Lottery tickets are entertainment, and don’t demonstrate evidence of stupidity. I’m sure some people buy them as retirement plans out of stupidity, but a normal middle class person buying a lotto ticket for fun isn’t acting stupidly any more than is a person buying a ticket to see a movie.
Smart people can believe idiotic things. Characterizing sovereign citizens as “just stupid” isn’t QUITE as wrong as WillFarnaby’s bizarre claim that they’re engaged in civil disobedience, but it’s not far off. Belief in conspiracy theories does not generally spring from stupidity, it springs from some emotional need.
Ok you are in a position to read the minds of the Sovcits. I am not, but I see what they communicate as their motivations.
Ok but understand that members of some ideologies have the same view of adherents to liberal statist ideologies. Perhaps a bias is at play.
Perhaps you also misunderstand the motivations of the SovCits. If they wanted to evade responsibility and live a comfortable life they could go on the dole or get a government job. That is how you evade consequences in modern US society. This doesn’t appeal to them for whatever reason.
Many are silly, but many are engaging in civil disobedience. You just have a problem with the term “civil disobedience” being applied to people you don’t like.
You gotta diversify your portfolio, so buy both PowerBall and MegaMillions.
But yeah, I see them as entertainment. When the lotto gets real high, I sometimes expend $2 to be able to have a fantasy. Cheaper than movie tickets, and lasts longer than Endgame.
There is absolutely something not quite right in the head with them, and it is possible that many of them are dumb and duped. But there are most certainly some very smart people who buy into this delusion.
As my brother is a sovcit, I am in a position to judge their motives (even though I don’t see him often anymore, with his being in jail anytime he stays in one place long enough to annoy LEO). It has nothing to do with civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is when you feel a law is unjust, and you break that law with the specific purpose of getting to play the martyr card, and use that sympathy to get the law changed for the betterment of society.
That’s not what they do, they don’t want the laws improved for us “useful idiots”, they want the laws to not apply to them.
No, they literally think that by writing “accepted 4 value” on a receipt means that the bill is paid for by their secret bank account in Fort Knox. That’s not bias, that’s delusion.
Quite a number of them do get govt benefits.
No, they don’t want a boss or any responsibility.
Which is why they don’t pay taxes, get a driver’s licences, register their car, pay their child support?
Sure, they have different motivations and methods, just like you cannot generalize all bigots into having the same motive for their hate, or the same way of expressing it, SovCits have different reasons for wishing that they have no responsibilities to their community, and different ways of trying to evade it.
The one thing that they have in common though, is that they do not believe that laws apply to them. They are not trying to create some revolution, they are not trying to free the rest of us sheeple, they are just trying to scam the system into granting them a favored status over the rest of us.
I worked with a guy, maybe 20 years ago now, that was one of these. He didn’t pay taxes. On his paperwork in HR he claimed a TON of dependents or something similar, so they withheld very little from his pay. Then, at the end of the year (watch this kids! you won’t be disappointed!) he would file a 1040 that was blank except for his signature at the bottom. His thinking (and I’m SURE he didn’t come up with this on his own) was that you 1) Have to file a tax form, and 2) can’t lie on the tax form, so he had found the “One secret loophole the IRS doesn’t want you to know about”. He should have filed an ID10T, instead.
That my brother is a SovCit is not just a sample, but also a reason as to why I have looked into this movement more than enough to see the motives of its followers and its leaders.
Where are you getting your information as to the motives you assume of these people?
I’m not trying to say these people aren’t off, but in a rather perverse way of looking at things you can think of some words or phrases as being “magic words” to get you out of things.
Again, you have to squint to see it, but that magic word can be, “No” or “I don’t consent” or “I want my lawyer” or “I’m asserting my right to remain silent.”
If a LEO stops you and asks to search your car, there are probably a lot of people who don’t realize they can say “No.” So to some, being able to avoid a search simply by saying the right thing at the right time looks like a magic phrase that asserts you controlling the situation, not the LEO.
It is a long way to go from that to standing in front of a judge and claiming the judge has no authority over you, but it isn’t a quantum leap. Often times the authority others have over us is only there because we grant it, and these people think that LEOs are using authority that is mostly imaginary, like asking to search a vehicle when the driver doesn’t realize they can say no.
Sounds like my suspicon that the average sovereign citizen is mentally ill to a greater or lesser degree is true. I mean, there’s some fairly convoluted thinking that requires some intelligence to understand and apply, but the idea that someone would actually read this stuff and believe it points at having more than a few screws loose.
I just don’t get it, in so many of the videos the LEO just wants to write the ticket and be on the way but the sovs insist on dragging it out until they get arrested.
In a similar way to how a cult member is mentally ill. The “beliefs” feed into the delusion, and the delusion reinforces the beliefs. The world that cannot understand them is what is insane (to them).
Or the cops just want to see their ID, warn them about their tail light, and get back to busting meth labs in Rural-Ass Ammurica.
I cannot believe how patient some of these police are. I often wonder if they get “Dealing With Sovereigns/Elderly/Mentally Ill” training.
ETA: Hey, Cop Shops, handy hint: Do NOT hire me. I’d spend exactly thirty seconds with these people. “Okay, you have the count of ten to get in the back of the cruiser, or I’ll tase you and drag your twitching body in there myself. And by the way, I LOVE tasing people like you…”
And it’s not as though the authority of the slaveowners and warlords who would most likely be riding your ass in the absence of government would be any more “legitimate” either.
I think the whole complaint that government is “illegitimate” is fundamentally absurd. “Illegitimate” compared to what? To some fantasy scenario where you’re somehow not subject to any type of coercive authority in any form?
Sorry, that’s like saying that speech is an “illegitimate” form of communication by comparison with magical telepathic thought transference. Trying to define “legitimacy” on the basis of some imaginary alternative that’s not realistically feasible doesn’t make sense.
I think the idea is is that “we” never had a choice, we never agreed to the social contract fully informed and without coercion. I disagree with this line of “reasoning” BTW.
But, for those who feel as though they don’t want to be a part of the contract of our society, I am more than generous enough to send them to whatever country they can get to take them, or if no one will take them, escort them to the freedom of international waters.
There are plenty of people that would like to come here and voluntarily join our society. We have no need of people that don’t want to be here, and they are just taking up “space*” that could be used by someone who does.
*not that I think that we are running short of space anytime soon.
Sure, but the point that you can’t have any kind of social system which everybody consents to in a purely voluntary way, fully informed and without coercion of any sort. Maybe a string quartet can be run on that basis, but not a human society.
Using an unrealizable imaginary model as the yardstick for measuring the legitimacy of real-life governments is just stupid.
But, even if you disagree that you signed up for it, you cannot deny that the govt has the ability to enforce its legitimacy through force, if necessary.
If you don’t recognize the Mafia as a legitimate authority in your neighborhood, you still aren’t going to get them to leave you alone, or even pay you or show you favoritism, just because you know Italian.
Anarchism is worse than that, because it refuses to admit what it really is: Majoritarianism, or the rule by the biggest group, which is rightly reviled because majoritarian systems tend to be very, very dangerous for minorities.
Anarchists claim it isn’t, but it can’t be anything else. If it had a way to prevent the majority from acting on dangerous whims, it couldn’t possibly be anarchism, because it would have a way to coerce groups into not destroying minorities.
Note well: Pointing out the flaws of other systems is a non sequitur. Therefore, I won’t respond to people saying liberal democracy, for example, has had failures in the past as if they made an actual argument. If you really don’t understand why tearing another system down does nothing to build your system up, read a book on basic logic and argumentation. Thank you.
I’ve dealt with Freemen, SCs and their urban equivalents, Moorish Americans, in my court many times and always find them interesting - 5% law and 95% jive.
I will sometimes tell them, “Lincoln needed just three minutes at Gettysburg to describe his Civil War policies. I’ll give you five minutes to explain why this court has no jurisdiction over you.” I’ll take notes and, at the end of the five minutes, politely explain, point by point, why they’re wrong, and then say, “We will now proceed with this case.” Far more often than not, they just want to be heard, even if they still don’t agree that the law applies to them.
A favorite quotation for such yahoos: “Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.