the US has a SWAT team. I live in a city of ≈125,000 people and we have TWO separate SWAT teams financed by a grant from the Federal government. What the frick do we need even one SWAT team. If a SWAT team shows up they are trained to use special weapons and tactics, so what do you think they will do? Having them around off times jacks up the situation and just having them there makes the situation more tense. The government is totally out of control.
 
2013-04-06 01:29:18 PM
Heh.  This thread brought out the "libertarian" thread shiatting troll accounts pretty quick.  I see a few of the regular "liberals are gonna take mah guns" people here as well.
 
2013-04-06 01:30:14 PM

sirgrim: pedrop357: 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.

No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

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)

The fish stocked by the government?


Yes, because all fish are stocked by the government.  Before the government came along, fish didn't exist in any rivers, lakes, streams, much less the vast oceans.  They never moved around either.  One of the reasons our Navy has so many carrier groups is to continuously replenish the supply of aquatic life in all seven oceans.

Let's say the government did stock it.  So he goes out and gets a fishing license just to play nice.  Now what?
 
2013-04-06 01:30:26 PM
Oh, so I can make my own license plate now?
www.happynameday.com
 
2013-04-06 01:31:29 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.


Racial resentment? Hardly, I just hate hypocrite politics and agendas. You twats bust at the seems just trying to run down cops when they abuse a minority, but when cops are abusing and treating whites like shiat you act like authoritarians are great. Either we all deserve the jack boots or none of us do, and I much rather have none of us deserving or getting them.
 
2013-04-06 01:33:20 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 01:34:21 PM

sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?


That's the point.

These people are 3rd and 4th rate troublemakers, but wow do they do a great job in stirring the left wing authoritarians up.

Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center consider these guys on par with the 1950s KKK, and the ACLU whips up fury about right wing radical groups.

All the police have to do is slowly conflate standing up for one's rights with "sovereign citizen" and all the previously opposed lefty groups will be quiet when the police abuse someone who dares to talk about constitutional rights or, even worse, "spouts legal doctrine the way anti-government extremists do".  The officer, fearing for his safety...
 
2013-04-06 01:36:08 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


And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.
 
2013-04-06 01:36:09 PM

atomicmask: 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.

Racial resentment? Hardly, I just hate hypocrite politics and agendas. You twats bust at the seems just trying to run down cops when they abuse a minority, but when cops are abusing and treating whites like shiat you act like authoritarians are great. Either we all deserve the jack boots or none of us do, and I much rather have none of us deserving or getting them.


Utter nonsense. There have been PLENTY of cases where power-hungry cops have overstepped their boundaries on EVERY race/ethnicity, and when its caught on video, we ALWAYS fault the pig cop here on Fark. This sovereign business is not like that. This is people inventing fantasy "rights" which don't exist, and then tying up the courts with bogus crap. They are conspiracy wackos.
 
2013-04-06 01:37:49 PM

lostcat: 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

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


Your mom's two.
 
2013-04-06 01:37:59 PM

lostcat: 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

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.
 
2013-04-06 01:40:25 PM

maxalt: BigLuca: maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.

I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.

I agree with the non violence approach, violence begets violence. But now almost every city in the US has a SWAT team. I live in a city of ≈125,000 people and we have TWO separate SWAT teams financed by a grant from the Federal government. What the frick do we need even one SWAT team. If a SWAT team shows up they are trained to use special weapons and tactics, so what do you think they will do? Having them around off times jacks up the situation and just having them there makes the situation more tense. The government is totally out of control.


Still waiting on that citation.
 
2013-04-06 01:40:32 PM

Corn_Fed: atomicmask: 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.

Racial resentment? Hardly, I just hate hypocrite politics and agendas. You twats bust at the seems just trying to run down cops when they abuse a minority, but when cops are abusing and treating whites like shiat you act like authoritarians are great. Either we all deserve the jack boots or none of us do, and I much rather have none of us deserving or getting them.

Utter nonsense. There have been PLENTY of cases where power-hungry cops have overstepped their boundaries on EVERY race/ethnicity, and when its caught on video, we ALWAYS fault the pig cop here on Fark. This sovereign business is not like that. This is people inventing fantasy "rights" which don't exist, and then tying up the courts with bogus crap. They are conspiracy wackos.


Yes they are wackos, but again, can you name the crime of handing over large amounts of paperwork to a cop? What code is it? What law? Refusing to incriminate yourself USED to be apart of our rights, now it is suddenly terrorism? If the guy refuses to identify and has done something illegal, take his ass downtown. That is fine, however labeling everyone a terrorist because GOSH THEY DIDNT KISS MY ASS, BETTER SHOOT THEM! Is not good policy for anyone.
 
2013-04-06 01:40:55 PM

atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.


Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.
 
2013-04-06 01:41:27 PM

pedrop357: Ahh.  When the government acts the way it does to citizens in this country, "blanket of peace" is not the euphemism I would choose.

Just say "the government protects all of us, thus it owns us" and just farking be done with it


You know, you have opened my eyes.  I was going to go out have lunch with my family.  Now I see the futility of it.  I forgot about the roving bands of government agents with automatic weapons, demanding tribute at every corner before letting me proceed.  I was doing to answer the door, but I'm afraid it may be the local militia coming to press my under age son into combat for a the local drug lord.  I also just disconnected my water system and decided to dig my own well, because it obvious that is just another means of control.  I've also decided to let my sewage flow into the open street and down the storm drain, as that once it off my property, it is not longer my problem.

Thank you sir, for highlight that this is indeed an illegitimate government worthy of nothing but scorn.

Unless I need to sue them, then the courts are a-okay.

I just hope my rifles don't jam.  I may need them at the festival late tonight.  You know how unruly those get when the jack booted thugs come in and start busting everyone's head for no reason.
 
2013-04-06 01:41:47 PM

atomicmask: 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...


Yes, I know. Its as if we 'libs' have things like a shared sense of humanity and a shared intolerance of assholes. Funny how that works.
 
2013-04-06 01:42:12 PM

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


You seem to be confusing Fark Politics tab types with real liberals.
 
2013-04-06 01:42:45 PM

FarkinHostile: atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.

Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.


Not forgetting it, just telling the part that goes from criminal to cop. Its the people that give him authority to carry that and use it for anything other then self defense. We give him the right to be the aggressor in situations, thats it. Otherwise he is gang member with strange bling.
 
2013-04-06 01:43:27 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 01:44:26 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: 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...

Yes, I know. Its as if we 'libs' have things like a shared sense of humanity and a shared intolerance of assholes. Funny how that works.


Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...

Funny how you squeel when the right wing does it, but when the law picks on the people you dislike its great! MARCH ON COMRADE! right?
Just saying its quite hypocritical of you.
 
2013-04-06 01:44:49 PM

lostcat: 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

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


You honestly don't understand the particulars and how there are a lot of similarities, do you?

Both average citizens and so-called "sovereign citizens" will both have their primary interactions with law enforcement officers over minor traffic things or 'suspicious person' stops.  People in both groups may choose to exercise their right to remain silent, not be searched, not show ID, etc. and the police already treat average people with quite a bit of contempt for exercising those rights.

NOW we have police groups whipping up hysteria about 3rd rate groups who have occasionally used violence, and nearly always exercise their right to remain silent, not be searched, etc.

The result is that the line blurs between standing up for one's rights and being one of those violent sovereign whatevers.  The police will get a nice big pass from all he lefty "civil rights" groups as long as they claim that they thought they were dealing with "one of those anti-government people that kills cops."

If you don't see the danger in that, then you're part of the problem.
 
2013-04-06 01:46:36 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.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.


Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?
 
2013-04-06 01:47:58 PM
 
2013-04-06 01:48:26 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 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.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?


About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.
 
2013-04-06 01:48:46 PM
Anyone want to make a Venn diagram with the overlap between sort of old traditional hippies and more modern incarnations (occupy, etc) vs  soverieign citizen and various traditional individualists.
 
2013-04-06 01:49:48 PM

atomicmask: Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...


Awww, look at how smug you are. Isn't it great we live in such a prosperous nation in such an advanced age where you can shake your tiny fists of impotent rage safely ensconced in your white male American cocoon, instead of, y'know, actually living life in the anarchist state you desire so much?
 
2013-04-06 01:51:04 PM

BullBearMS: atomicmask: Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

During a legislative debate in 2010 over the Police Department's use of stop-and-frisk encounters, the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, met with the governor at the time, David A. Paterson, to defend the tactic's importance as a crime-fighting tool.

According to a state senator, Eric Adams, who was at the meeting at the governor's office in Midtown Manhattan, the commissioner said that young black and Hispanic men were the focus of the stops because "he wanted to instill fear in them, every time they leave their home they could be stopped by the police."

Senator Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who is a former captain in the New York Police Department, recalled the meeting as he testified in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Monday, as a trial over the constitutionality of the department's use of the tactic entered its third week.

Respect my Authoratah indeed.


That is exactly what I am talking about, its bullshiat. Happening to a minority or one of these sovereign citizens. People shouldn't celebrate police abuse and new labels the cops come up with, if they apply to angry isolationist whites or blacks and latinos just walking down the street. fark that, they have enough authority as it is to uphold the law, they don't need new labels to make things more easy to abuse people.
 
2013-04-06 01:51:17 PM

pedrop357: The result is that the line blurs between standing up for one's rights and being one of those violent sovereign whatevers. The police will get a nice big pass from all he lefty "civil rights" groups as long as they claim that they thought they were dealing with "one of those anti-government people that kills cops."


It's an issue of where to draw the line... I mean, I want the police to be able to "stop and frisk" poor brown people in the innter cities, but I can't have them infringing on my rights!
 
2013-04-06 01:51:19 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 01:51:24 PM

atomicmask: FarkinHostile: atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.

Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.

Not forgetting it, just telling the part that goes from criminal to cop. Its the people that give him authority to carry that and use it for anything other then self defense. We give him the right to be the aggressor in situations, thats it. Otherwise he is gang member with strange bling.


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'.
 
2013-04-06 01:52:13 PM

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'.
 
2013-04-06 01:52:28 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 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.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?


Yep, not subscribing to the idea that society is whatever 50.001% of people say it is and that people have rights and powers that society cannot interfere with is sociopathic.  This is in contrast to the concept of jailing, hurting, or killing people who do not conform to societies (sometimes very finicky) demands and claiming authority over people because they paid to use a service the government provides.
 
2013-04-06 01:53:07 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...

Awww, look at how smug you are. Isn't it great we live in such a prosperous nation in such an advanced age where you can shake your tiny fists of impotent rage safely ensconced in your white male American cocoon, instead of, y'know, actually living life in the anarchist state you desire so much?


Aww look at how stupid you are, tossing labels and assumptions around in an attempt to shoehorn a victory over a concept you barely understand and cant justify believing in. Equality is a hard concept for you I guess.
 
2013-04-06 01:54:33 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: 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

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.


When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?
 
2013-04-06 01:54:42 PM

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."
 
2013-04-06 01:56:36 PM

lostcat: atomicmask: lostcat: 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

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?


You do know the difference between "searching for a criminal" and "see a man walking and assume hes a criminal" right?
 
2013-04-06 01:56:46 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."


Indeed.

But we are not a democracy. Thank god.
 
2013-04-06 01:58:42 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'.


No, retard.  The social contract is worthless without good people, and with good people it's irrelevant.  You can have all the "contracts" you want, but people who don't care about non-existent contracts will kill you and take what you have.  Even just decent people don't need the same "contract" in order to not harm or rob you.

The "social contract" as used by others always seems to come up as a grant of power of "society" or government over people far beyond anything necessary for a society to function and serves to largely coerce and compel all people to completely participate in, and by extension, be completely ruled by that society.  In short, any talk of "off the grid" or similar concepts always results in someone brandishing this non-existent contract to justify nearly every incursion, regulation, rule, tax, etc. applied to that person.

A caveman who lives 50 miles from the nearest town over 100 people will still be ruled and regulated (or at least they will attempt it) no differently than the person in the center of a large metropolitan area.  The justification will be this "societal contract" and various attenuation(s) and contortions will be engaged in to justify subjecting him to numerous laws that barely make sense in a dense urban area.
 
2013-04-06 01:59:03 PM
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.
 
2013-04-06 01:59:56 PM

pedrop357: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 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.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?

Yep, not subscribing to the idea that society is whatever 50.001% of people say it is and that people have rights and powers that society cannot interfere with is sociopathic.  This is in contrast to the concept of jailing, hurting, or killing people who do not conform to societies (sometimes very finicky) demands and claiming authority over people because they paid to use a service the government provides.


Society is exactly what 50.001% of the people say it is. That's how society is defined. But, let's be honest, it's never that low. Society is what more like 80% of people say it is, the rest of the squabbling is politics, not societal norms.

People who don't want to be "oppressed" by the society into which they were born are free to move to an uninhabited island somewhere (there's plenty of them in Palau). But you better be prepared to be self-sufficient and produce some goods or services that you can trade for what you don't have.

The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.
 
2013-04-06 02:00:53 PM

atomicmask: Aww look at how stupid you are, tossing labels and assumptions around in an attempt to shoehorn a victory over a concept you barely understand and cant justify believing in. Equality is a hard concept for you I guess.


No, it took me a good few years, but I'm pretty sure I've got a pretty good understanding now of your kind. For starters, the smug self-proclaimed intellectual superiority is no surprise at all.

Oh, and equality goes out the window the instant there's no higher institution to maintain minority rights. Just thought you'd like to know that.
 
2013-04-06 02:01:24 PM

JesseL: You really think 1 in every 1000 of the people in this country is a terrorist?


Not necessarily. I think sovereign citizens are terrorists. How many of them are there? IDGAF. It's kind of up to them whether they choose to self label, intentionally break the law, and shoot at cops when they get called out on their bullshiat.
 
2013-04-06 02:01:59 PM

pedrop357: tillerman35: The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.

That's the problem.  If someone wants to live 'away' from society, or limit the interactions and influence of society, they have to be harassed, abused, and/or forcefully pulled back in.

The attitude of some seems to be "let's mess with them until they push back, then we can justify why we were pushing them."

People always talk about how if someone doesn't like some aspect of society, they should "go live off the grid" or some other nonsense, THEN we have this issue where it's basically proven that there's no such thing as allowing people to live even slightly off the grid.

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?


No, people who want to live away from society do so.  Plenty of people here in Wyoming who do.  These dick knuckles say they want to and then go about being pains in the ass at every turn, because, in reality, they are just another type of attention whore.  I knew people who were part of the Free Men movement in Montana back in the 90s.  They were attention whores, pure and simple.  They blabbed on and on about wanting to be left alone, but would make spectacles of themselves in public every chance they got.  Attention whores, pure and simple, that is what these dumbasses are.
 
2013-04-06 02:02:03 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: lostcat: 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

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?

You do know the difference between "searching for a criminal" and "see a man walking and assume hes a criminal" right?


I honestly don't. You have to assume that someone could be a criminal before you decide to question him in your search. Now, if he does something stupid like refuse to show you his ID, or flees, or pulls a gun, then you probably just had your suspicions confirmed. If not for the crime in question, then for some other boneheaded idea that the person thinks they don't have to cooperate with a police investigation because they are special.
 
2013-04-06 02:03:32 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.


No, sheep don't have the dexterity to operate firearms.
 
2013-04-06 02:04:17 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.


And when the well-armed wolves outgun the sheep and start holding them in sheds by the meat-packing plant?

lostcat: The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.


"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Smart man said that once.
 
2013-04-06 02:04:23 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.


That is so deep and clever...and naive.
 
2013-04-06 02:05:04 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote.

And when the well-armed wolves outgun the sheep and start holding them in sheds by the meat-packing plant?

lostcat: The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Smart man said that once.


Exactly. Not "as many governments as there are people."
 
2013-04-06 02:06:02 PM

lostcat: 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.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.


You left out right also.
 
2013-04-06 02:07:35 PM

atomicmask: 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.


Amazing how its all about how superior you absolutely have to feel to the rest of us plebes. Just another disenfranchised authoritarian.
 
2013-04-06 02:07:53 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: 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.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.

You left out right also.


Oh, you noticed that, did you?
 
2013-04-06 02:08:48 PM

pedrop357: sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?

That's the point.

These people are 3rd and 4th rate troublemakers, but wow do they do a great job in stirring the left wing authoritarians up.

Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center consider these guys on par with the 1950s KKK, and the ACLU whips up fury about right wing radical groups.

All the police have to do is slowly conflate standing up for one's rights with "sovereign citizen" and all the previously opposed lefty groups will be quiet when the police abuse someone who dares to talk about constitutional rights or, even worse, "spouts legal doctrine the way anti-government extremists do".  The officer, fearing for his safety...


People scoff ( or may be afraid ) at the idea of our country becoming a police state or under military law.
They seem to think that the USA is to great to fall and have forgotten world history. The bigger you are.....
When Russian troops train on public streets with Chicago PD in crowd control tactics, I have to wonder.
When Tennessee authorities run Police for Profit Patrols, I have to wonder.
When the DHS sets up ID checkpoints 100 miles inland from our borders, I have to wonder.
I rarely post like this because of all the snide haters who come out. Oh well,let them come.
 
2013-04-06 02:08:52 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: 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.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.

You left out right also.


Right and Naive are not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-04-06 02:11:02 PM
pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-06 02:13:00 PM

iaazathot: No, people who want to live away from society do so. Plenty of people here in Wyoming who do. These dick knuckles say they want to and then go about being pains in the ass at every turn, because, in reality, they are just another type of attention whore. I knew people who were part of the Free Men movement in Montana back in the 90s. They were attention whores, pure and simple. They blabbed on and on about wanting to be left alone, but would make spectacles of themselves in public every chance they got. Attention whores, pure and simple, that is what these dumbasses are.


You're talking to trolls/idiots who think that we should reform society and government every time anyone is born because otherwise it's not fair because that person never had a chance to decide what the laws/rules currently are.

And specifically, you're talking to someone who's convinced that THE LIBERALS are going to take all his guns ANY SECOND NOW.
 
2013-04-06 02:13:12 PM

Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]


0/10  Kittypoop

Keep those doggies trollin, Rawhide!
 
2013-04-06 02:13:12 PM

Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]


I wonder if there are those who see 'We The People' and think of the royal 'We.'

\I personally see it as the Adam We
 
2013-04-06 02:13:42 PM
Shiat, what happened to my damn image??
 
2013-04-06 02:13:55 PM

Satanic_Hamster: And specifically, you're talking to someone who's convinced that THE LIBERALS are going to take all his guns ANY SECOND NOW.


Citation please.
 
2013-04-06 02:14:15 PM
SC's arguing on the internet about how bad the government is, when there wouldn't even be internet without government.
 
2013-04-06 02:14:26 PM

sheep snorter: ...

///Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.


Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.
 
2013-04-06 02:15:44 PM

sirgrim: SC's arguing on the internet about how bad the government is, when there wouldn't even be internet without government.


Yes there would.  Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions, and it was private companies that developed and expanded the technology far beyond what it was to what we have today.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:08 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.


You certainly are oppressed. I can only hope that one day, you will overcome this tyranny.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:51 PM

BullBearMS: LOL... Should have read a couple more paragraphs before posting

TFA: "Your antennae should immediately go up," he tells officers. "They refuse to recognize your authority, and that creates a dangerous situation."


More evidence that cops are alien overlords.
 
2013-04-06 02:18:42 PM

pedrop357: Yes there would. Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions, and it was private companies that developed and expanded the technology far beyond what it was to what we have today.


To interconnect devices invented entirely to support government functions.
 
2013-04-06 02:19:01 PM

Dwedit: You are infringing on my freedom of movement.


Take Ex-lax
 
2013-04-06 02:20:35 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.


That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.

pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions


"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."
 
2013-04-06 02:22:05 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


And the interesting irony of that statement is that the rightwing militia soverigns are well-armed wolves. And they occasionally like to "Timothy McVeigh" some unarmed sheep.
 
2013-04-06 02:22:26 PM
please pardon the repost

feedlol.com
 
2013-04-06 02:23:07 PM
pedrop357

You're talking about sovereign citizens like they just want keep to themselves and live in some cave in the wilderness. Where'd you get this impression?

Sovereign citizens are notorious for spurious litigation, making up they're own laws, driving without licenses/plates, fraud, and, bizarrely, thinking that government owes them millions in secret accounts. It seems they want to be "left alone" don't want to "leave alone."
 
2013-04-06 02:23:13 PM

Corn_Fed: And the interesting irony of that statement is that the rightwing militia soverigns are well-armed wolves.


Nonono, they're the sheep! Just listen to them! "Four legs good, two legs bad!"
 
2013-04-06 02:23:15 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.

pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions

"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."


I know, companies never come up with interoperable protocols/standards on their own.

You can't connect an LG TV to a Samsung DVD player, and someone with Lotus Domino can't send email to someone with Exchange.
 
m00
2013-04-06 02:24:31 PM
To them, a police officer is just a man in a Halloween costume," Finch said

Well, people in Halloween costumes don't take your candy at gunpoint..
 
2013-04-06 02:24:58 PM
FTA: "Even nonviolent sovereigns can cause headaches through what Finch calls "paper terrorism."


Are YOU a "paper terrorist"?


Remember, under NADA 2011, you only have to be ACCUSED to be held indefinitely - without charges, trial or recourse - until the "end of (paper terrorist) hostilities", or until hell freezes over - which ever comes first.
 
2013-04-06 02:25:15 PM

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 they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.


And if they refuse to answer?
 
2013-04-06 02:27:03 PM
The only thing keeping the well-armed "sovereign" rightwing wolves from the Newtown sheep is....the police.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:05 PM
We used to have a solution for people like this.  Then we deinstitutionalized all the nutters.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:20 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: 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

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.


i1222.photobucket.com

You're either a pretty decent troll, or a sad person.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:50 PM

1000Monkeys: pedrop357

You're talking about sovereign citizens like they just want keep to themselves and live in some cave in the wilderness. Where'd you get this impression?

Sovereign citizens are notorious for spurious litigation, making up they're own laws, driving without licenses/plates, fraud, and, bizarrely, thinking that government owes them millions in secret accounts. It seems they want to be "left alone" don't want to "leave alone."


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.

I completely understand the issue behind various (at best) whacky and total horseshiat antics they engage in and it's why I don't support them.

BUT, using them as a reason to whip up hysteria about people who don't respect the authority of the police when most cops already think that those who exercise their rights are troublemakers is a great way for the police to justify even more abusive conduct towards people who stand up for their rights.

The sovereign citizen types you described would be 5th and 6th rate nobodies if the lefty authoritarians would cool their jets.
 
2013-04-06 02:27:59 PM

sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?


That is covered in the training.  It doesn't take 8 hours to teach a cop, "This guy is farking with you."
 
2013-04-06 02:28:20 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 02:28:35 PM

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


And armed people who don't subscribe to their bullshiat.
 
2013-04-06 02:29:47 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.


I believe they've evolved.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions

"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."


lulz
 
2013-04-06 02:30:11 PM
We can drone strike them. If they're not Americans or members of a UN recognized nation, then they aren't protected under the laws of the United States or any treaty we as a nation have signed.

CNN Reporter: "And in other news today, senior Pentagon officials announce the dissolution of the small south Florida nations Earlistan and Smithtoria. Both nations were considered extremely hostile to American security interests after occupying US held territory."
 
2013-04-06 02:30:18 PM

Kittypie070: please pardon the repost

[feedlol.com image 668x401]



Here's another:

www.history.com

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"?
 
2013-04-06 02:32:01 PM
If you're going to claim yourself as a sovereign citizen, you should probably back your words up with a death-triggered motorcycle-mounted hydrogen bomb and brutal glass-knife skills. Otherwise, STFU and GBTW.
fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-04-06 02:32:23 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.


Well, Texan--do you support the death penalty? Yes or no?

Did you support the Iraq invasion, at the time, in 2003?

Tell the truth, Texan.
 
2013-04-06 02:32:30 PM

BarkingUnicorn: 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 they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.

And if they refuse to answer?



Easy.
 
2013-04-06 02:33:17 PM

pedrop357: I know, companies never come up with interoperable protocols/standards on their own.

You can't connect an LG TV to a Samsung DVD player


Because compatible AV connections is comparable to the breadth of standards, networking, and systems that comprise the Internet?

pedrop357: Lotus Domino can't send email to someone with Exchange.


Well, they couldn't. And then came POP, courtesy of the IETF, who was started and initially run by... oh right. Government funded researchers.
 
2013-04-06 02:35:35 PM

HoratioGates: We used to have a solution for people like this.  Then we deinstitutionalized all the nutters.


To be less insulting and more honest, we used to have frontier they could shuffle off to.

And if they came back from the frontier a little humbled, well...
 
2013-04-06 02:36:31 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.


I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.
 
2013-04-06 02:38:17 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]

I wonder if there are those who see 'We The People' and think of the royal 'We.'

\I personally see it as the Adam We


You're thinking of Adam West.

/to the Batcave, chum!
 
2013-04-06 02:43:03 PM

Corn_Fed: 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.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.


I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.
 
2013-04-06 02:43:50 PM

ClintonKun: If you're going to claim yourself as a sovereign citizen, you should probably back your words up with a death-triggered motorcycle-mounted hydrogen bomb and brutal glass-knife skills. Otherwise, STFU and GBTW.
[fc06.deviantart.net image 701x965]


Annoying, poorly written book clearly cobbled together from previous shorter works.  Not much of a point besides pushing the "ooooh cool" buttons of 14 year old boys and stealing someone else's idea about information-as-pathogen.

(Summary: I though Snow Crash sucked)
 
2013-04-06 02:44:52 PM

lostcat: When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?


The whining starts when one of the guys the cops are not looking for turns out to have an outstanding warrant.  That guy argues that he had a right to evade the warrant; that is, the cops had no right to run a warrant check on him.

They also object to having their IDs entered in a database of "contacts made during investigation of a crime" because that, supposedly, marks them for future oppression.
 
2013-04-06 02:48:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: lostcat: When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?

The whining starts when one of the guys the cops are not looking for turns out to have an outstanding warrant.  That guy argues that he had a right to evade the warrant; that is, the cops had no right to run a warrant check on him.

They also object to having their IDs entered in a database of "contacts made during investigation of a crime" because that, supposedly, marks them for future oppression.


The solution I've found useful is: Avoid breaking laws. Sure, innocent people get convicted, but in my experience, going to work, spending time with friends, and sleeping at home with my family tends to offer a pretty robust alibi for most crimes I didn't commit.
 
2013-04-06 02:49:46 PM

pedrop357: 1000Monkeys: pedrop357

You're talking about sovereign citizens like they just want keep to themselves and live in some cave in the wilderness. Where'd you get this impression?

Sovereign citizens are notorious for spurious litigation, making up they're own laws, driving without licenses/plates, fraud, and, bizarrely, thinking that government owes them millions in secret accounts. It seems they want to be "left alone" don't want to "leave alone."

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.

I completely understand the issue behind various (at best) whacky and total horseshiat antics they engage in and it's why I don't support them.

BUT, using them as a reason to whip up hysteria about people who don't respect the authority of the police when most cops already think that those who exercise their rights are troublemakers is a great way for the police to justify even more abusive conduct towards people who stand up for their rights.

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


Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over
 
2013-04-06 02:50:01 PM
If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1.
 
2013-04-06 02:50:58 PM

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...


Now I remember why I had you coded red.
 
2013-04-06 02:51:14 PM

lostcat: The solution I've found useful is: Avoid breaking laws. Sure, innocent people get convicted, but in my experience, going to work, spending time with friends, and sleeping at home with my family tends to offer a pretty robust alibi for most crimes I didn't commit.


Ah the mark of a small minded asshole.

Solution to police problems: Just don't break any laws.  Sure, innocent people get convicted, which undermines the implied idea that those who don't break the law won't have problems with the police and/or the idea that only those who break the laws have problems with the police.

But, nothing's ever happened to you, so nobody should really worry about it.
 
2013-04-06 02:51:55 PM
"The policeman isn't there to create disorder.  The policeman is there to preserve disorder."  -RJ Daley
 
2013-04-06 02:52:11 PM

Precision Boobery: If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1.


I was only 2 minutes late!
 
2013-04-06 02:53:51 PM

pedrop357: Corn_Fed: 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.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.

I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.


He only needs to be a little tougher and luckier than you and when you're dead it really doesn't matter to you if he gets away with it.

The question is whether a SC is more inhibited than a cop.  Trust is the belief  that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.
 
2013-04-06 02:56:45 PM

BullBearMS: Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.

I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


What would you suggest instead, leaving out warm milk and cookies?
 
2013-04-06 02:58:03 PM

Dawg47: Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over


Agreed.  fark these people.

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".
 
2013-04-06 02:59:20 PM

BarkingUnicorn: He only needs to be a little tougher and luckier than you and when you're dead it really doesn't matter to you if he gets away with it.

The question is whether a SC is more inhibited than a cop. Trust is the belief that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.


Agreed.  I have a slightly stronger trust that the SC will be inhibited because he knows he can't just claim "I thought I saw a gun" or "he was making furtive movements" and get away with it.

Hopefully I never get to find out if I'm wrong.
 
2013-04-06 02:59:21 PM

pedrop357: Corn_Fed: 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.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.

I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.


Meh. Two peas in a pod. You're both dangerous to a well-functioning, free society.
 
2013-04-06 03:02:11 PM

Corn_Fed: pedrop357: Corn_Fed: 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.

I don't trust the police.

I trust rightwing sovereigns even less.

I'm the opposite.  The rightwing "sovereign" doesn't have the full weight and power of the government to back him up, and the government won't support the results of his group's investigation and subsequent clearing of his conduct.

Meh. Two peas in a pod. You're both dangerous to a well-functioning, free society.


If this the litmus test for how you define "well-functioning, free society ", then you'll understand if I don't support it.
 
2013-04-06 03:02:26 PM

pedrop357: Dawg47: Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over

Agreed.  fark these people.

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?
 
2013-04-06 03:02:35 PM

lostcat: BarkingUnicorn: lostcat: When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?

The whining starts when one of the guys the cops are not looking for turns out to have an outstanding warrant.  That guy argues that he had a right to evade the warrant; that is, the cops had no right to run a warrant check on him.

They also object to having their IDs entered in a database of "contacts made during investigation of a crime" because that, supposedly, marks them for future oppression.

The solution I've found useful is: Avoid breaking laws. Sure, innocent people get convicted, but in my experience, going to work, spending time with friends, and sleeping at home with my family tends to offer a pretty robust alibi for most crimes I didn't commit.


Yeah, that solves the warrant problem, except in the relatively rare case of an erroneous warrant (mistaken ID, ID theft, etc.).  Doesn't solve the second problem of being labeled a "usual suspect" to be rounded up every time a crime occurs.

Do these things occur often enough, and is their impact on individuals significant enough, to outweigh society's interest in having cops investigate crimes effectively?  The courts have generally ruled "no."

The subjects of such rights-infringements view it as, "My rights were infringed 100%, not 0.000001%."
 
2013-04-06 03:02:44 PM

pedrop357: Dawg47: Dude drives like ass on public roads and refuses to get a license or insurance. Dude has to go to court. Dude responds by taking out fraudulent liens against judge, prosecutor, and officer.

Fark these people. Down here they try to adversely possess houses with fake deeds and waste everyone's time I court with stupid stories about the government being a trust they have authority over

Agreed.  fark these people.

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".


Okay, that I can agree with. My problem with the sovereign citizens soley has to do with their fake paperwork, fake "joinder" crap, no licence plates, etc.
 
2013-04-06 03:02:56 PM
I know one of these guys... I've watched him go deeper and deeper into his rabbit hole over the years. It's sad. He's got his "Sovereign" plates and he's not paid taxes in years - of course, he's also not actually done any meaningful work for over a decade.

Last time he got hired fora an  actual job, he ended up being let go during his meeting with HR - he refused to sign I-9 or fill out W4 and started going off on his sovereign citizen stuff. They essentially told him not to let the door hit him in the butt on the way out (security escorted him  out).

The thing is that he's effectively a homeless guy with a (unregistered and uninsured) car ... sooner or later, I expect him to get thrown in jail for a relatively minor offense which he will escalate into major felony charges and/or contempt of court. He thinks the cops are "in on the conspiracy" and know not to mess with him... when in reality, he's just flown under the radar... for now.

/facepalm  quite sad - he used to be quite a productive person - not at all unintelligent either - I honestly believe this sovereign stuff in his case is pretty much a mental illness. It's an OCD thing and paranoid delusion... folks who tend toward that are starting to connect more and  more due to the Interwebz, and they feel common ground with others who think in similar ways.

Basically, these are also the 9/11 truthers, the Newtown Truthers, the anti tax folks, the tea part, the home schoolers, the anti-vaxers, all these "anything is ok so long as  it's counter to 'the official story'"
 
2013-04-06 03:03:54 PM
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.
 
2013-04-06 03:06:24 PM
Straight jackets and electroshock therapy. These people are insane.
 
2013-04-06 03:07:51 PM
Simpsons did it.

No. Seriously. They have a reference for regicide.


Bart: [watching Flanders] An ax. He's got an ax! I'll save you, Lisa! [tries to walk on his leg, falls back] Uh, I'll save you by calling the police. [dials 911] Voice: Hello, and welcome to the Springfield Police Department Resc-u- Fone[tm]. If you know the name of the felony being committed, press one. To choose from a list of felonies, press two. If you are being murdered or calling from a rotary phone, please stay on the line. Bart: [growls, punches some numbers] Voice: You have selected regicide. If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press one.-- Shockingly ineffective answering services, "Bart of Darkness"
 
2013-04-06 03:08:41 PM
Okay, so if I understand it right, these nutjobs renounce their US citizenship and deny the US government has any authority over them. Fair enough. The only question is where we can deport them. Can we deport people to the moon yet?
 
2013-04-06 03:10:12 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.


This training program is a counterpoint to all the "sensitivity" and "community relations" training that cops receive every time some citizen gets butthurt.
 
2013-04-06 03:10:42 PM

pedrop357: 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.

But you're not a control freak, right?

I always love this counter response that basically says that the government owns all of us because we used or once used some service that was provided or regulated by the government.

Non contaminated food exists on numerous farms and slaughterhouses without a single government official doing anything.  It's surprisingly easy for families that eat what they raise/grow to just follow basic sanitary practices even without the watchful eye of the government.

They paid for most of that stuff whether they wanted too or not.  If they put fuel in their vehicles and purchased tires, they've paid for access to the roads and bridges for example.


It always amazes me when idiots like this try to act like the system is the root of these problems not the individuals engaging in criminal and often times monumentally bizarre activities. If thats the case why don't more people do it? Oh I forgot because we're all "sheeple" an insult I would like to add, invented as part of a marketing scheme devised by an international car company. If it were up to me the worthless shiatheel sovereigns could just head for Oregon to die of dysentery butchering oxen as needed. But unfortunately for those of us who play by the rules our public hospital system doesn't have the luxury of telling them to go die in the wilderness. 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.
 
2013-04-06 03:10:44 PM

hardinparamedic: After what they did in West memphis in 2010, I say shoot first, Ask questions later.

/ knows the son of the assistant chief who was shot in the second shoot out.
// He flew his own dad to the trauma center.


Occasionally I support taser-happy cops, and dealing with those loonies is such a situation
 
2013-04-06 03:10:50 PM
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'
 
2013-04-06 03:11:15 PM
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?
 
2013-04-06 03:14:37 PM

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.
 
2013-04-06 03:15:28 PM

Fano: Treat them like Emperor Norton.


Norton was a nut, but he didn't shoot anyone.
 
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."
 
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
 
2013-04-07 07:02:21 AM

Kittypie070: 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.
.


"Libertarians" have rights.  The rest of us have obligations.
 
2013-04-07 07:39:20 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-07 08:35:51 AM

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.


You know what they call a walled-in compound that the inhabitants aren't every allowed to leave?

Prison.
 
2013-04-07 09:57:57 AM

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.


The problems start sometime after the due date for the property tax bill...
 
2013-04-07 11:20:01 AM

Satanic_Hamster: 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.


Agreed, but my point is I still want to know, however, why sovereign citizens get treated better than regular civilians.

Their position seems absurd, but they also mostly get away with it.  That alone would seem to recruit new wackos.
 
2013-04-07 11:51:52 AM
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.

Only if it's voluntary.

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.

Sure they could have, if they had overthrown capitalism and collectivized the means of production. When people are secure in their position, without the pressures of rent/taxes/mortgages and the threat of being fired, they are generally willing to support others based on "from each according to ability, to each according to need"; that can be decentralized to avoid the problems of 20th century 'communist' technocracies by putting each workplace under the total control of the people who work at it, and leave it up to them how to distribute their product. Without the aforementioned pressures, and with the spirit of solidarity, people will provide for each other, and you won't have (to paraphrase The Grapes of Wrath) starvation amidst waste (fruit rotting on the ground because the hungry can't buy it; boarded-up houses because the homeless can't find work).


tirob
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.

Syndicalism is an economic program, not a political one. I hope I didn't deny that a Syndicalist to Fascist shift was possible; Mussolini was even a Syndicalist once. Fascism, especially in the Italian version, was something of a successor to National Syndicalism. Since the CNT was Syndicalist far more than it was Anarcho-Syndicalist (I only recently learned that the CNT leaders went to the barricades during the May Days- to beg the workers to stand down!), I can see some CNT people going over to the Falange. But Anarchist to Fascist is a different animal. To say "it happens all the time" is a complete absurdity. I can't think of an example of it happening once in the years I've been directly involved, or hearing of it before that.

This kind of rhetoric has appealed to more than one person who started out as a left libertarian such as you describe yourself.

Yeah, and there's a headache-inducing rise in 'Mutalism' these days, trying to fill the gaping chasm between Anarchists (-Communist, -Syndicalist, -etc) and so-called "Anarcho"-Capitalists (who have some truly insane and dystopian ideas about how capitalism could work without a State to protect property). There's some danger of Mutualists becoming Capitalists- how they aren't, I'm not sure. They still seem to believe in private property and trade. The only difference seems to be that they have a better stance on homesteading; namely, Mutualists say that once property is abandoned, the new owner can homestead it and the previous owner loses all rights to it; Capitalists seem to say that the previous owner has rights to property in perpetuity as long as they ever made any improvement to it, which I suspect includes the act of purchasing it. I don't see how Mutualism can survive, since its anticapitalist stance on property (in Mutualism, use = ownership; in Capitalism, title = ownership) makes quid-pro-quo trade and money and so on superfluous. I suspect it's mostly an angry backlash to the non-Anarchist nature of Syndicalism (in the non-Anarchist form, hierarchical and authoritarian; too often, there's confusion between Syndicalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism).

Unfortunately, Mutualism carries a risk of granting legitimacy to "Anarcho"-Capitalism, which is a 'movement' (as much as anything is a movement if it lives only on the Internet) of the Spencerians, as you put them. "Anarcho"-Capitalism is of, by, and for former Republicans who take the small government, pro-capitalism argument to its logical conclusion, and then try to make it work. They LOVE insurance corporations, police, and courts; shiat that Anarchists find completely odious- privatized tyranny is still tyranny. But "Anarcho"-Capitalists get along with Mutualists and Mutualists get along with Anarchists, so, yeah, there's some danger there.

Not that I think Mutualists are completely wrong, especially when it comes to the fact that there is a need to have fleshed-out economic ideas (I won't say an 'economic program' since that sounds a little too deterministic). So I argue with them about how an organized gift economy could be structured to solve the same problems that they feel need to be solved with money (such as Price Signaling).

As for Right-Libertarians, I and I think most Anarchists are occasionally willing to work with them when conditions warrant and based on clear principles. For example in Arizona a few years ago, Anarchists appealed to Right-Libertarians to be against SB1070 or something like it, which had the bonus effect of creating a rift between them and nationalists. We all hate the government and seem to think it would be fine for each 'side' to go do their own thing after we get rid of it. There might be some conflict when it comes to homesteading but a good 95% of humanity will probably choose the Anarchist way of doing things (gift economy, use-based ownership, solidarity, organization) and, if we get to this point, be organized enough to crush the Capitalists, so I'm not too worried.


Chaghatai
The problems start sometime after the due date for the property tax bill...

I've heard that the reason property tax was invented was to force people to use a unified currency, and I've gotta say that it makes sense. If you MUST come up with a couple thousand dollars per year, then you MUST participate in the economy. Freedom!
 
2013-04-07 12:17:58 PM

thiefofdreams: 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 believe in and naturally follow what I might call the actual 'social contract' in that I follow most all laws, help others when I can without serious risk, don't harm people, etc.

I just don't subscribe to the "social contract" as seems to be put forward here and in other places when it's used solely as a way to justify more encroachment.

As I said before, how often does anyone online, on tv, etc. use the term/euphemism "social contract" as anything but a way to justify more government?  I've never heard it used as a way to calm people down or limit society itself.
IE., "I understand you folks don't like strip clubs, but they're not hurting anyone and part of the social contract requires that we tolerate people's objectionable behavior as long as they don't hurt people or harm society.  See, we're all in this together and the good of society requires that people be allowed to do their own thing sometimes."

Again, I'm not against what I'll say is the actual concept of the 'contract'.  I'm against the way the concept is used (misused) only to justify more encroachment.
 
2013-04-07 01:03:38 PM

RanDomino: tirob
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.

[explanation of sydicalism/anarchism relationship].



I'll buy the dichotomy you propose between syndicalism and anarchism, and I'll take your word for it that you yourself have never personally witnessed an anarchist-to-fascist crossover, but it's happened, both in the Spanish example I cited earlier here and elsewhere.

RanDomino: [Mutualists].


I go to bed less ignorant every day.  Hadn't heard of them until now.  I think that what you write about them is evidence that the anarchist-to-rightist crossover issue that I alluded to is alive and well today.

RanDomino: they LOVE insurance corporations, police, and courts


Provided they're privately run.  Anarcho-capitalists--I would call them Spencerians; all antistate, pro-private property roads in this country eventually lead back to Spencer--hate Social Security, Medicare, any government program that provides food to poor people, and, in many cases, all federal and most state and local authorities.  If you believe that Spencerism lives today only on the internet, I disagree; people like the Koch Brothers have funded think tanks and other institutions who hire PhDs, journalists, and such to crank out "information" in support of the cause, and they back candidates for public office, both locally and nationally, who they believe share their views.
 
2013-04-07 01:08:58 PM

RanDomino: I've heard that the reason property tax was invented was to force people to use a unified currency


There's some other theory behind their use. However, property taxes were first introduced in ancient Egypt; the exact reasoning is lost to time, but probably boils down to "the Pharoh wants his army fed, and the Priests are going along with the gag".
 
2013-04-07 01:24:22 PM

RanDomino: 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.

Only if it's voluntary.
.

You seem to imply that things like Social Security, EBT cards, etc., are funded by money that is taken from us by force.  I know that I don't like paying taxes, and I have been known to complain about paying them now and then, but I pay them every time--voluntarily--because I know that that everyone else here does, or I like to think so, anyway.
 
2013-04-07 02:05:37 PM
I have been studying these goobers for a long time. There is also a group in the UK, Canada, and Australia called "freeman on the land" who are almost exactly the same as the SCs in the US. As you can see from the scribblings of Pedrop357 they are almost all incapable of coherent thought and most of them are mentally ill.

There are some basic concepts that they just don't understand such as:
What common law is
The fact that something is public property doesn't give the public unfettered access to it.
That you are require to adhere to the rules, regulations, and taxes of the society you are born into. The ONLY way out of this is to leave that society.
There are many other basic ideas they don't get (again see Pedrop357) but these three are the ones that cause them the most trouble.

You will find that almost everyone of them came to this "philosophy" because they were trying to avoid paying something they owed, be it taxes, a mortgage, or a fine. Everyone of them will bring up that fact that they want to use drugs if you talk to them long enough. Every. Single. One.

What you will also find if you talk to them long enough is that there really is no philosophy. There is not one concrete idea that they all agree on.

I fully expect to see this ailment listed in dsm-v or dsm-vi
 
2013-04-07 02:16:26 PM

Bravo Two: bunner: thiefofdreams: USA Love it or Leave it.

Is it OK to mourn it?

Bunker, I love you.


Took the words right out of my mouth :)
 
2013-04-07 03:24:54 PM

CMYK and PMS: As you can see from the scribblings of Pedrop357 they are almost all incapable of coherent thought and most of them are mentally ill.


Your mom's incapable of coherent thought.
 
2013-04-07 04:30:59 PM
CMYK and PMS: As you can see from the scribblings of Pedrop357 they are almost all incapable of coherent thought and most of them are mentally ill.

Your mom's incapable of coherent thought.


Dude you're just proving the point

/Mom's dead
//no really
///86 years old
 
2013-04-07 05:43:03 PM
Damn, there's a lot of crazy in this thread.
 
2013-04-07 05:50:32 PM
pedrop357:
more encroachment.

more government

more encroachment.


A Las Vegas "libertarian" according to your profile!  Congratulations.  Just like some of my best friends.  They crack me up.

Want less government in your life?  Stop using electrical power from the Hoover Dam, which was paid for and is still maintained (and protected from sabotage) by our federal tax dollars.  And don't pay taxes to maintain and police I-15, likewise a federal government project, which provides access to and from Vegas from southern California, Vegas's biggest tourism market.  You'll *really* be off the grid then, because your city will be out of business.

Look, it's all right with me if you want to go off into the hills someplace and live there with your guns and your fishing rods.  But forgive me if I take with a grain of salt your complaints (and similar complaints from casino barons and their paid PR people) about the government while you sit there and reap the benefits of things that taxpayers paid for and continue to maintain.
 
2013-04-07 05:58:07 PM

pedrop357: thiefofdreams: 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 believe in and naturally follow what I might call the actual 'social contract' in that I follow most all laws, help others when I can without serious risk, don't harm people, etc.

I just don't subscribe to the "social contract" as seems to be put forward here and in other places when it's used solely as a way to justify more encroachment.

As I said before, how often does anyone online, on tv, etc. use the term/euphemism "social contract" as anything but a way to justify more government?  I've never heard it used as a way to calm people down or limit society itself.
IE., "I understand you folks don't like strip clubs, but they're not hurting anyone and part of the social contract requires that we tolerate people's objectionable behavior as long as they don't hurt people or harm society.  See, we're all in this together and the good of society requires that people be allowed to do their own thing sometimes."

Again, I'm not against what I'll say is the actual concept of the 'contract'.  I'm against the way the concept is used (misused) only to justify more encroachment.


Oh then we are in total agreement. I agree that the contract is used by both sides to push a political agenda and force others to their whims. I have always just equated that to there being assholes at the extreme ends of the spectrum that are willing to take advantage of society to feed themselves only.

Thank you for the responses. It is not common that you talk to someone on here and get to have a good conversation about the actual topic of the thread.
 
2013-04-07 06:00:24 PM

tirob: RanDomino: 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.

Only if it's voluntary.
.
You seem to imply that things like Social Security, EBT cards, etc., are funded by money that is taken from us by force.  I know that I don't like paying taxes, and I have been known to complain about paying them now and then, but I pay them every time--voluntarily--because I know that that everyone else here does, or I like to think so, anyway.


There are people out there that don't pay taxes. This thread is about those very people that use government services and then claim they don't owe taxes.

Taxes are not voluntary, call the IRS and let them know you are taking a year off paying taxes and see how that works out.
 
2013-04-07 06:03:40 PM

tirob: A Las Vegas "libertarian" according to your profile! Congratulations. Just like some of my best friends. They crack me up.

Want less government in your life? Stop using electrical power from the Hoover Dam, which was paid for and is still maintained (and protected from sabotage) by our federal tax dollars. And don't pay taxes to maintain and police I-15, likewise a federal government project, which provides access to and from Vegas from southern California, Vegas's biggest tourism market. You'll *really* be off the grid then, because your city will be out of business.

Look, it's all right with me if you want to go off into the hills someplace and live there with your guns and your fishing rods. But forgive me if I take with a grain of salt your complaints (and similar complaints from casino barons and their paid PR people) about the government while you sit there and reap the benefits of things that taxpayers paid for and continue to maintain.


Hey someone missing the point AND basically suggesting that anyone who benefits from government services that are paid for in part by their tax dollars can't discuss, complain, advocate, or otherwise dissent against anything the government does, did, will do, or might do.

In other words, the message to all of us is:
mikeduran.com
 
2013-04-07 07:16:19 PM

pedrop357: tirob: A Las Vegas "libertarian" according to your profile! Congratulations. Just like some of my best friends. They crack me up.

Want less government in your life? Stop using electrical power from the Hoover Dam, which was paid for and is still maintained (and protected from sabotage) by our federal tax dollars. And don't pay taxes to maintain and police I-15, likewise a federal government project, which provides access to and from Vegas from southern California, Vegas's biggest tourism market. You'll *really* be off the grid then, because your city will be out of business.

Look, it's all right with me if you want to go off into the hills someplace and live there with your guns and your fishing rods. But forgive me if I take with a grain of salt your complaints (and similar complaints from casino barons and their paid PR people) about the government while you sit there and reap the benefits of things that taxpayers paid for and continue to maintain.

Hey someone missing the point AND basically suggesting that anyone who benefits from government services that are paid for in part by their tax dollars can't discuss, complain, advocate, or otherwise dissent against anything the government does, did, will do, or might do.

In other words, the message to all of us is:
[mikeduran.com image 450x300]


Absolutely not.  I would even encourage you to do all of those things.  They're all protected by the 1st Amendment, after all.  But even the 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to be taken seriously, and that same 1st Amendment allows me to point out the hypocrisy that I detect behind so many "libertarians."
 
2013-04-07 07:21:23 PM

thiefofdreams: tirob: RanDomino: 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.

Only if it's voluntary.
.
You seem to imply that things like Social Security, EBT cards, etc., are funded by money that is taken from us by force.  I know that I don't like paying taxes, and I have been known to complain about paying them now and then, but I pay them every time--voluntarily--because I know that that everyone else here does, or I like to think so, anyway.

There are people out there that don't pay taxes. This thread is about those very people that use government services and then claim they don't owe taxes.

Taxes are not voluntary, call the IRS and let them know you are taking a year off paying taxes and see how that works out.


I wrote that I pay *my* taxes voluntarily, not that tax payment is voluntary.  It isn't.  I think that a good many taxpayers pay up more or less voluntarily, though, not because they want to, but because they believe that it is an obligation and that they reckon that they had better do so because everyone else does.  At least that's the way I think, anyway.
 
2013-04-07 07:38:27 PM

tirob: thiefofdreams: tirob: RanDomino: 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.

Only if it's voluntary.
.
You seem to imply that things like Social Security, EBT cards, etc., are funded by money that is taken from us by force.  I know that I don't like paying taxes, and I have been known to complain about paying them now and then, but I pay them every time--voluntarily--because I know that that everyone else here does, or I like to think so, anyway.

There are people out there that don't pay taxes. This thread is about those very people that use government services and then claim they don't owe taxes.

Taxes are not voluntary, call the IRS and let them know you are taking a year off paying taxes and see how that works out.

I wrote that I pay *my* taxes voluntarily, not that tax payment is voluntary.  It isn't.  I think that a good many taxpayers pay up more or less voluntarily, though, not because they want to, but because they believe that it is an obligation and that they reckon that they had better do so because everyone else does.  At least that's the way I think, anyway.


I live in a DEEP RED state. We have multiple militias, tons of SCs, and a political party that held offices in government that was for secession and they generally only pay taxes under force of law. They do not do it out of some goodness of their hearts. They do it because they are afraid of jail and losing property.

I wish I could think like you, but I am a blue boy living in a red state and the evidence I see everyday in my home town shows me a completely different story.

Again, this article is about people that don't pay taxes because they feel they don't have to. The article itself is in disagreement with your view. I am not trying to be a dick, just point out that there are a group of people out there that don't pay taxes for the greater good, they simply want to stay out of jail.

I myself pay taxes because I feel that education, protection of the needy, and and civil projects benefit me even when I do not see a direct benefit. Much in the way that increased education spending can be correlated to decreases in crime.
 
2013-04-07 09:03:10 PM
thiefofdreams:  there are a group of people out there that don't pay taxes for the greater good, they simply want to stay out of jail.

We have 'em here in PA, too.  I've met some of them.  There are probably not as many, proportionally, as in AK, but their numbers are considerable.  And as I've suggested here before, they do a lot more complaining (and, I would surmise, a lot more tax avoidance, too) when a Democrat is in the White House.  We also have a few *pacifist* antitax people, who will pay local taxes, but not federal taxes (or at least not part of them) because they fund the military.  And who *will* go to jail, if it comes to that, before paying those taxes.

AK is a peculiar case because so much of its territory is still Federal property.  I sense that part of the antigovernment sentiment that exists there and in states in the lower 48 where Uncle Sam holds title to a lot of the land has its roots in a feeling held by some people that the Feds are unjustly preventing them from making their fortunes by exploiting this or that resource that exists on government land.
 
2013-04-07 09:59:30 PM

tirob: thiefofdreams:  there are a group of people out there that don't pay taxes for the greater good, they simply want to stay out of jail.

We have 'em here in PA, too.  I've met some of them.  There are probably not as many, proportionally, as in AK, but their numbers are considerable.  And as I've suggested here before, they do a lot more complaining (and, I would surmise, a lot more tax avoidance, too) when a Democrat is in the White House.  We also have a few *pacifist* antitax people, who will pay local taxes, but not federal taxes (or at least not part of them) because they fund the military.  And who *will* go to jail, if it comes to that, before paying those taxes.

AK is a peculiar case because so much of its territory is still Federal property.  I sense that part of the antigovernment sentiment that exists there and in states in the lower 48 where Uncle Sam holds title to a lot of the land has its roots in a feeling held by some people that the Feds are unjustly preventing them from making their fortunes by exploiting this or that resource that exists on government land.


Actually alot of the issues in Alaska stem from a few reasons.

1) During the 70s the pipeline drew people here and normal backgrounds were not questioned. We had a huge influx of not so socially acceptable people come up and take root.

2) Most Alaskans like Texans have a highly overdeveloped sense of self worth. They live in a cold ass and huge state and somehow that makes them better.

3) The one commonly overlooked. We have elderly here, like a huge amount. Most of the people I see that have the anti-tax sentiment are either elderly or are people like Schaeffer Cox who were raised in families that carried on a continuation of governmental hatred. Hell, some of the families that came up int he 40's, 50's and 60's are very anti-government. My own father calls me a socialist because I want to fund medical care and schools.

4) To a lesser degree, you are right about federal encroachment, but that is very small problem and the people that biatch about it are far to old or not willing to work to get at the lands to begin with. Most of those lands cannot even be traveled to without a plane and a 50+ mile hike, in relate you have to boat or snowmachine hundred of miles to the get to the land. They like to make it a persecution complex, but in the end it is simply them needing to biatch about stuff.

5) The other thing about Alaska is we are super red. We have religious nutters all over. They take kids out of school and leave them on street corners to protest abortion. Kids that are around the ages of 6-14. I see this as an extension of the Christian Persecution complex. Some of them simply cannot live without a persecutor.

I am very out of place in my state but I do love it. What I don't love is that we are seriously having a debate right now to openly fund religious private schools and they are trying to push Florida's Stand your Ground Law on us. In a state this armed and ready to fight, I see it passing by a landslide.

That is the issue the SCs lost major battles, and instead of knuckling up and trying to fix the system the just said fark it, it is a problem for everyone else, but they don't leave the system. Instead, the fark the system up far worse, and then point to how bad the system is. When they themselves are the monkeywrench in the machine.
 
2013-04-07 10:30:37 PM
tirob
I'll buy the dichotomy you propose between syndicalism and anarchism, and I'll take your word for it that you yourself have never personally witnessed an anarchist-to-fascist crossover, but it's happened, both in the Spanish example I cited earlier here and elsewhere.

I don't think I'll be able to agree with your claim about the Spanish Civil War; the evidence is just testimony, and, after all, the outright lies are what inspired Orwell to write "1984". Saying that the FAI was full of Fascist sympathizers would have been great propaganda for the Francoists.

I also just remembered the really just terribly pathetic case of the "National Anarchists" (especially "Bay Area National Anarchists") who number probably in the dozens between the US and England and are a neo-fascist front group. It's unclear if they've sucked in any legitimate Anarchists, or just young people who don't know any better. Overall, the response to them by Anarchists has been, "Wait, what? Oh, okay, you're fascists. Kill yourselves."

I go to bed less ignorant every day. Hadn't heard of them until now.

Kevin Carson is the guy to read. iirc "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand" is about how capitalism is still basically mercantilist. I haven't read enough Mutualist stuff to get a really solid concept of what they're on about, especially since they often seem to be trying to write for several different audiences simultaneously (anti-state capitalists, anti-capitalist anarchists, and people with more mainstream opinions).

I think that what you write about them is evidence that the anarchist-to-rightist crossover issue that I alluded to is alive and well today.

I only propose a possible corridor; I haven't seen evidence that people actually move in that direction. If anything, they move the other way once they start figuring out the absurdity of "Anarcho"-Capitalism. I personally know someone who started as a small-government Republican eight or nine years ago and is now one of the finest Anarchist organizers in Wisconsin. Two or so months ago on Reddit there was a thread about "Why Aren't You an Anarcho-Capitalist Anymore?" and maybe twenty people testified in it, which is a significant number considering the size of the milieus, and giving mostly similar reasons. Once the "Anarcho"-capitalists start talking about "Dispute Resolution Organizations" anyone with any sense heads for the door.

If you believe that Spencerism lives today only on the internet, I disagree; people like the Koch Brothers have funded think tanks and other institutions who hire PhDs, journalists, and such to crank out "information" in support of the cause, and they back candidates for public office, both locally and nationally, who they believe share their views.

I guess I distinguish between people who believe in it for philosophical/ideological reasons and those who propagate it because they're paid to. The Kochs push it because they want to have lower taxes for themselves and less environmental protection impeding their profit; but they have no problem accepting government subsidies for themselves. And there are whole armies of paid liars out there to think up bullshiat reasons justifying it. I will definitely agree that there is a causal relationship between the rise of the corporate-funded think tanks and the rise of the philosophical/ideological Spencerites, but the propagandists caused the ideologues, not the other way around.

There's some other theory behind their use.

Ugh, Georgists. The worst of both worlds.

However, property taxes were first introduced in ancient Egypt; the exact reasoning is lost to time, but probably boils down to "the Pharoh wants his army fed, and the Priests are going along with the gag".

Maybe, I don't know. It was at a talk by a Monetarist I went to a few years ago. He said that in the 1600s in America, there weren't property taxes, so people didn't have any particular need to use State-issued money and used other forms of currency like 'coupons' for X tons of tobacco or cotton; but when there was a bumper harvest the value of the money would crash. So property taxes were instituted to give guaranteed value to fiat currency. I don't know if it's true but it makes sense, especially since the reality of property taxes is the only thing standing in the way of a project that would simply buy property on which to build a non-capitalist economy. If said economy is forced to export commodities in order to acquire currency, then it will gradually become more and more unstable until it falls apart. Damn you, capitalism!

You seem to imply that things like Social Security, EBT cards, etc., are funded by money that is taken from us by force. I know that I don't like paying taxes, and I have been known to complain about paying them now and then, but I pay them every time--voluntarily--because I know that that everyone else here does, or I like to think so, anyway.

Regardless, as thiefofdreams said, if you don't pay then people with guns and jails are there to force compliance.

We also have a few *pacifist* antitax people, who will pay local taxes, but not federal taxes (or at least not part of them) because they fund the military. And who *will* go to jail, if it comes to that, before paying those taxes.

Quakers? Mad respect for them- possibly the last people in this country who really unequivocally practice what they preach. Wish they would be more inclined to organize...
 
2013-04-08 07:02:37 AM

RanDomino: tirob
I'll buy the dichotomy you propose between syndicalism and anarchism, and I'll take your word for it that you yourself have never personally witnessed an anarchist-to-fascist crossover, but it's happened, both in the Spanish example I cited earlier here and elsewhere.

I don't think I'll be able to agree with your claim about the Spanish Civil War; the evidence is just testimony, and, after all, the outright lies are what inspired Orwell to write "1984". Saying that the FAI was full of Fascist sympathizers would have been great propaganda for the Francoists.
.


That's your privilege.  I never put it quite that way about the FAI, but there were FAI people who became turncoats, this in the context of the aftermath of the Barcelona events of 1937.  I find Dionisio Ridruejo's story believable.  Bear in mind also that the FAI-Republican tension in Catalonia was also partly an ethnolinguistic and class thing; most Anarchists there were Castilian-speakers and working-class, migrants from other regions of Spain or their descendants, while the Republicans there were mainly Catalan speakers, and from all social classes including a good many bourgeois.  I can see where a good old nationalist appeal by the Franquistas would have attracted some of the former.

RanDomino: I personally know someone who started as a small-government Republican eight or nine years ago and is now one of the finest Anarchist organizers in Wisconsin


Now that's a new one on me, a Republican-turned-Anarchosyndicalist.

RanDomino: Quakers?


Yes, or people who have come under their influence.

thiefofdreams:  Alaska
.


Interesting exposition on an area that most of us in the lower 48 know very little about.  I know that in places like Montana and Wyoming--like Alaska, filling up fast with disgruntled citizens fleeing places like California and Washington because those states are too "blue" for their taste--there are a lot of people who are frustrated because one or another law or regulation is preventing them from trying to exploit resources they believe are on Federally-owned land.
 
2013-04-08 01:27:23 PM

brantgoose: Simpsons did it.

No. Seriously. They have a reference for regicide.


Bart: [watching Flanders] An ax. He's got an ax! I'll save you, Lisa! [tries to walk on his leg, falls back] Uh, I'll save you by calling the police. [dials 911] Voice: Hello, and welcome to the Springfield Police Department Resc-u- Fone[tm]. If you know the name of the felony being committed, press one. To choose from a list of felonies, press two. If you are being murdered or calling from a rotary phone, please stay on the line. Bart: [growls, punches some numbers] Voice: You have selected regicide. If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press one.-- Shockingly ineffective answering services, "Bart of Darkness"



Thank you good sir,
Came for that reference, leaving satisfied.

/It's good to know some farkers have great culture ;)
 
2013-04-08 07:41:28 PM
Hey, is the notion that children belong to everyone part of the "social contract"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N3qtpdSQox0


/Pedobear is undoubtedly a supporter of that idea.
 
Displayed 378 of 378 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report