Again disagree. These are people that saw online or were told by a friend, “Hey you don’t have to register your car or pay taxes.” to which they reply, “That’s exactly what I want reality to be.”
Sorry, that’s imprecise language on my part. I was responding to people talking about anarchists, but I wasn’t really talking about them myself. Sometimes what I’m thinking doesn’t translate properly in my posts, especially when I’m going over complicated concepts and editing myself multiple times before submitting. Sometimes I will put in a word in a Freudian way or forget to change something. I myself did not mean anarchists, I definitely don’t equate the anarchists I see protesting on streets with mountain folk hiding in log cabins and wanting the government to leave them alone.
Actually, they seem so far apart from each other they might as well be on opposite sides of a spectrum. Sorry about the mixup there.
Way to call out Thoreau there, pal.
I might quibble with you on anarchist gatekeeping–there are rightwingers whom I think are both idiots and anarchists–but I definitely agree that the SovCIt folks don’t qualify as anarchists. They’re a bit like the Puritans who fled England not because they wanted religious liberty, but because they wanted a theocratic tyranny that favored their own beliefs. SovCits don’t want liberty, they want a tyranny that backs them up.
With kids who argue with me, I often say something like, “What do you expect to happen next?” Like, do they think I’m going to say, “Oh, Frank called your mom bald-headed? Then absolutely it’s okay for you to knock him down, jolly good show, carry on!” or “You were listening to Taylor Swift, and that’s why you didn’t come set the table? Fair enough, let’s make a new rule that Taylor Swift fans don’t have to do chores!”
When I ask them what they think is going to happen, they generally realize that they hadn’t thought that far ahead, and then we can move forward with, “Okay, whatever you say next, I want you to think about what will probably happen as a result of your words. I’m going to assume that you’ve thought about that, and chosen your words to get that result.”
With SovCits, I want to ask them the same thing. Do they think that they’re going to argue enough with the cops so the cops will say, “Y’know, I guess you really DON’T need a driver’s license if you’re just traveling, good job, carry on!”
I don’t think that follows, obviously the anarchist wants to work, what he doesn’t want is to be exploited, neither him/her self or others.
Yes they do, because the lying shitheels that write the books and pamphlets and run the websites say it works for them.
Are we talking about anarchists or sovcits?
It really is a mixed bag. Some are just lazy grifters, some are people who get caught up in legal troubles, and end up victimized even further by people who peddle this crap to them, knowing they’re vulnerable. Some are just regular old crazy. Some get bent out of shape when they see how much they pay in taxes, and go down the rabbit hole trying to save money (See Wesley Snipes, and a disturbing large number of dentists, for some reason).
Actually, that specific callout was Tolstoy.
It really does depend on what flavour of anarchist you are (there are soooo many) but this holds for me. Anarchism to me means “no rulers”, not “chaos” .
I’ve watched a few videos of these encounters, and I think the cops are misunderstanding how to handle it. Arguing with the SovCits that they’re not interpreting the Constitution correctly is a lost cause. Instead, they should approach it from the angle I suggested: “You think you’re going to persuade me and that I’m not going to handcuff you, but your choices have resulted in these handcuffs going on your wrists. You might think that’s unconstitutional, and I won’t argue that point, but I will put the handcuffs on. If you don’t want the handcuffs next time, you’ll need to make different choices. Whether I’m violating the constitution or not, according to your interpretation, doesn’t affect where the handcuffs go. Choose your actions not according to what some research told you, but according to the predictable results.”
What they will hear is “Burbity burbity blah blah blah”. I’ve seen videos in the past where the police have tried that approach, and it was about as effective as if they had read off the menu from Jack In The Box.
Too much verbiage.
“I’m going to do you a favor. I’m going to arrest you (or alternatively issue you this ticket) so that you will have the opportunity to go in front of the Judge and present your legal theories. If you are correct and I’m wrong, then you go free.”
Yes, but it would be quicker and look fine on the videos to 90+% of the population.
Well, sort of. Remember, you are dealing with people with a lot of low grade desperation who don’t know how to get their shit together. This isn’t a political philosophy. It’s a Hail Mary play.
Pseudolegal, actually, but your points are well-made, and well-taken.
I meant “legal in their minds” but I get what you’re saying.
It’s legal the way that homeopathy is scientific.
The essence of the mindset to me boils down to: “You’re not the boss of ME!”
They don’t recognize it as an arrest, they do not recognize the man behind the desk as a judge, and in their minds they are already the winner.
“Maybe not, but whoever IS the boss of you is gonna be pissed when I do the paperwork on this interaction. Because I’m a HUGE tattletale.”
This brings it back to the OP. this what an anarchist would say. The only reason the policeman is arresting people and judge is behind the desk sentencing people is because they have the power of state violence behind them, not because they have some inherent moral authority.
Have you ever talked with an anarchist?