There’s a dangerous closeness of this to what’s written in constitutional laws of many states, though, if they are understood literally.
I’ve been called a sovereign citizen for pointing out that after a stolen election a government is illegitimate, and that a law adopted in violation of constitutional law is not a law, and that being party to a contract requires consent, and so on. And that rights are not given by laws. Nobody can give you a right or take it away from you.
By “dangerous” I mean that you should explain to sovcits, reichsbuergers, citizens of USSR and such that what they believe in is not supported by existing mechanisms. Simply that. Their ideas are usually not any worse than what we have in really functioning laws, but they don’t have the power to make them real.
Would you be a sovcit for arguing for equal rights in the 50’s? Just trying an American example. Many people would consider you just as crazy.
In USSR of 60’s and 70’s dissidents were forcibly put into asylums, because “the society” (as in people having power in it) wanted them to be considered crazy. Where are the smug bastards who were doing that now? Oh, shit, they are still the elites in ex-Soviet states. By the way, Estonia’s former PM Kaja Kallas, who likes to publicly lament over USSR taking over Baltics, is from such a family.
You shouldn’t argue with the ethical part, because that’d be arguing in favor of “might makes right”.
I think people who consider something morally right and are ready to oppose the whole world over it deserve utmost respect.
If you are finding yourself on the opposite side of someone much weaker than you and not threatening you, think again if you should be there.
I hope this wasn’t too much text, at least better comprehensible that what’s on the photo.
Proponents for equal rights in the 50s didn’t do arcane legal rituals like putting stamps at a 45 degree angle and signing shit in blood.
Sovcit ideas have no basis in reality. They aren’t arguing that black people are in fact people, they are arguing that they deserve vast sums of money or to be debt free because of made up fairytales about old law books and contracts between companies and the government.
Sovcit ideas have no basis in reality. They aren’t arguing that black people are in fact people, they are arguing that they deserve vast sums of money or to be debt free because of made up fairytales about old law books and contracts between companies and the government.
OK, didn’t know this part.
I also haven’t really met a reichsbuerger or a “citizen of USSR”, so can’t speak about them either.
It still seems that there are some for whom it’s about justice and not about magic.
Most sovcits have issues with not paying child support. They want to not pay, which is how they get started down this rabbit hole and how they end up with so much debt. They think child support or whatever debt they have is an unfair burden, and try to seek justice for themselves by getting the debt erased.
Except unlike a normal person who would work overtime to pay or file for bankruptcy, they start citing law books from the 1850s and start referring to themselves as the person John Doe not the legal entity John Doe, and that the person John Doe doesn’t have any debts for whatever bullshit reason they can think of. That’s why they sign stuff in red, because they think black ink is only for corporations, and red ink is for people.
They think they’re seeking justice for themselves, except they want all of the benefits of being a citizen without any of the responsibility like paying taxes or debts.
There’s a dangerous closeness of this to what’s written in constitutional laws of many states, though, if they are understood literally.
I’ve been called a sovereign citizen for pointing out that after a stolen election a government is illegitimate, and that a law adopted in violation of constitutional law is not a law, and that being party to a contract requires consent, and so on. And that rights are not given by laws. Nobody can give you a right or take it away from you.
By “dangerous” I mean that you should explain to sovcits, reichsbuergers, citizens of USSR and such that what they believe in is not supported by existing mechanisms. Simply that. Their ideas are usually not any worse than what we have in really functioning laws, but they don’t have the power to make them real.
Would you be a sovcit for arguing for equal rights in the 50’s? Just trying an American example. Many people would consider you just as crazy.
In USSR of 60’s and 70’s dissidents were forcibly put into asylums, because “the society” (as in people having power in it) wanted them to be considered crazy. Where are the smug bastards who were doing that now? Oh, shit, they are still the elites in ex-Soviet states. By the way, Estonia’s former PM Kaja Kallas, who likes to publicly lament over USSR taking over Baltics, is from such a family.
You shouldn’t argue with the ethical part, because that’d be arguing in favor of “might makes right”.
I think people who consider something morally right and are ready to oppose the whole world over it deserve utmost respect.
If you are finding yourself on the opposite side of someone much weaker than you and not threatening you, think again if you should be there.
I hope this wasn’t too much text, at least better comprehensible that what’s on the photo.
Proponents for equal rights in the 50s didn’t do arcane legal rituals like putting stamps at a 45 degree angle and signing shit in blood.
Sovcit ideas have no basis in reality. They aren’t arguing that black people are in fact people, they are arguing that they deserve vast sums of money or to be debt free because of made up fairytales about old law books and contracts between companies and the government.
OK, didn’t know this part.
I also haven’t really met a reichsbuerger or a “citizen of USSR”, so can’t speak about them either.
It still seems that there are some for whom it’s about justice and not about magic.
Oh they all think they’ve suffered some injustice
Most sovcits have issues with not paying child support. They want to not pay, which is how they get started down this rabbit hole and how they end up with so much debt. They think child support or whatever debt they have is an unfair burden, and try to seek justice for themselves by getting the debt erased.
Except unlike a normal person who would work overtime to pay or file for bankruptcy, they start citing law books from the 1850s and start referring to themselves as the person John Doe not the legal entity John Doe, and that the person John Doe doesn’t have any debts for whatever bullshit reason they can think of. That’s why they sign stuff in red, because they think black ink is only for corporations, and red ink is for people.
They think they’re seeking justice for themselves, except they want all of the benefits of being a citizen without any of the responsibility like paying taxes or debts.
That is familiar, but around me such people are Marxist.