Legit concerns of self-sovereignty advocates?

[olehenry1]

I am new here.
Over the course of my (24) adult years, I have befriended several self-sovereignty advocates who most basically desire to live w/o unnecessary burdensome bureaucracies of Fed, State, and large Cities of the USA, usually attracted to living slower, simpler lifestyles in lower-populated towns, of say several thousand population. In spite of the legion of wild arguments passing through those communities (morphing to & from various social structures, and then dissolving), most of the diligent individuals that I met were simply unable to align their (moral) standards to their lives as USA citizens following the rules (as I was).

Typically from what I understood, the philosophies focused on TWO main desires:
i) generate the least amount of harm (first & foremost) and
ii) maximize generation of value, to self and others (secondary to i).
This latter was clearly difficult because the Fed survives by taking 33 - 50% of ii), only to re-direct half of those tax funds into "creating jobs" for the industrial military complex or "war machine" or whatever you call it (not my terms of course, but AFAIK, not controversial descriptions), and so most of them had basically given up on ii) in an attempt to be in harmony with i).

If interested in this topic, please at least create an in-line response HERE: Is the USA Fed an "industrial military complex", to any (what?) degree, and if not, do the actions of military agents (soldiers) generate much harm (to individuals)?

The second most common objection to USA Fed that I hear is the resulting financial instability of the various systems that are directly controlled and indirectly influenced. I first noticed such complaints after the dot-com days (when I was young & starting out w/ good hard work in Silicon Valley), where/when most of my friends and family were joining dishonest exaggerative "start-ups", & asking for my small savings to "invest" in hopes of winning a lottery, (or two), followed by begging for bailouts. The same complaints resurfaced strongly post-911 spending, and then again post-"financial collapse", and now&then w/ any tremendous printing of cash at the Fed Reserve. With the trillions of debt, to be paid (to whom exactly?) and by whom, I stop to think too (and thus share my questions).

These two issues (contributing to harm & financial instability) seem to be the strongest arguments for those not participating in the USA Fed, and while these types of complicated, historical schemes are common in: all Western democracies, USA's States, larger Cities, etc., the USA Fed seems to be by far the biggest generator of harm. These folks just want to relieve themselves of that major relationship while still living life to the fullest, which means exchanging value for value at one's highest abilities w/o being threatened or forced to be in jail for not funding these two apparent blunders.

Recently, the conversation seems to become more sophisticated, and maybe alarmist (as though the system will collapse but somehow other systems will be untouched or acceptable), as many claim to be preparing for themselves and their children the ability to:
1) enable oneself to be easily mobile, out of "harm's way" across the largest number of country "borders",
2) enable (assuming parallel moral/ethics growth as freeperson) increasingly highly-skilled education/practice for self-sustaining and high-value trading w/ others, and
3) most easily transfer personal wealth (obviously w/ minimal confiscation).

As an example of a simple early-stage confusion in context of the above desires & preparations, one such USA couple here in Nevada is stuck at the earliest step of "signing up" their nearly-newborn for an SSA contract for the SSN. The questions that really got me thinking:
Is it insane to act like (as parents) that one is really writing up this contract between our newborn and this harm-generating institution?
Should not (or is not) the Fed simply assign(ing) the SSN to each newborn USA citizen; why should we bother?
Why describe the SSA as a "voluntarily" arrangement? since an SSN is absolutely required for all expressions of living as a human, such as: exchanging value for value in a USA-bounded community, communicating agreement on ownership of USA-jurisdiction property, preparing to travel via automobile, airplane, or to transverse "boundaries", ad nauseam...

Anyways, I am curious for each of your thoughts. Such a broad subject that hurts my brain, and makes me think in new ways. I think this is a good place to post these questions because from my reading of the Forum discussions, the quality of thinking is deep, w/ the writers adhering to coherent & common philosophies on moral conduct in private & social contexts while constructing integrated arguments about various details w/in schemes. I hope those sentences are clear enough to express that I look forward to each of your thoughts and advise to give to any citizen of USA that thinks s/he is self-sovereign (self-owner, self-ruling, self-responsible).

Thanks for considering, Henry

[morrand]

Hi Henry! I have a bad sense that you're not going to get the kind of answers here that you're looking for. That's partly because we've seen a pattern of trolling here before, which could be called, "I'm just asking questions." That's the scheme in which the troll comes in asking questions which, usually, assume the conclusion, and then goes on to defend the point, retreating, when challenged, into the assertion that they're "just asking." I won't go into details—you can browse around and eventually you'll see what I mean. What you have written sounds awfully like it, though.

Another part is that you may be badly tangling yourself in your syntax. Not to pick on you, but this:

As an example of a simple early-stage confusion in context of the above desires & preparations, one such USA couple here in Nevada is stuck at the earliest step of "signing up" their nearly-newborn for an SSA contract for the SSN.

could, I think, be more simply rendered as:

For example, one couple here in Nevada is stuck at "signing up" their new child to an SSA contract in order to get an SSN.

You can write plainly here. It's fine. People here will get it. But the trolls often hide themselves in a thicket of words, either as a play to sound more sophisticated or to obfuscate. So, don't look like a troll if that's not what you're doing.

If it is what you're doing, good luck. I hope your destruction will be swift and painless.

Is the USA Fed an "industrial military complex", to any (what?) degree, and if not, do the actions of military agents (soldiers) generate much harm (to individuals)?

When you say "Fed," do you mean the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the usual meaning I've seen around? If so, then no, I don't think it is. If you mean "Federal government," then perhaps so, but what of it? Opting out of the system is about as effective against that as opting out of a house fire. Opting in, and taking direct political action, would seem like the more mature and effective response.

The second most common objection to USA Fed that I hear is the resulting financial instability of the various systems that are directly controlled and indirectly influenced. I first noticed such complaints after the dot-com days (when I was young & starting out w/ good hard work in Silicon Valley), where/when most of my friends and family were joining dishonest exaggerative "start-ups", & asking for my small savings to "invest" in hopes of winning a lottery, (or two), followed by begging for bailouts. The same complaints resurfaced strongly post-911 spending, and then again post-"financial collapse", and now&then w/ any tremendous printing of cash at the Fed Reserve. With the trillions of debt, to be paid (to whom exactly?) and by whom, I stop to think too (and thus share my questions).

I don't understand how you connect dot-com investments, etc., to the Fed (using either definition), nor whose "trillions of debt" you mean. There is not "tremendous printing of cash at the Fed Reserve," because if there were, we would likely suffer destructive levels of inflation. Illustration #1 of this is the nation of Zimbabwe. As we don't want to go that route, the Fed carefully meters how much money it adds to the economy. This is one of its primary functions.

These folks just want to relieve themselves of that major relationship while still living life to the fullest, which means exchanging value for value at one's highest abilities w/o being threatened or forced to be in jail for not funding these two apparent blunders.

And that's fine, except that "these two apparent blunders" include an awful lot of other things under their roof. Physical defense. Transportation. Enforcement of contracts: if you try to exchange value for value, and the other side won't agree on the value, or cheats, how do you propose to settle the matter? Weights and measures. Regulation of growth, like I mentioned, which keeps you from putting away a dollar and having it shrink into a penny overnight. Regulation of investments, which usually helps avoid things like the dot-com bust by putting the damper on "dishonest start-ups" like the ones you complain of. Pest control. Disease control. Pollution control. All these things cost money, and you get some benefit from most of them most of the time, directly or indirectly. Hence the requirement to fund them, or skedaddle.

Is it insane to act like (as parents) that one is really writing up this contract between our newborn and this harm-generating institution?
Should not (or is not) the Fed simply assign(ing) the SSN to each newborn USA citizen; why should we bother?

The answer to your first question is yes, it is, because there is no contract involved. I don't quite understand your second question, but might if you were to write it more plainly.

Why describe the SSA as a "voluntarily" arrangement? since an SSN is absolutely required for all expressions of living as a human, such as: exchanging value for value in a USA-bounded community, communicating agreement on ownership of USA-jurisdiction property, preparing to travel via automobile, airplane, or to transverse "boundaries", ad nauseam...

Your guess is as good as mine as to why the SSA is a "voluntary" arrangement, since it surely is not. Your premise is flawed, anyway, because a SSN is not required to exchange value for value (e.g., buy groceries), agree on property ownership (ibid.), or prepare to travel in a car or airplane.

I hope those sentences are clear enough to express that I look forward to each of your thoughts and advise to give to any citizen of USA that thinks s/he is self-sovereign (self-owner, self-ruling, self-responsible).

I direct you to my advice at the top of this post. As to a self-sovereign person, my advice would be not to bother with self-sovereignty. It's too much trouble.

[Resume]

Participating in a society is tough. You don't always get things your way. Somebody may even be the boss of you. You can participate in democracy to try and bring change, or perhaps engage in civil disobedience, but you have to accept the consequences. No rules just right was a stupid advertising campaign.

P.S. Life isn't fair.

[GlimDropper]

Individual sovereignty is a delusion, based on conspiracy theories, false facts and self inflicted ignorance. It does not and has never existed in this country or pert near any other for quite some time. If you dislike being an American and wish to separate yourself from it you can do it you just have to become a naturalized citizen of some other nation, after you do that, as long as you stay out of the US then Uncle Sam will leave you be.

On a practical level, if you wish to be as independent as possible decide between a small apartment in a large city or a cabin in the middle of nowhere (pizza delivery is easier in cities). Find a way to create value as you put it and cause no more trouble than you want to deal with. City or prairie you will need to pay your taxes, that gets back to the "cause no more trouble" thing. If you drive, have a license, registration and insurance. That's what I do and in the last 20 or so years I've spent maybe 20 minutes talking with a cop where I wasn't immediately at liberty to leave (I did end up paying the traffic ticket).

Anything viewed through a "sovereign" lens will be distorted. Do I like our military budget? Hell no so I participate in the political process with hopes of advancing candidates that better align with my ideals. Is it perfect? Very far from it but given that the only other choices are leaving the country or deluding myself that the laws don't apply to me (and suffering the consequences of that delusion) I stick with the hand dealt.

Do you have any alternatives to what I posted above that you believe to be practical and workable?

[Siegfried Shrink]

Most if not all of the subjects scrutinised here go about their 'independence' in a way that guarantees they won't have any. They latch onto false theories that ensure that they do things to attract attention to themselves, but also things that have no real benfit to them. What you do not see are accounts of people who do manage to live a largely tax and beaurocracy free life because drawing attention to themselves is not part of the game plan.

Start with any fundamentally wrong assumption and no chain of reasoning, however logical will lead to a useful conclusion. Few governments are actually evil in themselves. The German NSDAP and the Russian communist party and even the Mugabe government of Zimbabwe were based on flawed precepts and failed and were swept away. Others based on sounder principles have survived and thrived. History shows with governments as well as people that if you keep getting it wrong you will be replaced.
Most stable governments do things wrong now and again, their stabilty allows this to happen without great consequence and the people making the decisions are usually as flawed as you and I. Simply saying, "Feck it, I'm off' can work but to work you actually need to go somewhere different, usually another country more to your liking.
Just opting out of what you don't like and staying put to enjoy what you do like will not work. That is why the sov-cits will never be anything but a curious historical footnote.

Having a pretty good idea how everything really works enables one to sidestep problems before they occour, but cleaving to the freeman-sovcit magic is just one way of driving in traffic with your eyes closed, constant collisions easily avoided by most.

[olehenry1]

Hi Morrand,
I appreciate your overall skepticism, and I agree, my post reads like I had come to spread some sort of libertarian approach. That's sort of accurate, in that as I was trying to capture the arguments that I have heard over the years, but I will not need to respond to much of your responses since I am not arguing for any particular side.

Hi Henry! I have a bad sense that you're not going to get the kind of answers here that you're looking for. That's partly because we've seen a pattern of trolling here before, which could be called, "I'm just asking questions." That's the scheme in which the troll comes in asking questions which, usually, assume the conclusion, and then goes on to defend the point, retreating, when challenged, into the assertion that they're "just asking." I won't go into details—you can browse around and eventually you'll see what I mean. What you have written sounds awfully like it, though.

Another part is that you may be badly tangling yourself in your syntax. Not to pick on you, but this:

As an example of a simple early-stage confusion in context of the above desires & preparations, one such USA couple here in Nevada is stuck at the earliest step of "signing up" their nearly-newborn for an SSA contract for the SSN.

could, I think, be more simply rendered as:

For example, one couple here in Nevada is stuck at "signing up" their new child to an SSA contract in order to get an SSN.

You can write plainly here. It's fine. People here will get it. But the trolls often hide themselves in a thicket of words, either as a play to sound more sophisticated or to obfuscate. So, don't look like a troll if that's not what you're doing.

I really should slow down -- I habitually speed through a rough draft, try to force it into something coherent, and click "Send" after a couple of read-throughs. I think I simply do not understand the arguments well, and end trying to include all sorts of info that may or may not be relevant. Thanks for making it through though, and I actually read and try to digest your corrections.

If it is what you're doing, good luck. I hope your destruction will be swift and painless.

Is the USA Fed an "industrial military complex", to any (what?) degree, and if not, do the actions of military agents (soldiers) generate much harm (to individuals)?

When you say "Fed," do you mean the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the usual meaning I've seen around? If so, then no, I don't think it is. If you mean "Federal government," then perhaps so...

I should have made that clear. Yes, Fed meaning USA Federal Gov't.

...but what of it? Opting out of the system is about as effective against that as opting out of a house fire. Opting in, and taking direct political action, would seem like the more mature and effective response.

That's true, and usually my response as well. I think most of these people will simply ignore the harm, let the system be, and leave if/when things "get bad". The most obvious negative example is WWII era Germany, where the same argument holds (I think). Take direct political action or get out and find a lesser (subjective) evil.

<I'm snipping out the financial stuff, as I think the arguments I tried to portray are not ones that will start easily from a common ground.>
<Also going to snip the arguments of how many and which gov't services are all well, good enough, or faulty>

Is it insane to act like (as parents) that one is really writing up this contract between our newborn and this harm-generating institution?
Should not (or is not) the Fed simply assign(ing) the SSN to each newborn USA citizen; why should we bother?

The answer to your first question is yes, it is, because there is no contract involved.

Interesting. Any one else want to weigh-in on this one?

I don't quite understand your second question, but might if you were to write it more plainly.

An SSA- or IRS- or USA- ID# should simply be assigned to each newborn, and the whole insurance & taxation scheme simply be forced (a contract between newborn & USA for services in exchange for payments).

Why describe the SSA as a "voluntarily" arrangement? since an SSN is absolutely required for all expressions of living as a human, such as: exchanging value for value in a USA-bounded community, communicating agreement on ownership of USA-jurisdiction property, preparing to travel via automobile, airplane, or to transverse "boundaries", ad nauseam...

Your guess is as good as mine as to why the SSA is a "voluntary" arrangement, since it surely is not. Your premise is flawed, anyway, because a SSN is not required to exchange value for value (e.g., buy groceries), agree on property ownership (ibid.), or prepare to travel in a car or airplane.

I was thinking exchange value for value as a method to generate wealth/reputation first (not the use for buying groceries, eg.), I did not realize that one can own a home and properties w/o the SSN, and I find it hard to believe that most states have work-arounds for gaining a driving license or other Gov't issued ID for flying w/o the SSN/TIN/etc.

I hope those sentences are clear enough to express that I look forward to each of your thoughts and advise to give to any citizen of USA that thinks s/he is self-sovereign (self-owner, self-ruling, self-responsible).

I direct you to my advice at the top of this post. As to a self-sovereign person, my advice would be not to bother with self-sovereignty. It's too much trouble.

Yeah, I always give the same advice to them, but I do enjoy talking w/ them (unless conspiracy theories come up).

[olehenry1]

Hi GlimDropper,
Overall, you describe many of my own thoughts.
When I was younger, I was still quite a good and interested listener to so-called Libertarians' stories (everyone's stories, really, as I was a California sponge) but I was far too obsessed with my work & profession to even care about where my money was going. It was just fun to work on hard projects and learn.

Individual sovereignty is a delusion, based on conspiracy theories, false facts and self inflicted ignorance. It does not and has never existed in this country or pert near any other for quite some time.

As I have aged and read for pleasure, I realize that self-sovereignty is the best description of reality (a human condition), but fighting for something that is signed away at birth in exchange for promises of safety nets, etc. (as we know it) is as you say, impractical. I agree the concept has not been practiced in the USA, and certainly has no place in law, the courts, or on the streets.

If you dislike being an American and wish to separate yourself from it you can do it you just have to become a naturalized citizen of some other nation, after you do that, as long as you stay out of the US then Uncle Sam will leave you be.

This is my impression as well, and usually my suggestion to those who are confident enough to follow through. Now and then, one or two head off to Gibraltar or South America, but most seem sentimentally holding on to their homeland.

On a practical level, if you wish to be as independent as possible decide between a small apartment in a large city or a cabin in the middle of nowhere (pizza delivery is easier in cities). Find a way to create value as you put it and cause no more trouble than you want to deal with. City or prairie you will need to pay your taxes, that gets back to the "cause no more trouble" thing. If you drive, have a license, registration and insurance. That's what I do and in the last 20 or so years I've spent maybe 20 minutes talking with a cop where I wasn't immediately at liberty to leave (I did end up paying the traffic ticket).

Agreed with these thoughts, and of course, take time to smell the roses and taste the fruits.

Anything viewed through a "sovereign" lens will be distorted. Do I like our military budget? Hell no so I participate in the political process with hopes of advancing candidates that better align with my ideals. Is it perfect? Very far from it but given that the only other choices are leaving the country or deluding myself that the laws don't apply to me (and suffering the consequences of that delusion) I stick with the hand dealt.

Do you have any alternatives to what I posted above that you believe to be practical and workable?

I have not heard/read of any. The only possible improvement would be to not worry (your)self with the political process and to relieve oneself of ups and down associated with hopes of candidates that be "speak'n my language".
--
Henry

[olehenry1]

Thank you, very well put Siegfried Shrink

I did not mention before because I dismissed them so quickly myself, but another set of Google search terms that kept bringing me the Quatloos site earlier this week were: "Otto Skinner" and another guy ... John-something-something from Patriot-something (sorry, threw away the note as all of this was spurred on by my spring-cleaning of my bookshelf), both names given to me (long ago) as "answers" to working within the system while maintaining one's personal property and sentimental connection to homeland.

I recall most of the arguments smacked of what you wrote below, that is, a desire to "...opt out of what you don't like and stay put to enjoy what you do like...". I believe I was ~30 at that time and realized that the books read like many of the "Life Extension" magazines that were being sent to my father, that is, out of context & extremely over-confident in presenting simple pill supplements as scientifically-valid yet FDA-ignored solutions to the aging process. I suppose similar types of biases appear in both fields, scientific and law, as well the fields that "use" the published works. (I work in biological sciences, where there's plenty of exaggeration in a similar way.)

Your words do bring up a difficulty of how to respond to those willing to realize self-sovereignty in their lifetimes after growing up in USA:

Most if not all of the subjects scrutinised here go about their 'independence' in a way that guarantees they won't have any. They latch onto false theories that ensure that they do things to attract attention to themselves, but also things that have no real benfit to them. What you do not see are accounts of people who do manage to live a largely tax and beaurocracy free life because drawing attention to themselves is not part of the game plan.

Start with any fundamentally wrong assumption and no chain of reasoning, however logical will lead to a useful conclusion. Few governments are actually evil in themselves. The German NSDAP and the Russian communist party and even the Mugabe government of Zimbabwe were based on flawed precepts and failed and were swept away.

1) Those numbers were absolutely devastating to learn about and not really comprehensible to me (both European WWII & Russian, but I have not yet learned anything about Mugabe & Zimbabwe), yet I learned from my German grandfather an accountant who fled Germany & their circle of old friends, that German and Russian law were not different but in small details when compared w/ USA. If true, are we merely lucky to be thriving & alive today & here as if these mechanisms could easily lead to what we have today & here or 1930s/Europe (or Russia). Lucky to not have pushed the nuclear buttons, eg.? I am willing to see a side-by-side comparison of laws at least -- that would be an eye-opening project!
2) I can't help but to realize the amount of waste in & surrounding these bureaucracies (the trickle-down effect).

Psychologically, it's disheartening to imagine how much more capable people might be without all the waste, and I would love to experiment more with the decentralized (individualized) approach to compare/contrast with the gov't sanctioned ones.

<I leave everything else for context, and as if we were in agreement.>

Others based on sounder principles have survived and thrived. History shows with governments as well as people that if you keep getting it wrong you will be replaced.
Most stable governments do things wrong now and again, their stabilty allows this to happen without great consequence and the people making the decisions are usually as flawed as you and I. Simply saying, "Feck it, I'm off' can work but to work you actually need to go somewhere different, usually another country more to your liking.
Just opting out of what you don't like and staying put to enjoy what you do like will not work. That is why the sov-cits will never be anything but a curious historical footnote.

Having a pretty good idea how everything really works enables one to sidestep problems before they occour, but cleaving to the freeman-sovcit magic is just one way of driving in traffic with your eyes closed, constant collisions easily avoided by most.

Agreed with your logic and advise (direct & implied). Thank you for responding.

[Siegfried Shrink]

fighting for something that is signed away at birth in exchange for promises of safety nets, etc. (as we know it) is as you say, impractical.

This idea that things are signed away at birth is a noxious and foolish sov-cit idea that colours many of theit dubious fallacious conclusions, and should be considered as the nonsense that it is. Possibly the terms you use are inadvertant, but absolutely nothing is 'signed away at birth'. Birth just means you have joined the club. You do not actully need the membership certificate although it can be useful occasionally it is mostly taken for granted. The club has certain rules, like the rule of law, but you are no way obliged to stay a member. You stay in the club simply because you live in the club premises, not through any variety of 'contract, express or implied. How closely you obey the club rules is a choice you can make, because you are free to make it.

If I visit the US, I am in fact a member of the US club for a while and have to play by US rules, same as any other country I visit. No birth or certificate thereof makes me a member and subject to the rules, just my presence there.

German and Russian law were not different but in small details when compared with USA. If true, are we merely lucky to be thriving & alive today & here as if these mechanisms could easily lead to what we have today & here or 1930s/Europe (or Russia)

There was a period when the German laws were similar to US laws, because the social systems were very similar. Germany abandoned the rule of law after the election of Hitler as Chancellor, at least the rule of law compatible with other countries. After that 'law' became whatever the NSDAP said it was. Russia never had a recognisable rule of law as we would see it. The absolute rule of the Czar was replaced by the absolute rule of the Party and the dictator of the time.

Germany got into the mess it became because of a clever exploitation of popular sentiment such as anti-semitism and nationalism,and mainly the economic legacy of the First World war, and Russia became mired in decades of misrule because popular sentiment was against the rule of the Czar, and the resulting unrest was expoited to install a new 'czar'.
There is little to no chance that the US or other western governments could go the same way, as you suggest.It is not a matter of luck, it is a matter of history and development. People with nothing to lose are prone to revolting, even more so when they see others with much more. The US is too prosperous to have any solid groundswell for malign change as occoured in Germany and Russia. The sov-cit meme that the US is a 'Corporation' is both nonsense and irrelevant and it is not something that would ever gain any popular traction. I expect you'd have a job finding many who care one way or the other as long as their own lives remain relatively peaceful and prosperous.

I hope this is not construed as political as it is intended as a historical refutation of the poster's comment.

[wserra]

I'm coming late to this party, and I agree with the replies you've already received.

One comment: your title for the thread. It's the rare sovrun - maybe so rare as to be non-existent - who has any "legit concerns". The tune is always, "You have no power over me, and must leave me alone. Unless, of course, I want you to do something for me, and then you must do it now."

[Duke2Earl]

There is a simple answer....if a person find the "demands" of the US government and society here too oppressive they are free to leave. There are places in the world devoid of any effective government. But it seems these people want the advantages of living in a country with a functioning government but without any of the obligations that entails. Sorry...it just doesn't work that way.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Is the USA Fed an "industrial military complex", to any (what?) degree, and if not, do the actions of military agents (soldiers) generate much harm (to individuals)?

By "Fed" if you mean the U.S. Government, the anachronistic phrase "industrial military complex" (more accurately, Eisenhower's warning about the "military industrial complex") could more accurately be described as what our modern economy has evolved into in which corporations (in many industries, not just military-related) wield enormous influence and power in government. (FYI - this is nothing new - merchants have used their influence for centuries.)

The concept of "military agents (soldiers)" generating "harm" to individuals (other than enemies of the U.S.) is specious.

...
The second most common objection to USA Fed that I hear is the resulting financial instability of the various systems that are directly controlled and indirectly influenced.

Economies are inherently unstable - they move at the whim of supply and demand which directly influences the movement of capital. Governments and regulators can only influence them, not directly control them. Too much control and you have Venezuela; too little and you have the near meltdown of the last decade.

What your friends seem to want are the economic advantages of our capitalist system that they can take advantage of for their own benefit without paying the inherent price of capitalism which includes government and regulatory influence as well as a military to defend it from external forces.

[Pottapaug1938]

morrand wrote:
...but what of it? Opting out of the system is about as effective against that as opting out of a house fire. Opting in, and taking direct political action, would seem like the more mature and effective response.

olehenry1 wrote:
That's true, and usually my response as well. I think most of these people will simply ignore the harm, let the system be, and leave if/when things "get bad". The most obvious negative example is WWII era Germany, where the same argument holds (I think). Take direct political action or get out and find a lesser (subjective) evil.

Are you out of your mind, olehenry1; or are you simply clueless about history? "Tak[ing] direct political action", in Nazi Germany, was a sure way of writing yourself a ticket to a concentration camp; and as for "get[ting] out", just ask the families of the Jews and others who were denied that ability, and perished in the death camps.

[davids]

The rule of law has sometimes been said to be very important to having a prosperous society. If that is true, who decides what the law is? It can't be very man, deciding in the moment, for himself, regardless of what other people think or what the written law says. So, the best thing humanity has come up with at this point, is representative democracy, like ours.

Where sovcits go wrong is they think that government "by the people" means there is no rule book, that they just get to make it up as they go (and call it "common law" no doubt) and that the elected representatives don't have authority. That's a great way of thinking if you're just sitting around a campfire passing stogies (or joints) and trying to sound philosophical to persons even more wacked out than you are.

But it's not a way to get anywhere in the real world. And it involves at is base a misunderstanding of the concepts of sovereignty, law, freedom, and just about everything else that advocates of such things espouse to value.

[Hyrion]

That's a great way of thinking if you're just sitting around a campfire passing stogies (or joints) and trying to sound philosophical to persons even more wacked out than you are.

But it's not a way to get anywhere in the real world. And it involves at is base a misunderstanding of the concepts of sovereignty, law, freedom, and just about everything else that advocates of such things espouse to value.

I've often wondered about that - not just with OPCA types.

There are plenty of us who can philosophize or discuss "what is" vs "what we believe would be best" or "what should be". One of the core things that seems to differentiate us from the OPCAs is that, no matter how in-depth the discussion might get - we can still keep reality and fantasy separate.

Other people either can't or don't want to separate fact from fiction - ending up conflating the two. The "whys" of that are likely to be plentiful with different reasons for different people. The problem is:

Once a person conflates fact and fiction and states it as "the current state of reality" - it seems the only way to get through to them is to first help them understand the elements of their position that are not based in reality. And that's only possible if the particular individual is willing to face reality. An example of that is that I once had someone tell me face-to-face:

The fact you are content and happy is proof you are a slave.

Obviously the person has a very different definition to "slave" then I have. From the aspect of the only purpose for enslavement is to allow one person to lawfully harm another to the aspect that a slave has no choice. It's all defined very differently.

While Davids in this discussion is painting himself as "not buying into the koolaid", indicating he has a firm grasp of reality vs fiction - there have been indications he has indeed conflated the two. Conflating current Governmental processes and behaviors of the US as being equivalent to how NAZI Germany was run under Hitler is a pretty good example of that.

Another example is his representation of Socialist Russia having the same Laws as Democratic US. All he has to do is look at such things as the concept of free speech and how it's employed in the two to start seeing the drastic differences between the two.... but - in both cases, it seems Davids will need to decide which sources of education to trust. If he sticks with whoever has been feeding him his history lessons - then he'll continue to blind himself to what's really occurring.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

There is a simple answer....if a person find the "demands" of the US government and society here too oppressive they are free to leave.

It is my understanding from Fogbow that Gavin Seim is conducting Sov-Cit experiments on this very option in Mexico.

[davids]

While Davids in this discussion is painting himself as "not buying into the koolaid", indicating he has a firm grasp of reality vs fiction - there have been indications he has indeed conflated the two. Conflating current Governmental processes and behaviors of the US as being equivalent to how NAZI Germany was run under Hitler is a pretty good example of that.

Another example is his representation of Socialist Russia having the same Laws as Democratic US. All he has to do is look at such things as the concept of free speech and how it's employed in the two to start seeing the drastic differences between the two.... but - in both cases, it seems Davids will need to decide which sources of education to trust. If he sticks with whoever has been feeding him his history lessons - then he'll continue to blind himself to what's really occurring.

Would you mind explaining to me how, without intentionally reading my post in bad faith, you got any of that?

My post which you quoted was the only post I have made in weeks (save one other in another thread entirely). Further, anyone familiar with my input on this page would know I am not a fan of pseudolegal types. But somehow you conflate my characterizing them as being "wacked out" with supporting them.

Either you misread it, and got confused because you assumed I was the original poster "OleHenry" (I am not) or you have some other agenda. I made one single comment which was quite critical of the logic of the original poster. Never did I equate anything the US is doing to Nazi Germany nor even mention that in my post, or compare socialist Russia to the US.

Did you get confused or do you have some other agenda by mischaracterizing me or my post?

[wserra]

Easy, guys, easy.

I think Hyrion confused (or "conflated", in Hyrion's word) Henry and David.

Hyrion - it's Harry and David.

[Hyrion]

Would you mind explaining to me how, without intentionally reading my post in bad faith, you got any of that?

Easy, guys, easy.

I think Hyrion confused (or "conflated", in Hyrion's word) Henry and David.

Hyrion - it's Harry and David.

Guess I'm longer overdue for a mental break then I thought.

I absolutely did intend to reply in context of what I quoted as DavidS saying about philosophical discussion (with or without entertaining beverages/other materials) and the context of misunderstanding (deliberate or not) basic concepts.

Where I went off the rails.... the mind shifted from that philosophy to the context of what olehenry1 was saying but I neglected to reference the correct name as Wess has so ably pointed out. Definitely conflation on my part without the conscious intent to do so.

As for Wess' link.... I send a metaphorical basket of artfully arranged fruit as an apology!

To clarify what I intended, change:

While Davids in this discussion is painting himself as "not buying into the koolaid",

To:

While olehenry1 in this discussion is painting himself as "not buying into the koolaid",

I agree with everything DavidS authored in the post I quoted although I only intended to touch on the one aspect.

[olehenry1]

This has all been interesting. My purpose has shifted to identify one or two more active & enthusiastic forums (like this one) in order to suggest for young idealistic kids that I will no doubt run into in the future. I am glad to have briefly engaged here and will check in now and then for updates.

Quick replies below, to acknowledge receipt (sadly, I cannot assume these were meant as constructive criticisms for my reflection):

That's a great way of thinking if you're just sitting around a campfire...

There are plenty of us who can philosophize or discuss "what is" vs "what we believe would be best" or "what should be".

<snipped the pragmatic vs idealistic comparisons>

Agreed, as to the importance -- something I confidently grasp.

While [Henry] in this discussion is painting himself as "not buying into the koolaid", indicating he has a firm grasp of reality vs fiction - there have been indications he has indeed conflated the two. Conflating current Governmental processes and behaviors of the US as being equivalent to how NAZI Germany was run under Hitler is a pretty good example of that.

An interesting topic would be a rigorous comparison of these facts (which I was suggesting), with an attempt to overlay laws from the various institutions; however, since that has not yet been attempted (let alone accomplished as you mistakenly suggest) I am obliged to leave it ready for testing. Lastly, why blow so be-lowly the belt? Responding in-line & refraining from malicious straw-personal attacks would put your opinion in a nicer light.

Best in your work & continued education,
Henry