Jurisdiction evidence

[JamesVincent]

That's a good idea. Yeah, we can add two groups (Temp Bans, Perm Bans) with special images, but it would still take an admin to add any given ban to the group. There's a mod to automatically do it. I'm making some backups now and I'm going to install it.

Thanks Web, you're the bestest.

[tracer]

Wow, this thread's only two days old and it's already 7 8 pages long!

This thread actually piqued my interest, a bit, as to what exactly is meant by the phrase "Consent of the Governed."

Turns out, there's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

[webhick]

That's a good idea. Yeah, we can add two groups (Temp Bans, Perm Bans) with special images, but it would still take an admin to add any given ban to the group. There's a mod to automatically do it. I'm making some backups now and I'm going to install it.

Thanks Web, you're the bestest.

No problem. It went off without a hitch.

[JamesVincent]

Wow, this thread's only two days old and it's already 7 8 pages long!

This thread actually piqued my interest, a bit, as to what exactly is meant by the phrase "Consent of the Governed."

Turns out, there's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

The theory of tacit consent of the governed holds that if the people live in a country that is not undergoing a rebellion, they have consented to the rule of that country's government.

In other words if you dont like the rules in this sandbox, move to a different sandbox.

[LPC]

This thread actually piqued my interest, a bit, as to what exactly is meant by the phrase "Consent of the Governed."

When travis used the phrase, it occurred to me that sovs and other loonies could misinterpret the phrase just like they misunderstand the idea that "the people are sovereign."

The idea that "the people are sovereign" does not mean that each individual is a sovereign. That would be idiotic. (Which never a hindrance to sov thinking.) Rather (of course), it means that the people *collectively* are sovereign.

Similarly, "the consent of the governed" does not mean that each individual person must agree to be subject to the laws of the government, but only that the people *collectively* must consent to be governed.

[notorial dissent]

You're still confusing him/them, and they don't want to be unconfused. They like that not so little mis-conception, just like they like they are in love with the one that "includes" is restrictive.

[Kestrel]

The theory of tacit consent of the governed holds that if the people live in a country that is not undergoing a rebellion, they have consented to the rule of that country's government.

In other words if you dont like the rules in this sandbox, move to a different sandbox.

But... But... When you're a wood-be sov'run you can always find a nearby rebellion, so there's no need to leave. If you can't find one nearby or on the internet, you can start your own!

So there! You get to stay in your sandbox AND avoid consenting!

[Pottapaug1938]

Ah. Thank you for the explanation, that kinda confused me. Maybe we need a BANNED title picture so there is no further confusion.

That's a good idea. Yeah, we can add two groups (Temp Bans, Perm Bans) with special images, but it would still take an admin to add any given ban to the group. There's a mod to automatically do it. I'm making some backups now and I'm going to install it.

Change the avatar for a Temp Ban to a picture of a dog house; and change that of a Perm Ban to one of a boot print.

[webhick]

Ah. Thank you for the explanation, that kinda confused me. Maybe we need a BANNED title picture so there is no further confusion.

That's a good idea. Yeah, we can add two groups (Temp Bans, Perm Bans) with special images, but it would still take an admin to add any given ban to the group. There's a mod to automatically do it. I'm making some backups now and I'm going to install it.

Change the avatar for a Temp Ban to a picture of a dog house; and change that of a Perm Ban to one of a boot print.

Will do so when I get home.

[tracer]

Boy, am I slow.

I just now got why Pottapaug1938 chose the posting avatar (s)he did.

"Sovereign" citizens indeed!

[Burnaby49]

Boy, am I slow.

I just now got why Pottapaug1938 chose the posting avatar (s)he did.

"Sovereign" citizens indeed!

Or maybe because he is a coin collector and this is a unique and very valuable coin. It shows the vanity and disregard for tradition of that empty-headed fool King Edward VIII. By tradition each British monarch's portrait on coinage faces in the opposite direction to that of his or her predecessor. Edward broke this tradition by insisting that he be faced in the same direction as his father. What obviously very important consideration demanded that this centuries old rule be violated? Edward wanted the parting in his hair to show, he thought it highlighted his good side. Since this was tradition, not legislation, the government agreed to his wishes and left-facing coins were prepared for minting. Very few examples were struck before he he was kicked out and none were officially issued.

[travis]

@LPC:
"There are a number of indications that we are not dealing with a rational person"

Yeah, asking for evidence which isn't fallacious is a clear sign of irrationality. I'm not sarcastic, in Legalland there is no such thing, only legal opinion, so you're technically right.

"The criteria for evaluating "evidence" is ad hoc and constantly shifting."

Do you want me to list all the potential logical fallacies you could commit when presenting "evidence"?

No, but it would be interesting if you could point to ONE ACTUAL (not "potential") logical fallacy I have ACTUALLY committed (and not "could commit").

As I recently explained (again), you think that something is "circular" when it's actually just definitional. A "law" is something that is enforced. Evidence that something is enforced is not "circular" because enforcement is part of the definition of what "law" means.

Since you obviously read that post here is what I've said about your "evidence":

I'm not disputing that some people were elected in governmental positions, I'm disputing that it's evidence. I've earlier shown it to be a circular argument (1, 3 and 4). Points 2 and 5 are also invalid, unless logic is subject to statistics. Can a majority of people (in this case, the voters) decide what's real and what's not? For instance, the people in Europe in the Dark Ages largely believed the Earth to be flat, in the center of the Universe, etc. Was that true?

About your reference to democracy, how can a group of people, made of individuals that don't have the rights they confer to government, give all the powers that the government has? I assume 1 individual doesn't have the monopoly on anything but himself. 2 people, the same. What's the number for which the magic happens?

For reference:

Returning to the original question:

What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?

Still not sure what question you (travis) are asking, but the following are possible answers:

1. The actual language of the US Constitution, Internal Revenue Code, and Regulations.

2. The voting records of the ratification of the Constitution, and the records of the elections of the Congresses that enacted the Internal Revenue Code.

3. Court decisions that applied that Constitution, those statutes, and those regulations to citizens and residents of the United States (meaning the citizens and residents of the states of the United States).

4. Legislative histories showing that Congress was aware of, and approved, the court decisions described in #3.

5. Newspaper and other public records showing that voters knew of, and approved of, the decisions described in #3 and #4.

6. Academic papers, academic journals, news reports, and other public records reporting and confirming the decisions described in items #2, #3, #4, and #5.

I will also add argument from authority to the list of fallacies, considering that the individuals that get their authority to emit opinions about the law cannot simply say that the law applies in the first place, since without actually showing that the law applies beforehand, they have no authority.


One last point until I permanently separate myself from this tangled mess of insanity you have inflicted upon me (my fault for asking a question to you, actually):

Sorry, Dan, but you overanalyze it. The guy is simply a twit.

I was thinking about "sociopath" but was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He's no longer entitled to that benefit.

You accuse me of being a sociopath, or "A person with an antisocial personality disorder, exhibiting antisocial behavior that usually is the result of social and environmental factors in the person's early life" when you, as well as most if not all the posters in this thread support a system based entirely on the initiation of aggression. Who's going to protect you from robbers if we don't rob you (sorry, tax you) to protect you?

[Burnaby49]

If you don't like the way things are going for you here, and are not satisfied with the answers you're getting, why not start your own website? Then you don't have to put up with people not treating your nonsense as deep wisdom.

[wserra]

I will also add argument from authority to the list of fallacies

Nice of you so clearly to demonstrate how you - like lots of others who come here to show us the error of our ways - confuse what the law is with what you'd like it to be. The law is one giant, specialized argument from authority. While in ordinary discourse "it's true because X says it is" isn't much of an argument, in law it may be the dispositive argument, depending on the nature of "X". You not only fail to understand this but call it a "fallacy". That's ignorance of the law on the most fundamental level. It's why Stevens gets his head handed to him whenever he makes the mistake of involving himself in anything more serious than a traffic ticket.

In your case it's actually worse than that, because you never state an alternative. In your case, it's never what the law is, only what it isn't - applicable to you, that is. The word is "sophistry".

[LPC]

The law is one giant, specialized argument from authority. While in ordinary discourse "it's true because X says it is" isn't much of an argument, in law it may be the dispositive argument, depending on the nature of "X". You not only fail to understand this but call it a "fallacy".

As I already explained in another post, travis also confuses circularity with definitions. Demonstrating that a word falls within its definition is not "circular."

In the other post, I also quoted a dictionary for a (not "the") definition of "law" as "a rule established by authority...." If you are working within that definition, then an "appeal to authority" is not a "logical fallacy" but is proof that something falls within the definition of "law."

I think that travis's position is now clear. There is no such thing as "authority." The word might as well not exist, because it has no meaning. And so the word "law" has no meaning.

Which means that travis suffers from what might be called "delusion-induced aphasia" (or "DIA" for short). The words have no meaning for him, so there's no point in talking to him about them, because he is incapable of understanding them.

[notorial dissent]

Travis, I have yet to see you actually state what you consider "evidence" to be. I've watched your pointless attempts at ignoring what you have been shown, but I have yet to see you actually say anything dispositive. So just what do you consider "evidence" since you obviously don't trust what is right in front of you?

[Famspear]

The law is one giant, specialized argument from authority. While in ordinary discourse "it's true because X says it is" isn't much of an argument, in law it may be the dispositive argument, depending on the nature of "X". You not only fail to understand this but call it a "fallacy".

I don't think widdle Twavis weeeelly understands much about the rules of logic, including the concept of fallacious appeal to authority.

Widdle Twavis is upset because he has never gotten over the words he heard when he was a widdle feller: "Travis, you have to do what I say, because I'm the Mommie and I say so."

[Famspear]

I have found that tax protester/sovereign idiot types do tend to use the phrase "appeal to authority" without understanding it. Here is an explanation of the difference between a logical appeal to authority and a fallacious appeal to authority.

Pay attention, Travis.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)

In attempting to make up one's mind on a difficult and complicated question, one may seek to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly. One may argue that such and such a conclusion is correct because it is the best judgment of such an expert authority. This method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate. For most of us the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. If nonexperts are disputing over some question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it. This is a relative matter, however, for if experts rather than nonexperts are disputing over a question in the field in which they themselves are experts, their appeal would be only to the facts and to reason, and any appeal to the authority of another expert would be completely without value as evidence.

But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of ''argumentum ad verecundiam''. If in an argument about morality one of the disputants appeals to the opinions of Darwin, a great authority in biology, the appeal is fallacious. Similarly, an appeal to the opinions of a great physicist like Einstein to settle a political or economic argument would be fallacious. The claim might be that people brilliant enough to achieve the status of authorities in advanced and difficult fields like biology or physics must have correct opinions in field other than their specialties. But the weakness of this claim is obvious when we realize that, in this day of extreme specialization, to obtain thorough knowledge of one field requires such concentration as to restrict the possibility of achieving authoritative knowledge in others. Advertising "testimonials" are frequent instances of this fallacy. We are urged to wear garments of such and such a brand because a champion golfer or football star affirms their superiority. And we are assured that such and such a cosmetic is better because it is preferred by this opera singer or that movie star. Of course, such an advertisement may equally well be construed as snob appeal and listed as an example of an ''argumentum ad populum''. But where a proposition is claimed to be literally true on the basis of its assertion by an "authority" whose competence lies in a different field, we have a fallacy of ''argumentum ad verecundiam''.

--Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan Publishing Company (7th ed. 1986), pp. 98-99.

[LPC]

I have found that tax protester/sovereign idiot types do tend to use the phrase "appeal to authority" without understanding it. Here is an explanation of the difference between a logical appeal to authority and a fallacious appeal to authority.

Sorry, but quoting an authority on logic is itself a "fallacious appeal to authority."

Catch-22.

[travis]

I have found that tax protester/sovereign idiot types do tend to use the phrase "appeal to authority" without understanding it. Here is an explanation of the difference between a logical appeal to authority and a fallacious appeal to authority.

Pay attention, Travis.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)

In attempting to make up one's mind on a difficult and complicated question, one may seek to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly. One may argue that such and such a conclusion is correct because it is the best judgment of such an expert authority. This method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate. For most of us the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. If nonexperts are disputing over some question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it. This is a relative matter, however, for if experts rather than nonexperts are disputing over a question in the field in which they themselves are experts, their appeal would be only to the facts and to reason, and any appeal to the authority of another expert would be completely without value as evidence.

But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of ''argumentum ad verecundiam''. If in an argument about morality one of the disputants appeals to the opinions of Darwin, a great authority in biology, the appeal is fallacious. Similarly, an appeal to the opinions of a great physicist like Einstein to settle a political or economic argument would be fallacious. The claim might be that people brilliant enough to achieve the status of authorities in advanced and difficult fields like biology or physics must have correct opinions in field other than their specialties. But the weakness of this claim is obvious when we realize that, in this day of extreme specialization, to obtain thorough knowledge of one field requires such concentration as to restrict the possibility of achieving authoritative knowledge in others. Advertising "testimonials" are frequent instances of this fallacy. We are urged to wear garments of such and such a brand because a champion golfer or football star affirms their superiority. And we are assured that such and such a cosmetic is better because it is preferred by this opera singer or that movie star. Of course, such an advertisement may equally well be construed as snob appeal and listed as an example of an ''argumentum ad populum''. But where a proposition is claimed to be literally true on the basis of its assertion by an "authority" whose competence lies in a different field, we have a fallacy of ''argumentum ad verecundiam''.

--Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan Publishing Company (7th ed. 1986), pp. 98-99.

Since Lysander Spooner was a lawyer, so an authority in the field of law, can we proceed to looking at the evidence used by the judges to prove they have jurisdiction? Geography with borders on it? I'm sure that you're familiar with Spooner's "No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority". But really, even in your definition it's stated "If nonexperts are disputing over some question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it." As far as I know Einstein actually proved the opinions he held, using the scientific method. Show me a judge that does that when providing arguments for jurisdiction (if it's not ASSumed from the get go).

Famspear, are you trolling in the forum in which you're a moderator?

@LPC: I understand that you think that the law applies because it's defined that way, so the law applies because of word magic. About the sociopath part, no contest?

The law is one giant, specialized argument from authority.

Nice try, but this isn't about what the law is or is not. It's about why would anyone care, since obviously no one cares if I write documents that state that I'm the emperor of the galaxy. But if you put "law" in front, who knows?

Travis, I have yet to see you actually state what you consider "evidence" to be. I've watched your pointless attempts at ignoring what you have been shown, but I have yet to see you actually say anything dispositive. So just what do you consider "evidence" since you obviously don't trust what is right in front of you?

I don't trust opinions supported (if that) by baseless assertions. Remember, you have evidence or you don't, it doesn't matter what I believe about that evidence. I've just shown why what was presented so far has no basis in reality. As wserra said on Marc Stevens' forum, you pay taxes because you don't want to be a freeloader on society (pulled straight from his ass) or because if you don't you'll be forced. For examples of evidence look at murder trials. Oddly they sometimes deal with evidence from time to time.