Sovereign citizens: Is this an accurate portrayal?

I never posted that, provide the quote and stop citing yourself, sovereign citi-er-son!

Take your meds, you are all over the place.

I am the one asking for evidence the law of the land applies to me, that is exactly what you posted, now back it up.

I do, however, agree, you are cracked up, J ck off.

Kings do not murder, they order others to murder for them.

Who could they possibly order? Remember, everyone is a king and laws don't apply without consent for anyone in this little fantasy of yours.

So why couldn't the murderer just 'not consent' to the statute against murder. Or the child molester 'not consent' to the statute against child molesting. Or the rapist 'not consent' to the statutes against rape.

Kinda painted yourself into the corner, didntcha?

I suspect this is about the spot where you start coming up for excuses why you can't shore up the gaping hole in your reasoning...exactly as you did for why you wouldn't dare test your theory on your 'kingship'.

Laughing....and so much for the keyboard commando.

I never claimed laws do not exist, I wanted proof or evidence those laws (any of them) apply to me.

Salad tosser J, I am out of here.

Have your nurse change your soiled sheets and take the computer away from you, you have had too much.

Peace out.

I do, however, agree, you are cracked up, J ck off.

Oh, you're just sore that I called you on your false bravado, buddy. Just because you won't dare test your silly little theory in the real world is no reason to take it out on lil' ol' me.

I'm just the guy that noticed that the emperor had no clothes. And even you don't buy your own nonsense.

Or do you *really* think that the murderer can just 'not consent' to the statutes against murder? The rapist can just 'not consent' to the statutes against rape? The child molester can just 'not consent' to the statutes against child molesting....

....and the laws suddenly disappear?

Yeah, that's what I thought. You keep running, I'll keep laughing. Deal?

I never claimed laws do not exist, I wanted proof or evidence those laws (any of them) apply to me.

Oh, the backpedaling begins! This is my favorite part.

So suddenly there *are* laws. But wouldn't the murderer be able to 'not consent' to them? I mean, he's a king too, right? And without consent, any law to keep him from murdering would be mere 'subjugation'?

Or was your 'subjugation' claims just more useless gibberish too?

No, they just join the State Dept, DEA, FBI, NSA, CIA, or any number of alphabet organizations, and then they become immune to laws and can murder, rape, and molest whoever the fuck they want with impunity.

Dumb ass.

Salad tosser J, I am out of here.

Have your nurse change your soiled sheets and take the computer away from you, you have had too much.

Peace out.

That's what I thought, buddy.

Keep that tail tucked snuggly between those tender cheeks. I'll be here if you ever want another silly 'sovereign citizen' conspiracy dismantled.

....or if you ever dare test your theory that the law doesn't exist and doesn't apply to you.

I won't hold my breath though. Have a great evening!

I said no such thing, go back and dig up the post, where you claim I said that... Search my user ID, I have not made too many posts, should not be hard...

Now, please answer my question;

What is the purpose/reasoning behind all CAPITAL's on government issued ID...

Btw, I am not against any government laws, I honour them... I simply want to have full disclosure on remedy options I have...

Something, to use your term - your "ilk" is not forthcoming on...Knowing full well, the average person does not know...

No, they just join the State Dept, DEA, FBI, NSA, CIA, or any number of alphabet organizations, and then they become immune to laws and can murder, rape, and molest whoever the fuck they want with impunity.

But wait.....didn't you say that what was 'moral violence' was judged by the individual? That they decide individually if their violence is moral? That they can use *any* basis they want?

If the 'alphabet agency' folks believe their violence is moral, then per your reasoning....

...it is!

Why then would you have a problem with 'moral violence'?

Or is this where you just start calling me names again and storm off in a huff?

No, that's what you said. I said it wasn't my job to force my moral code, but an individual had to choose their own moral code, and not the State through the threat and use of force.

You pulled the rest out of your ass.

As far as the alphabet agencies, it just proves the hypocrisy of the fucked up system that you worship.

What is the purpose/reasoning behind all CAPITAL's on government issued ID...

Who says there has to be a 'reason' behind it? You clearly have a conspiracy that you'd like to share with us on the topic.....probably having to do with some nonsense regarding 'paper people'.

So by all means, share it.

Dodging - it is what your "ilk" has mastered...

No matter, time is almost up...

Enjoying the wild weather ???

No, that's what you said. I said it wasn't my job to force my moral code, but an individual had to choose their own moral code, and not the State through the threat and use of force.

You pulled the rest out of your ass.

'Moral code'? I think you're 'rerememebering' what you said.

I asked you *specifically* who who gets to decide what 'moral' violence was. And you told me it was the individual.

Do you deny saying this? I'm more than willing to dig up the quote. Do you want to test who has the better memory about your words?

.....because I'm pretty sure I'm gonna win.

I ask again......since you already indicated that the *individual* decided what moral violence was, if the 'alphabet agency' folks decide that their violence was moral, then per your reasoning..


...it is.

Why then would you object to moral violence?

Dodging - it is what your "ilk" has mastered...

No matter, time is almost up...

Enjoying the wild weather ???

Smiling...so no conspiracy babble on why they use capitals on IDs?

<uh-oh....did I just turn the word ID into a corporation by putting it in caps? Drat!>

Ah. I was so looking forward to shredding that 'paper person' nonsense for you.

If you ever scratch together a cohesive argument and want to see if it holds up, I'll be about. Or as our friends in the north like to put it: I'll be aboot.

The difference is that an individual has to deal with the consequences of their choices and actions, and the State does not. It just covers them up with propaganda and useful idiots like you, who will accept whatever the State shoves down their throats.

Gee J, if you are going to talk proper Canadian, throw in a few "eh's"...

Not a paper person, a trust, you know it and I know it...

A cohesive discussion with a person who is trained on, and loves to dodge, is an oxymoron...

Time is almost up...

Enjoying the weather ????

I'll put you out of your misery, Shingen...and just quote you directly:





So...the individual gets to decide what moral violence is. Seems I'm *way* better at quoting you than you are. Here's the follow up where I ask you about what basis they can use. You get a little vague, but I think you made yourself clear enough (bold added for emphasis):



So is it safe to assume that the individual has the same ability as an Judge to apply any basis or justification for their moral violence?

Or are you still arguing that you didn't say this?

So.....if the 'alphabet agency' folks believed their violence was moral, why would you have a problem with it?

After all, they are individuals, yes? And the individual gets to decide what moral violence is. And they can use whatever basis or justification they want.

If not, why not?

imho its a logical progression,just as default contitutionalism was compromised and corrupted into what we see today,an interim political strategy would work toward restoring what we lost,but ultimately evolving towards a free self sufficient non centralised voluntaryists society.
j i absolutely agree that the foundation of law is mostly objective,but the subversion over the past few centuries is not.if you can get more objective than a framework based upon nature and the laws of the universe,we would all be gods.its isolated but integrated into the law and monetary system,which is really key.its far more important to have a fair and equitable monetary system.
so anarchy is not defined as no government although it strongly suggests that power always lends itself to corruption,especially in a corporatist environment.to say no rulers,well if superman was an autocrat,im sure voluntaryists would sign up to that but its still more complex than that.the ideal state is one of diversity but as in the case of nature that infers integration not isolation.

The difference is that an individual has to deal with the consequences of their choices and actions, and the State does not. It just covers them up with propaganda and useful idiots like you, who will accept whatever the State shoves down their throats.

I already asked you what justification they could use. And you said that the individual could any basis, and any justification.

Which would include 'propaganda' or anything else.

Any, meaning Any, of course.

So given that the individual is the judge of what moral violence is, and they can use any basis or justification they wish (as a judge could, per you), then wouldn't the violence of the alphabet agency folks be 'moral violence'...

....if they simply *decided* it was.

C'mon....if we're going full subjective justification for morality, then lets not pussy foot around. Lets apply your logic consistently.

Gee J, if you are going to talk proper Canadian, throw in a few "eh's"..

I admit, I only dabble in the language having been to Canada a handful of times. The people seemed nice, I loved the national parks...and those french-canadian girls can suck start a leafblower.

So over all, 4 out of 5 stars!


Not a paper person, a trust, you know it and I know it...

So my time isn't up and you *are* going to share your conspiracy. I knew all my wishing would come true!

Tell me more. Flesh it out for me. Is this a Canadian trust, I assume?

imho its a logical progression,just as default contitutionalism was compromised and corrupted into what we see today,an interim political strategy would work toward restoring what we lost,but ultimately evolving towards a free self sufficient non centralised voluntaryists society.

*Blinking*

This doesn't look snarky at all! Give me a moment to shift gears.

<cracking my knuckles and screwing on my thinking hat>

There, all done. So where were we?

I think the problems with non-centralized v8oluntaryist society is the same problems with anarchy in general:

1) Lack of an effective system of conflict management

2) Difficulty creating major projects (bridges, roads, etc)

3) Inherent instability of subjectifying moral and ethical conduct with no means of enforcement

4) Unsustainability as leaders within the 'non-centralized voluntariyist' society would eventually devolve into factionalism.

5) Vulnerability to outside threats due to lack of organization

use the freeman arguement,and u may get off a parking ticket or speeding fine.u get a million people refusing to pay taxes,they'll make an example out of you.if u'd like an example of this watch cool hand luke.they'll break you.if u got the balls thats your cross to bare and thats what real men respect.you only live once

So my time isn't up and you *are* going to share your conspiracy. I knew all my wishing would come true!

Tell me more. Flesh it out for me. Is this a Canadian trust, I assume?


On behalf of the French-Canadian girls - Merci!!!But, don't use "suck start a leafblower" line, it would not go over too well...

No, I won't go any further on the trust subject with you, other then this - Not a conspiracy, a universal principle, that can be twisted, but, never broken...

Time IS almost up, and I will share this with you;

Be carefull of your mindset, when you leave...Your auric field is all you will have... I would choose to keep it balanced if I were you...What you can get away with here, does not apply on the astral...Thought creates, and it is not subject to any laws...

Enjoying the wild weather ????

It is not about getting off of anything... It is about paying your fines, taxes with full disclosure on remedy...

No charge can come, without remedy...

j i absolutely agree that the foundation of law is mostly objective,but the subversion over the past few centuries is not.if you can get more objective than a framework based upon nature and the laws of the universe,we would all be gods.


The idea of a 'natural order' or 'laws of the universe' I've always found to be rather meaningless unless we're talking about something like physics.

If we're talking about people, there may be some genetic predispositions to certain activities (cooperation, tribalism, sex, territorialism, aggression, altruism, violence, caring for our young etc.). But we're most commonly a product of our culture

Generally speaking large groups of people use directed reasoning, where we assimilate only that which we already agree with. Individuals vary more widely on this. So when interpreting the 'laws of nature', they usually interpret them in such a way to confirm what they already believe.

A warrior society might look at the violent conflict in nature and see confirmation of the virtue of martial prowess. A religious society might see cooperation in insects, or caring for offspring of a forest animal as an affirmation of a more altrustic 'law of nature'. In short, laws of nature are little more than a cultural Rorschach test that we project ourselves upon.

It reality, its just us. While there may be a God up there watching over us after having created us, he's not hanging around for us to ask questions. WE interpret what 'He' is supposed to be saying. Which, like the laws of nature, always seem to reaffirm what we already believe. We decide what is moral, we decide what is ethical. We define the social mores of a given civilization.

When I speak of a 'more objective' society, I don't mean completely objective. I simply mean that a civilization that establishes for itself a particular set of enforcible social standards. As long as people are involved, its impossible to remove al subjective interpretation. But it is possible to have a *mostly* objective system of laws and moral codes.

The standard of that moral system for a given society....is whatever we believe it is. Not as individuals. But as a civilization. If we believe in the divine right of kings, or that the emperor is the literal son of the sun goddess, or that the people are the supreme authority or that god's prophet decides all moral standards....we create an relatively objective moral standard. And it is from this that laws are codified and enforced.

The 'power of the people' basis is in my opinion, the least bullshyte of the various options. I mean, if you believe that a carved log is the basis of your moral system, you're using a proxy for what is essentially a human decision. The log doesn't have much to say. How we 'interpret' its wisdom is where our moral code comes from. Meaning once again, its just us.

So when you *start* with the idea that the people are the authority from which all other authority is derived, you cut out the middle man and nonsense proxies and get right to the point. I like that. I also like the focus on the individual liberty of man....as it acts as a balance against the tyranny of the majority. The majority gets to make choices that effect society but there is push back in the form of individual liberty. The majority can't, say....decide that all gingers should be castrated. The majority lacks that authority. At least in theory.

Even in the US system, the people have the ultimate authority to strip away any right. Its just *really* hard to do: an amendment. And its difficult to convince a sufficient number of folks that the gingers need to go. But the fact that we *could*, underlines the fact that *all* morality is ultimately a judgment call made by us.

The genius of the US system (and most systems that it emulates or emulate it) is its inefficiency. Power is *really* really hard to wield. I mean, a BI-cameral congress? Each that have to agree? AND a signature by an executive? And eventual tacit or explicit sign off by the judiciary?

That's insanely complicated. And that's just the bare bones of the federal system. Add 50 additional state governments, various municipalities, their election processes, their judiciaries....and you have a system that is balkanized almost to the point of uselessness.

Which is actually why we're still around.

Its the kind of system that makes any real change *glacial*. Significant movement on the issue of rights for example could take a generation. Its that slowness, that ineffeciency that prevents the tyranny of the majority from infringing too much on the rights of the individual. We might have a spasm of hysteria here and there (freedom fries anyone? How about that 'Victory Mosque' in NY)....but it takes long term, sustained change to society itself to actually see any real change.

It also allows injustice to continue for *way* to freakin' long when it exists institutionally. I mean, America's hang up with gays has lasted for centuries. And only now are we even *starting* to address it with any consistency. Black folks had to endure generations of bullshyte even after slavery...and of course slavery is one of the most hideous institutions to every cast its shadow on our national character. The south was punished for generations by an angry north, women had to eat shyte for well over a century on paper, and closer to two in practice....and don't even get me started about the Native Americans.

So its not a perfect system. But its far, far better than a system of *subjective* morality. Where every one gets to do whatever they want to each other. The entire concept of individual liberty becomes little more than ivory tower intellectual exercise....and in practice, the strong dominate the weak. Utterly. Where there's no stabilizing standards of cultural moral codes or ethical codes, no effective method of conflict resolution. Its the recess schoolyard, all day, every day....and no over arching leviathan like 'teacher' to make sure folks behavior. And while *most* folks would abide in a polite, dignified manner (as long as their basic needs were being met), it doesn't take many bad apples to flush an entire civilization.

Which is why I value the rights, freedoms and laws that we possess today that protect those freedoms.

use the freeman arguement,and u may get off a parking ticket or speeding fine.u get a million people refusing to pay taxes,they'll make an example out of you.if u'd like an example of this watch cool hand luke.they'll break you.if u got the balls thats your cross to bare and thats what real men respect.you only live once

You can use the pokemon argument if you want. Unless the legal basis and terms you've defined are recognized by the law and the courts, its all just an excercise in your own personal opinion.

And enjoy. I'm not trying to tell folks they can't believe what they want to believe. I'm just trying to inject a little reality into the situation....and help folks recognize that while they believe something, the law doesn't actually change based on their belief.

It changes based on who they elect to office. Channel some of that energy into changing the laws by electing folks who share your values. They can enact change, if slowly.

But its infinitely better than the conspiracy circle jerk of like minded conspiracy theorists agreeing with each other about what the law is 'supposed' to mean.

Which is essentially meaningless. Sometimes I think boards like this exist to distract politically minded people from *actually* engaging in real world politics. But then I remember that I don't buy into conspiracy nonsense like that. And I play a little Skyrim.

No, I won't go any further on the trust subject with you, other then this - Not a conspiracy, a universal principle, that can be twisted, but, never broken...

A 'universal principle', huh? Like the speed of light or orange cheeto fingers?

Well, I have no doubt you believe that. But I'm not convinced. Show me the evidence.