"Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why? If someone causes damage, then they're required to pay for it either way.

Yes. And sovereign citizens don't think they are, and will fight doing so.

To me, what is unreasonable here is by getting people to believe that we are more "free" in America just because we have lawyers to spout off legalese and other double-talk to merely propagate illusions. "Sovereign citizens" are merely countering that with more legalese and double-talk, while causing many people to pop a cork and get enormously emotional and upset about it (like you).

Society is complex and conflicts arise, which is why we have laws. The problem with the "legalese" that the sovereign citizen types use is that it isn't actually based on what the actual law actually is. Now, while we can all agree it sure would be nice if there were no traffic accidents and everyone was just nice to each other all the time, trying to run a society based on what would be nice, as opposed to running society based on how the world actually is, is a recipe for disaster. It's great to be idealistic, but in a population of millions, there are some practicalities needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? If someone causes damage, then they're required to pay for it either way. If they don't cause damage, then they can have a clear conscience. You're just assuming that accidents are a given, but not everyone causes accidents.

Wrong again, you need to study some actuarial science. And the problem is that many people cannot pay for the damage that they cause. That is why there is insurance in the first place. Can you foot a several hundred thousand dollar medical bill? I did not know that you were so rich.

Besides, insurance doesn't usually cover everything. It's the government's responsibility to protect the citizenry and pay for whatever damage occurs.

Oh my No, just no. You are sounding like a freeloader now.

Taxes are collected in the form of sales taxes from transactions, as well as from payroll deductions. Under a proper system, no one can evade taxes. But then again, I don't believe in any illusions about America being a "free" society, and I don't propagate such illusions. Others do that. My view is that everyone should work for a living and help to produce what is necessary for society to sustain itself, while in return, they get consideration by being provided with enough food, shelter, healthcare, and other necessities of life. You think that's "unreasonable"?

There are many ways that people avoid paying taxes. Have you not seen the "license plates" that some of these nuts have? Car tabs and plates are just one of many taxes that these people try to avoid.

To me, what is unreasonable here is by getting people to believe that we are more "free" in America just because we have lawyers to spout off legalese and other double-talk to merely propagate illusions. "Sovereign citizens" are merely countering that with more legalese and double-talk, while causing many people to pop a cork and get enormously emotional and upset about it (like you).

Wrong again. Perhaps you should read the Wiki article that I linked.

You're just upset because some people don't believe in the same illusions as you do, and you consider that unreasonable. This is what religionists do. And yet, you identify as "atheist"? Hmmm...

No, I am not the one that has delusions here. This is a society. As grownups we do have to pay taxes. There are limitations to our freedoms. People like this end up making the nation less free. They are part of the problem, they are not part of the solution.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Now you're drifting into hyperbole. Another slippery slope that I've already addressed. It's not a logical argument. Please try again.

Not remotely hyperbolic. We're all equal before the law. So if courts are beholden to the interior decorating whims of sovereign citizens, they are beholden to the whims of all of us. You think it would be silly to change the carpet because some defendant doesn't like it? Well who are you to say he's any sillier than some guy who wants the flag changed? How about we compromise, and no one get's to waste court time and money demanding interior decorating changes?

There are plenty of things that we pay for which many don't agree with. I don't like having my tax dollars being wasted on military or a police state, yet that's what it goes for. And it's not for the protection of the public or any abstract notions of "freedom." It's all about protecting the wealthy and other elements of the corporate mafia. That's what we have right now, and you're defending that?

Uh-huh. My question too hard for you, I see. Attempted subject shifting flail noted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you're drifting into hyperbole. Another slippery slope that I've already addressed. It's not a logical argument. Please try again.



There are plenty of things that we pay for which many don't agree with. I don't like having my tax dollars being wasted on military or a police state, yet that's what it goes for. And it's not for the protection of the public or any abstract notions of "freedom." It's all about protecting the wealthy and other elements of the corporate mafia. That's what we have right now, and you're defending that?

Nope, he isn't. And you are not using logical fallacies correctly. You could not defend your claim of "it is not as if they were demanding that the judge wears a pink bathrobe". There really is no difference between a demand for a particular flag and demanding what sort of ceremonial robes that a judge has on.

Also any adult will see that there are many different services or uses of tax money that they oppose. Not paying taxes is not a valid option. You do have actions that you can take. Get political. Get involved If you still can't get your way an cannot stand how your tax money is used you can always leave the country. You do have rights, but they are limited. That is going to happen in any society.

 

[Stevicus]

Not true.

I'm happy to provide sources, but there's two main points here. 1. they are ridiculously vexatious litigants, and cost private citizens and public legal systems millions dealing with their nonsense,

Well, at least they're trying work within the system - the same system that has been established by our political leaders and which is worshiped by millions in this country. It's the same system that allows the militarization of the police and locks people up for crimes they didn't commit. If you don't like the system, then work to change it, but don't complain about others who can see the loopholes and try to work their way through them.

and 2. They are rated as significant terrorist threats, with close ties to various dangerous groups and movements. Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a "sovereign Citizen" in all but name.

I wondered when someone would bring play the McVeigh card. Still, McVeigh's motivations were revenge over Waco, which is something totally different from what most "sovereign citizens" do. By that logic, then you should also support Trump's attempt at a Muslim immigration ban, which many people (including myself) oppose. Do you also support building a wall on the border? Because the same arguments are used for that, too.

 

[YmirGF]

Wikipedia is often a good starting point for many researches. I would not call this rock solid evidence, but it does seem to be well supported. And as usual one can follow the links that are provided:

Sovereign citizen movement - Wikipedia

It appears that there is a "leader" of a sort to this movement. Here is a link to an article on him. That would go a long way to explain why they all tend to spew the same ignorant nonsense:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF6-97Feucht.html

Yes, it is beginning to make some kind of sense now. One of my employees who was about 18 at the time came to work one morning thoroughly bursting with this new information. He went on for several minutes about how we are not required to pay taxes and that the federal government was doing so illegally. (That DID prompt giggles in response.) He was totally convinced that this would work, and being naive, but very, very far from stupid, he bought into it lock, stock and barrel. By the time I was finished with him he was somewhat crest-fallen. I utterly assured him the federal government CAN and will levy taxes and to brook that trend is probably not a good idea. It did make for a lively conversation though LOL. In some ways I felt like a meanie adult squashing the idea of Santa Claus from a gleeful child. (It was almost brutal.)

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, at least they're trying work within the system

No. They're not. That's the whole point.

I wondered when someone would bring play the McVeigh card. Still, McVeigh's motivations were revenge over Waco, which is something totally different from what most "sovereign citizens" do. By that logic, then you should also support Trump's attempt at a Muslim immigration ban, which many people (including myself) oppose. Do you also support building a wall on the border? Because the same arguments are used for that, too.

Another nice attempt at subject shift, but no. McVeigh was playing sovereign citizen games before Waco. It wasn't a card, it was an actual example of a dangerous sovereign citizen type which your handwave failed to address.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, it is beginning to make some kind of sense now. One of my employees who was about 18 at the time came to work one morning thoroughly bursting with this new information. He went on for several minutes about how we are not required to pay taxes and that the federal government was doing so illegally. (That DID prompt giggles in response.) He was totally convinced that this would work, and being naive, but very, very far from stupid, he bought into it lock, stock and barrel. By the time I was finished with him he was somewhat crest-fallen. I utterly assured him the federal government CAN and will levy taxes and to brook that trend is probably not a good idea. It did make for a lively conversation though LOL. In some ways I felt like a meanie adult squashing the idea of Santa Claus from a gleeful child. (It was almost brutal.)

In the words of the Dean, "TANSTAAFL". I've had to disabuse some of my relatives about this sort of thing and various other free energy/get rich quick type things over the years.

 

[Nous]

Sure, it's true that police have the guns and the force to back up their power, but that's the only thing. As the saying goes, "might makes right," but that doesn't make it moral or just. That's what cuts to the core of the matter. If it's not "martial law," then it's the "law of the jungle." Just so we're clear on that. Anything is just so much legalese and other gobbledygook.



True enough. Others have told us (including countless presidents and other politicians) that America is a "free" country, but I suppose there's no validity to that either.

You certainly have the right to believe all of your nonsense here.

What persons and governments are free to do and not free to do is set out in the federal and state Constitutions, and state and federal laws, including the case law. Your false dilemmas are logical fallacies.

 

[Stevicus]

Look, you guys. I've obviously struck a nerve here, and you're madly throwing post after post at me to the point I no longer have the time or energy to keep up with your circular arguments and constant shifting of the goal posts and bringing up irrelevancies. This is a Religious Forum, and I'm getting the impression that I have insulted your religion, which I really didn't intend to do. We're talking about America, and this is the country where I live.

For the record, I do not, nor have I ever claimed "sovereign citizenship." I also pay my taxes and buy insurance where required by law. I am a law-abiding citizen. I can say that with a clear conscience, so any attempts on your part to impugn my reputation or make character assassinations are completely uncalled for. We're just talking here, but you're making far too big a deal about this and getting far more upset than what is reasonable under the circumstances.

It's funny, because you started off making jokes about "sovereign citizens" in the hope that the tactics of ridicule would suffice, but I have found that by scratching the surface, you have more deep-seated anger against these people than I previously realized. Your own anger and hatred are things that you'll have to deal with on your own. I can't help you there.

 

[Nous]

Yes, it is beginning to make some kind of sense now. One of my employees who was about 18 at the time came to work one morning thoroughly bursting with this new information. He went on for several minutes about how we are not required to pay taxes and that the federal government was doing so illegally. (That DID prompt giggles in response.) He was totally convinced that this would work, and being naive, but very, very far from stupid, he bought into it lock, stock and barrel. By the time I was finished with him he was somewhat crest-fallen. I utterly assured him the federal government CAN and will levy taxes and to brook that trend is probably not a good idea. It did make for a lively conversation though LOL. In some ways I felt like a meanie adult squashing the idea of Santa Claus from a gleeful child. (It was almost brutal.)

What I find difficult to understand is how an 18-year-old, or someone even older, gets to the point of hearing someone claim that it's "illegal" for the federal (or state or local) government to levy taxes, and s/he believes it. Did s/he just not go to or pay attention in his/her junior high civics class?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is beginning to make some kind of sense now. One of my employees who was about 18 at the time came to work one morning thoroughly bursting with this new information. He went on for several minutes about how we are not required to pay taxes and that the federal government was doing so illegally. (That DID prompt giggles in response.) He was totally convinced that this would work, and being naive, but very, very far from stupid, he bought into it lock, stock and barrel. By the time I was finished with him he was somewhat crest-fallen. I utterly assured him the federal government CAN and will levy taxes and to brook that trend is probably not a good idea. It did make for a lively conversation though LOL. In some ways I felt like a meanie adult squashing the idea of Santa Claus from a gleeful child. (It was almost brutal.)

As you see from both the Wiki article on your personal experience this is not just a U.S. phenomena (that actually makes me feel better, considering our present Great Leader). And as you may have noticed with him and on this thread some rather severe cognitive dissonance can result in believing nonsense that one really wants to believe in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I find difficult to understand is how an 18-year-old, or someone even older, gets to the point of hearing someone claim that it's "illegal" for the federal (or state or local) government to levy taxes, and s/he believes it. Did s/he just not go to or pay attention in his/her junior high civics class?

YmirGF hit the nail on the head. He ran into an adult that wanted to believe in Santa Claus.

 

[Stevicus]

No. They're not. That's the whole point.

They didn't set up the system. They're just gaming the system, just as lawyers do.

Another nice attempt at subject shift, but no.

You're the one who brought it up.

McVeigh was playing sovereign citizen games before Waco. It wasn't a card, it was an actual example of a dangerous sovereign citizen type which your handwave failed to address.

One person out of many. So, just because of what one person did, you want to blame the entire group. You even want to blame me, and I'm not even part of that group. There's a word for that, you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, you guys. I've obviously struck a nerve here, and you're madly throwing post after post at me to the point I no longer have the time or energy to keep up with your circular arguments and constant shifting of the goal posts and bringing up irrelevancies. This is a Religious Forum, and I'm getting the impression that I have insulted your religion, which I really didn't intend to do. We're talking about America, and this is the country where I live.

For the record, I do not, nor have I ever claimed "sovereign citizenship." I also pay my taxes and buy insurance where required by law. I am a law-abiding citizen. I can say that with a clear conscience, so any attempts on your part to impugn my reputation or make character assassinations are completely uncalled for. We're just talking here, but you're making far too big a deal about this and getting far more upset than what is reasonable under the circumstances.

It's funny, because you started off making jokes about "sovereign citizens" in the hope that the tactics of ridicule would suffice, but I have found that by scratching the surface, you have more deep-seated anger against these people than I previously realized. Your own anger and hatred are things that you'll have to deal with on your own. I can't help you there.

Again with the false claims about others.

When you do not understand you should ask questions politely and properly. And please don't try to apply logical fallacies that you do not understand.

If you want to we could go back to the ridiculous flag demand and work from there. But no wandering off point allowed. There is a reason that adults laugh at loons like the sovereign citizen movement.

 

[Stevicus]

He ran into an adult that wanted to believe in Santa Claus.

You mean the "adults" who believe that America is a "free" country and that people have "rights"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They didn't set up the system. They're just gaming the system, just as lawyers do.

This is a tu quoque fallacy:



Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

You're the one who brought it up.

A combination of tu quoque and shifting the burden of proof:


Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

One person out of many. So, just because of what one person did, you want to blame the entire group. You even want to blame me, and I'm not even part of that group. There's a word for that, you know.

No, it is merely an example of what happens when one takes that nonsense to its "logical" extremes. But until you understand your flag error I am not going to go into this

 

[Nous]

YmirGF hit the nail on the head. He ran into an adult that wanted to believe in Santa Claus.

I'm not even sure that there are pockets or "organizations" of people in Europe or Australia or Canada or Japan or Brazil where people would say something analogous to: "I heard someone say that the 14th Amendment means that one is a citizen of the US, which exempts one from state citizenship and state laws." I mean, any literate child or older person can look up the 14th Amendment to see what it says, and can read at least middle-school stuff about what the Amendment means. How does such deformity of thought processes happen to groups of people in the US--and I guess they somehow get together and make hand-signs to each other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean the "adults" who believe that America is a "free" country and that people have "rights"?

This error of yours has already been explained to you. Once again, first we go over your flag error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not even sure that there are pockets or "organizations" of people in Europe or Australia or Canada or Japan or Brazil where people would say something analogous to: "I heard someone say that the 14th Amendment means that one is a citizen of the US, which exempts one from state citizenship and state laws." I mean, any literate child or older person can look up the 14th Amendment to see what it says, and can read at least middle-school stuff about what the Amendment means. How does such deformity of thought processes happen to groups of people in the US--and I guess they somehow get together and make hand-signs to each other?

But that would require actual work. Surely there is an easier way.