I'm not the one who locks people up for bogus crimes.
Who do you accuse of locking people up for "bogus crimes"? Do you perceive that as a widespread problem in the US?
My impression is that the "sovereign citizens" are not simply trying to express the idea that there exist injustices in our justice system.
The ones I have spoken to would say that they're doing exactly that. I see it more as an act of civil disobedience, which has been applauded many times when people face injustice.
The "sovereign citizens" in the videos posted on this thread are doing things such as refusing to obey a police officer's quite legal and reasonable commands ("step out of the car") while babbling about the Articles of Confederation, and jabbering endlessly in court about not having proof of the court's jurisdiction, and creating confusion about having multiple names and titles, and driving without a drivers license (and/or current registration and/or insurance). It's nothing but trying to throw up senseless obstacles to the administration of justice. No evidence has been presented on this thread of any of them trying to correct any injustice.
You said (in post #155):
The key word I note is "continual," which is defined as "frequently recurring; always happening."
That's correct. Again, nothing I have said implied that the law has the "precision of mathematics". Right?
In the same statement (quoted above), you stated that "(rights) do not...become valid or invalid according to some tyrant's mood." The word "mood" relates to human emotions.
I was repeating your use of the word "mood". I pointed out that rights do not disappear according to a "tyrant's" "mood". Obviously it isn't logically consistent to say that rights are expressions of objective moral facts yet rights are not continual and evaporate according to a "tyrant's" "mood".
Notice how you are not responding to what I've actually said here.
I wasn't going to respond to personal questions about me or anything that has happened to me.
I didn't ask you a personal question. I pointed out that you are not responding to what I've actually said here.
On the thread you refer to, I quoted the SEP article on rights, and noted that consistent with the introductory passage, I would say that the language relating to "rights" is that they are expressions of objective moral facts. As such, that does not and cannot mean that rights go in and out of existence, or become valid or invalid, according to some "tyrant's" "mood". It means that, e.g., there is an objective moral fact about a government making another person involuntarily, by force of law, a slave. The mere fact that it was legal in the Confederate states for a person to own and enslave another person doesn't mean that the enslaved person's rights did not exist or disappeared.
I actually agree with you on this.
I am happy to hear that.
In this case, we're talking about something different than slavery. Is it an objective moral fact that a person has a right to travel without undue hardship or restrictions placed upon them? Is it an objective moral fact that a person has a right to be safe in his/her domicile without cops kicking in their doors or shooting them? Is it an objective moral fact that a person has a right to imbibe in whatever substances he/she wishes?
With reasonable exceptions, I would definitely say that it is immoral or unethical to deprive someone of the right to travel (to a destination that is not off-limits for some legitimate reason). I would say that, with reasonable exceptions, it is immoral and unethical to kick down someone's door or to shoot another civilian. And I would say that, with reasonable exceptions, it is immoral or unethical to prevent someone from taking a substance that s/he wishes to take.
I'm sure that you will note my "vague" and non-specific language about "reasonable exceptions"--language that is a lot like that found in the Fourth Amendment.
In a video which Subduction Zone posted, we see a judge clamoring about "procedure" and "court rules," as if rights can only be defined by a "licensed practicing attorney."
I didn't see where any judge said or implied that "rights can only be defined by a licensed practicing attorney".
Of course, it is a fact that the Court ultimately interprets the language of the Constitution, including the language in which rights are stated. It would be a chaotic legal system if every individual could apply his/her own idiosyncratic interpretation of the language in which rights are stated.
The little guy who can't afford a good attorney is at a disadvantage.
That's definitely true in our system and horribly unfortunate. A person arrested on probable cause has a right to effective assistance of an attorney. Yet in just about every jurisdiction, public defenders are grossly overburdened. And it's practically impossible for attorneys to offer professional services and advice to people who have been arrested without becoming grossly overburdened in the system.
The judge appeared to be in a rather testy mood and wasn't willing to listen to the defendant. Is that fair? Is that representative of the kind of "justice" people can expect?
The only videos I saw showed judges who were being very polite, patient and fair. If you can point out where a judge was being unfairly "testy" toward someone who was trying to be cooperative and merely trying to represent his cause in court, please do.
But as history shows, it takes extraordinary effort to change that society.
Smart people do not want the country to change into the nonsense kind of stuff that the "sovereign citizens" have demonstrated and babbled about videos posted on this thread. There's more than enough idiotic ranting in the US as it is.
Definitely none of the "sovereign citizens" in videos posted on this thread has shown themselves to be engaged in any effort akin to trying to abolish involuntary servitude or secure anyone's civil rights.
Well, as I said, I've known some of them personally, and they're not psychopaths at all. They're mainly of the ex-hippie variety who have found cause to question authority. They're free-thinkers and non-conformists who don't feel bound to any pedantic rules of procedure which bureaucratic martinets would place upon them. They're not anarchists or psychopaths. Maybe they might come across as a bit odd, and perhaps they might be upsetting to those who are locked into convention and form. To them, content is more important than form. But here in this thread, I have encountered those who are not free thinkers and who tend to be overly hung up on form, such as the guy saying "no breaking up posts." WTF is that all about?
The "sovereign citizens" in the videos posted on this thread show themselves to be not very smart (e.g., about the law, and about how to bring about the best result for him/herself), and express stuff that seems to me delusional.
