quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, you didnt get that trash from me!

You haven't used the term but you preach their bullshit philosophy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I'd be so tempted to believe you but that's the whole gig with libertarians... They believe in economic warfare but no other kind. So "let the market decide" is their chosen field of contest. They KNOW such a thing is foolish at best and immoral at worst... and this is one of the smaller ways that'd be true.

Before he was elected, Rand Paul was on with Rachel Maddow. He stated his beef with the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act. He felt that a pub owner should be able to choose who to serve, or not. So for Rand propeerty is more important than people. Not a far step from the plantation massa who considered people property.

But, a pub owner can decide who to serve or not serve already.

Not if it is protect by law. A pub owner can ban people under 21, he can refuse to serve someone alcohol if they are too drunk, he can refuse service for no shoes, no shirt, etc....but he can't deny a white person access to a bar owned by blacks, a dyke bar cannot refuse entry to a man, a redneck biker bar cannot refuse service to blacks. Businesses that are public conveyances, like bars and restaurants, cannot deny service for reasons not related to the operation of the business, the right of association does not apply to businesses that serve the general public. A private club, on the other hand, can so discriminate.

quote:

there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, you didnt get that trash from me!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, you didnt get that trash from me!

Why is there no such thing as a sovereign citizen?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sovereign-citizen/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2012/02/13/what-is-a-sovereign-citizen/

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310

quote:


Sovereign citizen is a term used to refer to a political movement which grew out of a belief in government abuses of power. Members often refuse to hold social security cards or driver's licenses and avoid using zip codes. Sovereign citizens believe that U.S. citizens are either "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" (who are subject to the federal and state laws and taxes) or "sovereign citizens", who are subject only to common law or "constitutional law" (or both), but are not bound to obey statutory law. No court has ever upheld these claims. Sovereign citizens may also be referred to as "freemen" or "common law citizens".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

quote:


what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

I actually think there is an interesting question in that. I'd be a lot more comfortable if it was easy for an individual to pick and choose their government. I'd also like there to be some remote island somewhere that the anarchists can all go to and kill each other peacefully. As it sits right now though the entire planet is claimed by one sovereign or another and citizens cannot easily "shop" for a benign government.

To answer your question: For most of my life I felt that the US government was a legitimate government FOR ME. I liked some of what it did. I disliked other parts. But overall I felt that in exchange for the sacrifice of some of my freedoms I got a reasonable return. So what made it legitimate was I felt it was. Now, I no longer feel that way. I was able to move to another country. Not everyone is so capable/lucky/whatever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

 
Acquiescense.  Agreement.  Might makes right.  Which one you want?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

I actually think there is an interesting question in that. I'd be a lot more comfortable if it was easy for an individual to pick and choose their government. I'd also like there to be some remote island somewhere that the anarchists can all go to and kill each other peacefully. As it sits right now though the entire planet is claimed by one sovereign or another and citizens cannot easily "shop" for a benign government.

To answer your question: For most of my life I felt that the US government was a legitimate government FOR ME. I liked some of what it did. I disliked other parts. But overall I felt that in exchange for the sacrifice of some of my freedoms I got a reasonable return. So what made it legitimate was I felt it was. Now, I no longer feel that way. I was able to move to another country. Not everyone is so capable/lucky/whatever.

quote:


now if you understood how those 3 words were used in practice I might be forced to have some respect for your opinion, however your post shows you do not. Saved once again! LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

 
Acquiescense.  Agreement.  Might makes right.  Which one you want?

now if you understood how those 3 words were used in practice I might be forced to have some respect for your opinion, however your post shows you do not. Saved once again! LOL

quote:


The state-making process in the United States is regulated by Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. It allows for the admission of new states by an act of Congress.

All states are admitted to the Union on an equal footing. [with the 13 colonies] This is not a provision of the Constitution itself, but U.S. Supreme Court rulings have established that Congress cannot discriminate against states when they are admitted.

With the acquisition of new territories by treaty, combined with war, the United States extended its dominion to the Pacific Ocean. These new lands were gradually incorporated into the Union

The issue of secession from the Union is not addressed directly in the constitution. The fundamental constitutional issue of the Civil War was the contention by Southern states that the Union was voluntary and revokable, while Lincoln and the North asserted that once in, there was no way out.