Just Jack Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Sovereign citizens are a hoot. There was a guy who kept trying to sue a city for trademark infringement... for using his name on his tax bill (which he also refused to pay, because he was his own country, therefore he believed he was tax exempt.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Each of those "Sovereignties" has some pretty weak border defenses. Once they were arrested, did they claim refugee status? If two sovereign citizens agree to meet for lunch, is that a pact, an accord, or a treaty? 8 hours ago, Koko78 said: Sovereign citizens are a hoot. There was a guy who kept trying to sue a city for trademark infringement... for using his name on his tax bill (which he also refused to pay, because he was his own country, therefore he believed he was tax exempt.) HA! Did he have a homemade courtroom in his garage? Actually, the "bench" could have been his toilet if he wanted. He could have just written and signed his own judgment and asserted full faith and credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 1 hour ago, snafu said: If two sovereign citizens agree to meet for lunch, is that a pact, an accord, or a treaty? Executive agreement. 1 hour ago, snafu said: HA! Did he have a homemade courtroom in his garage? Actually, the "bench" could have been his toilet if he wanted. He could have just written and signed his own judgment and asserted full faith and credit. Don't believe the guy was that smart. He would actually write an incoherent manifesto all over the envelope, including drawings of the flag (to go along with the entertainment that was his actual letter), before paying the USPS to deliver it to city hall. I don't think he got the irony of using the US Postal Service to deliver his sovereign citizen nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Don't believe the guy was that smart. I have to deal with these folks from time to time. A lot of them aren't very smart; they read some nonsense on the internet or watch some "freemen" videos on youtube and take what they see as gospel. The dangerous ones are the smart ones. They're trying to get out of paying fees/fines/etc. and try to talk their way around cops with out-of-context laws and judicial dicta, but many of them also hate cops and don't mind shooting them when they can't talk their way out of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Sovereign Citizens fascinate me for several reasons, the first of which, is on principle, they are morally correct. The notion that a person born is immediately justly subservient to a government structure is hard to palate; especially if they later in life decide that they wish to be truly free. The idea that it is criminal (or at least runs counter to civil charges) for a person seeking to eat to fish, or for a person needing a roof over their head to build shelter on un-owned, un-improved land is problematic on some level. They also serve as the "canary in the coal mine" and demonstrate the truly tyrannical nature of the state. Ridiculous as many find their claims to be, they demonstrate that the state is more than willing to use violence against peaceful individuals seeking nothing more than for the state to leave them alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Sovereign Citizens fascinate me for several reasons, the first of which, is on principle, they are morally correct. The notion that a person born is immediately justly subservient to a government structure is hard to palate; especially if they later in life decide that they wish to be truly free. The idea that it is criminal (or at least runs counter to civil charges) for a person seeking to eat to fish, or for a person needing a roof over their head to build shelter on un-owned, un-improved land is problematic on some level. They also serve as the "canary in the coal mine" and demonstrate the truly tyrannical nature of the state. Ridiculous as many find their claims to be, they demonstrate that the state is more than willing to use violence against peaceful individuals seeking nothing more than for the state to leave them alone. It might be morally correct, but it goes against human nature. Where and when in history would one find a society of individual sovereigns? All throughout the world at every period in time people have organized themselves into groups, tribes, villages, nations, etc. If I don't like the particular government structure that I was born into, then (when I'm able to do so) I can move to another, more suitable, "jurisdiction". When freedom of movement is prohibited the morality of individual sovereignty is overridden. Individual sovereignty is a horribly inefficient way for more than a handful of people to live among each other. It would require each individual to take every other individual's personal choices and desires into account when interacting. Like making mini-contracts with everyone you meet for every aspect of life. Otherwise, I, as my own nation-state, can move into your abode and eat your food at any time (how far do our "borders" extend?). Efficiency sometimes rightly beats morality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 22 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Sovereign Citizens fascinate me for several reasons, the first of which, is on principle, they are morally correct. The notion that a person born is immediately justly subservient to a government structure is hard to palate; especially if they later in life decide that they wish to be truly free. The idea that it is criminal (or at least runs counter to civil charges) for a person seeking to eat to fish, or for a person needing a roof over their head to build shelter on un-owned, un-improved land is problematic on some level. They also serve as the "canary in the coal mine" and demonstrate the truly tyrannical nature of the state. Ridiculous as many find their claims to be, they demonstrate that the state is more than willing to use violence against peaceful individuals seeking nothing more than for the state to leave them alone. The folks you describe (those who have suffered violence from the state despite doing nothing morally wrong) are a very small percentage of sovcits. The ones you see on youtube are the ones who want it both ways: they want to be left alone by the state but also want all of the benefits that come with being a tax/feepayer (use of public roads, for example). As we all know, you can't have it both ways. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 @snafu @LeviF91 Please understand that I'm not taking the position you're bearing down on. There are many reasons that Sovereign Citizens are as problematic for an organized society, as an organized society is for a Sovereign Citizen; so please don't take what I'm saying as a full throated endorsement of them. What I believe, is that there is some degree of validity to a person staking a claim to themselves as a free person on a moral and philosophical level, and that it is always something to consider in any nation which strives to live as a "free people". As such, I think it is useful not to be completely dismissive of every claim a SC makes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: @snafu @LeviF91 Please understand that I'm not taking the position you're bearing down on. There are many reasons that Sovereign Citizens are as problematic for an organized society, as an organized society is for a Sovereign Citizen; so please don't take what I'm saying as a full throated endorsement of them. What I believe, is that there is some degree of validity to a person staking a claim to themselves as a free person on a moral and philosophical level, and that it is always something to consider in any nation which strives to live as a "free people". As such, I think it is useful not to be completely dismissive of every claim a SC makes. Sir, I do not wish to create joinder with you 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 14 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: Sir, I do not wish to create joinder with you Not enough randomly capitalized words. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 24 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: @snafu @LeviF91 Please understand that I'm not taking the position you're bearing down on. There are many reasons that Sovereign Citizens are as problematic for an organized society, as an organized society is for a Sovereign Citizen; so please don't take what I'm saying as a full throated endorsement of them. What I believe, is that there is some degree of validity to a person staking a claim to themselves as a free person on a moral and philosophical level, and that it is always something to consider in any nation which strives to live as a "free people". As such, I think it is useful not to be completely dismissive of every claim a SC makes. Noted, but my foreign relations committee deliberated and I decided to go in the direction of ridicule in this particular instance. I should have fired off a tweet. I take these matters on a case-by-case basis . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) A country is only as legitimate as it's ability to defend itself from invasion. By declaring themselves a sovereign country, other nations (the US) can invade and plunder their nation at will, especially if they have no support from the United Nations. This guy willingly gave up his rights and property as spoils of war. Edited June 11, 2018 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Sovereign Citizens fascinate me for several reasons, the first of which, is on principle, they are morally correct. The notion that a person born is immediately justly subservient to a government structure is hard to palate; especially if they later in life decide that they wish to be truly free. The idea that it is criminal (or at least runs counter to civil charges) for a person seeking to eat to fish, or for a person needing a roof over their head to build shelter on un-owned, un-improved land is problematic on some level. They also serve as the "canary in the coal mine" and demonstrate the truly tyrannical nature of the state. Ridiculous as many find their claims to be, they demonstrate that the state is more than willing to use violence against peaceful individuals seeking nothing more than for the state to leave them alone. They are in no way morally correct. Right from the start they are dependent. No one can survive without help from others. Running around acting as if society does not exist or that they do not have to abide by the rules we worked to perfect as best as is possible is parasitic. You are right that tyranny can be brought down against you for acting in such a way is right. And I say good! "Peaceful" individuals obey the laws. Lawless parasites flaunt the laws and deserve punishment fitting the crime. Sure, if you want to go live and fish on some "un-owned" land somewhere, fine, just don't make yourself a problem in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Egg Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Both Liberals no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, unbillievable said: A country is only as legitimate as it's ability to defend itself from invasion. By declaring themselves a sovereign country, other nations (the US) can invade and plunder their nation at will, especially if they have no support from the United Nations. This guy willingly gave up his rights and property as spoils of war. That would be a fun police retort to see on a video. Edit: I'd also love to see one of these cops point out that, as sovereign nations, they must have their sovereign UN representative take any human rights complaints before the relevant council. Edited June 11, 2018 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts