If you put it that way (i.e. the way she herself put it) then it does sound asymmetrically crazy.
However, if you believe that human rights are due to you by mere virtue of being a human being, and that those rights are not contingent upon who you are, or upon your particular behaviour, then it sounds less unreasonable. Which is not of course to say that you are exempt from punishment for crimes you commit.
It’s just that sometime last century, politicians were fond of saying things like “with rights come responsibilities” - which is a non-sequitur.
Well I’m not entirely sure I agree. Where Johnson & Smythe have written, “…pursuant to such loans available for the emigrant delivered to pay to defer receipt of the Date OF Governmental charge is made by and any corporation other than those provided that time. (E) to the laws of the Company will, or other location and to the principal regressive amount by the Licensee shall be amended (“ERISA”). Whenever any paper or immunities under the Committee shall again be granted under Section 6.12…” you can obviously infer that citizenship is of the mind and not the spirit.
In fact, I think you’ll find this argument rather convincing, as the author considers the deleterious effects of breaking a former engagement with a [political actor] and finds that it was in his interest to entertain their ‘contractual embrace’ after all. Worth a gander, my friend.
I don’t see it as a non-sequitur at all. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: your right to not get punched in the face means that I must take responsibility for where I swing my fist.
It’s like the old saying goes: “One person’s victim of a long broken system is another person’s selfish, ignorant brat.”
I’ll agree with you that she’s just looking for easy answers, but I would call that more of a condemnation than a defense. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the easy answers she, and other “freemen-on-the-land” types, gravitate towards involve having absolutely zero accountability to the rest of the community in which they live.
We had a sovereign nutjob in court here once and he gave it one last valiant try by telling the judge that the courtroom flag had fringe on it and therefore wasn’t a real flag and therefore YUR NOT THE BOSS OF ME. The judge just listened and then said “my brother died defending that flag.”
A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN is his own FIRE DEPARTMENT or PARK SERVICE, and does not require the sponsorship of any ANTI-SOVEREIGN and TERRORIST REGIME of TERRORISTS and TRAITORS.
If I think it’s a stupid law, I am wont to ignore it (cf: drug laws). However, I still try not to get caught, what with that whole ‘state monopoly on violence’ thing. Because even if the cops think it’s a stupid law (I know one or two: they do, at least here in the UK), they’ll still nick you for it.
Or making your own beer. That’s always nice. People like you when you can make beer out of just stuff. It’s like being a wizard. Not the grumpy, evil kind. A cool wizard.
Exactly. If they’re such an evil terrorist regime, why are they following any laws,including their own? One would think they’d kill dissidents indiscriminately and without pretense.
That’s pretty common among sovereign citizens. One common trend/crime that they like to try to pull off is wait for people to leave their house for an extended period (say, on a vacation) and, citing that “If you abandon something, you forfeit all your rights and title to it, and title is not a piece of paper. Title is when you grab it and say ‘mine,’” they would break in and change the locks, put up “no trespassing” signs and filing “quiet title” legal papers.
Whether or not this woman’s behavior is palatable is not my point- she’s kind of silly about it, actually. But an underlying assumption I perceive behind the general reaction that bothers me is that it is good to be obedient to laws in general- laws that, if they were examined closely, might be like sausages in that one can get disgusted when it is seen how they are made. I think out society is so deeply indoctrinated into the cult of authority that hardly anybody sees themselves as unconscious participants in a Milgram Experiment, but maybe that’s how aliens would see us if they landed tomorrow.
I would totally support a set of laws that protects individual liberty and freedom by preventing other people and organizations from impinging on those things. With the largest prison population in the history of the world stocked largely with perpetrators of victimless crimes, the US doesn’t really operate that way. I see the laws are more about maintaining the control of the ruling class and their ability to carry on as they are, including mass murder overseas - where unfortunate people have the bad luck to live over oil, for example - to further their greed.
