Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Licens

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by steve74baywin » Thu May 26, 2011 2:14 pm

hambone wrote:It's hard to get any peace anymore. Winston and Julia couldn't find it either, even after taking great pains to screw in the wilderness. Pet tracking implants. If you build another lane on a highway it quickly gets filled with new traffic. With the beast out of the box, what are it's creators to do? Ride the kinetic energy to the bottom...
Naussica and the Valley of the Wind, see it if you haven't.
The title was a bit off, I found it.
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
1984 Japanese animation. I may check it out.
Walt Disney

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3215648057#

User avatar
hambone
Post-Industrial Non-Secular Mennonite
Location: Portland, Ore.
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by hambone » Thu May 26, 2011 2:20 pm

It's online? <man this internet thing is somethin'>
http://greencascadia.blogspot.com
http://pdxvolksfolks.blogspot.com
it balances on your head just like a mattress balances on a bottle of wine
your brand new leopard skin pillbox hat

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by steve74baywin » Fri May 27, 2011 7:26 am

ruckman101 wrote:Here's Paul Cienfuegos, who talks about sovereign people, democracy, power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nyXeubik5s

Towards the end of the first clip.



neal
I watched all eight clips.
He does do a good job. He covers a couple of things that have been talked about here at the end of clip one and into clip two.
He feels a bit stronger about Global Warming than I, but I would not expect agreement on something like that from everyone.
Basically he talks of what many call government from the bottom up, which is also what many believe is the way this country was intended to be. It starts from you as Sovereign over your property, and then you most local gov next, then on up with the fed having the least power. Which puts more power in each persons hands for each persons life. Your vote means more when just 1000 in a community, or 300,000 in a town.
Also show how some state constitutions also gives all the power to the people.
He mainly is good at showing how we could more quickly solves issues if we had government from the self/bottom up instead of top down. At least that is some of what I got from it.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by ruckman101 » Fri May 27, 2011 9:25 am

He emphasizes sovereign people, as a group, over individual sovereign citizens. He also stresses that most of our issues can be traced to courts granting corporations the same rights as individual people. He also touches on a debilitating mindset (inner cop) and the effectiveness of divide and conquer. Hatin' on the tea party only hurts ourselves.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by ruckman101 » Sun May 29, 2011 5:22 pm

The Sovereign Citizen concept is apparently a lucrative marketing opportunity. Just $25 and you, too, can go through the course on DVD to learn how the laws do not apply to you.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by steve74baywin » Mon May 30, 2011 6:12 am

I will give someone $25.00 if they can show me how the laws do apply to me.

User avatar
Randy in Maine
IAC Addict!
Location: Old Orchard Beach, Maine
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by Randy in Maine » Mon May 30, 2011 9:02 am

Might want to go here and watch this....

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... er;housing
79 VW Bus

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by steve74baywin » Mon May 30, 2011 9:20 am

Randy in Maine wrote:Might want to go here and watch this....

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... er;housing
Sad and typical.
The news, got to love them. Biased and propaganda.
One giant and major assumption, the mob with the guns is right.
That is where the saying "might makes right" comes from.
The news doesn't want to find out what is right, they know that the the gangsters who have conditioned people all around the world that they give guns to making right with might.
But thanks for sharing.
Our founding fathers and most people living in the 1800's would be considered a terrorist if alive today.

Lanval
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by Lanval » Mon May 30, 2011 11:36 am

steve74baywin wrote:
Randy in Maine wrote:Might want to go here and watch this....

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... er;housing
Sad and typical.
The news, got to love them. Biased and propaganda.
One giant and major assumption, the mob with the guns is right.
That is where the saying "might makes right" comes from.
The news doesn't want to find out what is right, they know that the the gangsters who have conditioned people all around the world that they give guns to making right with might.
But thanks for sharing.
Our founding fathers and most people living in the 1800's would be considered a terrorist if alive today.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of propaganda ~ there is no "truth" here, only interpretation.

Our Founding Fathers would not be considered terrorists ~ they perfectly well understood how democracy works, and the concept of compromise. After all, they invented it.

As for assumptions ~ why do you assume the "mob with guns" (a phrase that is designed to rhetorically identify your opponents as mindless [thus "mob" implying thoughtless group action] and violent ["guns" implying lethal violent action]) is wrong? Why do you assume most people are blind and ignorant? To do so is to assume that you operate from a position of special intellect or insight in this country. That's a pretty condescending and insulting approach for the various academic, business and government people who study and deal with the problems of effective representative government on a day to day basis. Why are they stupid and you are smart?

If you want to engage in honest debate about the merits of the Libertarian position, by all means. I've asked you a number of times to elaborate on how the Libertarian gov't you imagine would deal with real world problems ~ you've side-stepped doing so every time. I assume, for lack of further information from you, that you do so because, either: 1. you can't; or 2. you can't be bothered. Whichever is true, I'd like the opportunity to debate the merits of the system itself, rather than confront proselytizing which assumes I'm stupid and ignorant.

Two final points:

1. The reason that there was no income tax in the US for the first hundred years or so, was due to revenue derived from selling land. As we moved west into the various territories, the gov't sold western land to the settlers (not too sovereign there ~ your 1800's gov't was perfectly happy to steal land from the natives and resell instead of letting people wander out and set up shop). The early governments also used excise taxes and tariffs all over the place. When we ran out land to sell, and people (especially business, both agricultural and industrial) pushed back against tariffs, the gov't needed a new way to fund things.

2. If you wish to, you might answer either Neal's question or mine:
A. How would Libertarian gov't deal with land use issues on a local basis? How do I prevent my neighbor from storing/dumping dangerous chemicals on his property?

B. How would a Libertarian gov't deal with large-scale issues like the interstate highway system, or aid to a damaged area of the country like Florida after Hurricane Andrew?

Best,

Mike

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by steve74baywin » Mon May 30, 2011 11:49 am

Lanval, I have attempted to explain to you as best as possible in another thread.
The fact that you brought the Sovereign debate from another thread into this one is fine, but
I can not answer you any other way.
We had a conversation going in the other thread, I believe I was the last to answer their.
But, at this point there is no other way for me to explain it.

To all,
while I'm posting, I had wanted to post some interesting comments posted on that 60 minute vid. Here below


by Soothsayer1 May 28, 2011 6:05 PM EDT
It's a shame that since all citizens have sovereignty that the reporter doesn't have a clue of what it is. My ancestors, that came here in the mid 1700's fought & gave their lives IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR for it!!

Just because some radical idiot decided to use his sovereignty in the name of murder doesn't make us any less sovereign. Neither does it make us any less American because he was, it just makes him a murdering radical idiot & we have those in all walks of life. For those of you that don't have the knowledge of who you are here it is....by the way when finish finding out who you are you can hear it, stated here by rep. McCotter stated on the senate floor http://youtu.be/1Pte_2vEnX8

What is Sovereign Citizenship? Sovereign Citizenship is the status held by our forefathers. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and everyone else who won their freedom from the British Empire had this status. It was the birthright of all Americans, and we were generous in extending this most important right to foreign-born persons through the naturalization laws. With this status, our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property couldn't be infringed. During the Civil War a method was discovered by the leading attorneys, financiers, and politicians of the day to deprive us of this status.

The word "sovereign" is defined in the 6th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, "A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy." Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war's outcome changed all this:

The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)

Thus, the people became Citizens of their respective states. But more importantly, for the first and only time in recorded history, the people were recognized as being the true sovereigns:
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance... No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves...

Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas' Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages
471, 472 (1793)
Each individual, at least so far as respects his unalienable rights is his own sovereign. These rights weren't given to any government. In fact, they can't be. Perhaps you can give up all of your rights, if you so choose, but who has the power to give your rights up for you? In America, no one can, because we're all equal. In American this principle of popular sovereign is recognized by all governments - state and federal. When the states became independent, the state governments were formed, all of them based on the authority of the people, and not the will of one man or a small body of men. The federal government as we know it today was created in 1789 when the federal constitution went into effect. The constitution mentioned something previously unknown in American law: Citizenship of the United States:

The term, citizens of the United States, must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties. Before this period there was no citizen of the United States.

Manchester v. Boston, Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 16, Page 235

(1819)

Thus a Citizen of a state is, by the federal constitution, made a Citizen of the United States.

A citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every other state in the union.
Butler v. Farnsworth, Federal Cases, Vol. 4, Page 902 (1821)

A Citizen of any one of the states is considered and treated as being a Citizen of all of them. The phrase "Citizen of the United States" does not refer to a separate class of citizenship:

A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.

Ex parte. - Frank Knowles, California Reports, Vol. 5, Page 302 (1855)

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... z1NrP63llb

And more


by SaddenedAndDisappointed May 23, 2011 2:15 PM EDT
The producers and other staff members of 60 Minutes should be ashamed of themselves. No wonder Lowell Bergman jumped ship. Byron Pitts' inquiry into the doctrine of Sovereign Citizens was obviously biased. It is truly unfortunate that the responsible parties at 60 Minutes would allow the presentation of such a deterioriated standard of reporting. Additionally, I would like to comment on the specific issue raised in the interview with respect to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The comment was made that the 2nd Amendment was not created and/or included in the Constitution "so that we could go duck hunting"(or words to that effect). I would submit that the intended meaning of that comment, and related comments, is that we as American citizens have(or should have) the right to defend ourselves with the use of force if necessary. This would, I imagine, include the right to defend our personal physical safety as well as to defend the sanctity and safety of our personal freedom(s). If this is in fact an accurate assessment, then I would simply pose the question, is it our right to protect the sanctity and safety of our personal freedom(s) if they are in fact being threatened or are being attacked by our own Government? I would submit that the answer to this question is "yes, absolutely". The only other comment which I would like to offer is simply this: There will never be a "perfect government" just as there will never be a "perfect society". This is due simply to the fact that both are comprised of "human beings" and human beings are imperfect. It has been reported that humam beings utilize approximately 5% of their intellectual capacity. One look at the current global situation will confirm that assessment. Regardless of the origin, human beings possess the "gift of reason". Unfortunately, this gift has not matured, directly resulting in the reality that the current state of the human condition amounts to nothing more than a picture of sophisticated ignorance. You people are so lost. You deserve the world which you have created for yourselves. It is unfortunate that your descendants will be the ones who ultimately bare the brunt of your ignorance and, more importantly, your arrogance.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... z1NrTujYDi


and more




by SunlightDisinfects May 22, 2011 11:56 PM EDT
Sinistrare: from Latin; meanings - to cause damage, injury or harm.
Sinistra: from Latin; meanings - left, sinister.

We Americans "are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights."

unalienable = un-a'lien-able; two pronunciations, for the same word.

It means that no government may lawfully a'lien (place liens or claims) upon the fruits of our energy (our lives) or our property and its enhancement (the pursuit of happiness.)

As long as we do no damage, injury or harm to another we Americans are free to enter into lawful contracts and, free to generally do what we want. Lawful contracts are those entered voluntarily under mutual consent where all elements of the contract have been fully disclosed to all parties.

The United States Corporation was founded in 1868, 3 years after Lincoln was executed.
(Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Corporation.)
In 1861 because the US government did not recognize the departure of the southern states it lacked a quorum to form a lawful Congress. Lincoln stepped in with the very first Executive Order called Field Order No. 100 to open a de facto Congress. That's what we have today, a de facto Congress and a country in a constant state of war ruled by Executive Order.

Before the Civil War and de facto US Corporation was founded, foreign central bankers made two attempts to control us through our money. Their first of two 20 year charters ended in 1811. In 1812 they financed the English Army to come here and burn down our nations new capital city. Their second 20 year charter ended in 1836.

After the Civil War the de facto US Corporation created a new class of citizenship in its 14th Amendment where all "US citizens" are liable for the debt of the corporation but have NO STANDING to challenge the debts. This new overlord made all "US citizens" subservient to it. It nationalized all negro slaves and made servants to it. Through guile and deceit it gradually (decades) converted all white people to "US citizen" class servitude too.

Add 50 years and the foundation is ready for a new (anonymously owned) central bank. In 1913 the US Corporation brought in our masters, the Federal Reserve. They replaced our lawful money with their "legal tender." To use their paper instead of our lawful gold and silver they force us to pay income and property tax. Their charter was 20 years old in 1933 when FDR stole all gold and property from the American people and gave it to the central bankers. He forced all newborn Americans to get Birth Certificates. As a result the energy of each and every "US citizen" is now collateral for US bonds.

The US Corporation is a for profit company doing business under color of government. If you think you own your house or car, try not paying the taxes or registration fee. They will lien your house and car, then confiscate them. If you think you own your body and your labor, try not paying income tax. If you don't they can garnish your wages and incarcerate you. If taxes are not enough they can just borrow and print as much "legal tender" into their accounts as they want and send you the bill for the principal and interest. Their corporate policies may be legal under their corporate law but they are wholly unlawful under the Constitution for the united States of America, 1787.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... z1NrTZ6FAj

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by ruckman101 » Mon May 30, 2011 12:16 pm

I don't think the answer to "mobs with guns" is to create your own "mobs with guns". It seems counterintuitive to address a problem with a replica of the problem. Murder as a response to a traffic ticket is over the top. Aren't the members of the "mob" all sovereign citizens also? "You hassle me and I'll kill you." I see no respect here for fellow humans.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by steve74baywin » Mon May 30, 2011 12:26 pm

ruckman101 wrote:I don't think the answer to "mobs with guns" is to create your own "mobs with guns". It seems counterintuitive to address a problem with a replica of the problem. Murder as a response to a traffic ticket is over the top. Aren't the members of the "mob" all sovereign citizens also? "You hassle me and I'll kill you." I see no respect here for fellow humans.


neal
Correct Neal.
That is not the answer. Using guns to bring about a certain desire doesn't make sense.
Using guns to shape business a certain way, or to put in roads doesn't make sense.
One could argue guns are good for self defense, if someone is taking you or hurting you against your will and you did not hurt, kill or steal from anyone.

Now if you create a mob with guns, but only use it for self defense, that isn't nearly as bad as using it to enforce a bunch or rules that you, others or a group think are good.

Lanval
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by Lanval » Mon May 30, 2011 1:25 pm

steve74baywin wrote:
ruckman101 wrote:I don't think the answer to "mobs with guns" is to create your own "mobs with guns". It seems counterintuitive to address a problem with a replica of the problem. Murder as a response to a traffic ticket is over the top. Aren't the members of the "mob" all sovereign citizens also? "You hassle me and I'll kill you." I see no respect here for fellow humans.


neal
Correct Neal.
That is not the answer. Using guns to bring about a certain desire doesn't make sense.
Using guns to shape business a certain way, or to put in roads doesn't make sense.
One could argue guns are good for self defense, if someone is taking you or hurting you against your will and you did not hurt, kill or steal from anyone.

Now if you create a mob with guns, but only use it for self defense, that isn't nearly as bad as using it to enforce a bunch or rules that you, others or a group think are good.
Since "self defense" defends upon one's perception of a threat, which immediately reintroduces the political aspect you seem to dislike, your answer is no different than the one we have now. A group can define "self defense" in any way they want. Hence, for example, Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war:

From Wikipedia:

"It was only in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York that the American Bush administration first claimed the right to declare a preemptive war (see Bush Doctrine).[27] This American claim was soon followed up with the American invasion of Iraq in the Iraq War for the purpose of preventing Iraq from developing nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare technologies.[28]"

Steve, unless you can explain how you're going to fix the people-problem (people see what they want to see) then your answer is silly. I mean REALLY silly. Because you are essentially arguing that somehow people are going to be more ethical in your system. How? How does removing laws, or layers of governments make people less likely to manipulate things in their favor?

You don't seem to see the actions of the gov't as the actions of people, which is very, very strange. Do you think the gov't is a non-human entity that acts independently of human perception, desire or fear? If not, then why do you persist in suggesting that removing said gov't will change the outcome?

Mike

Oh, and I should add that since your interpretation of the nature of rights and sovereignty underlies all your arguments, it's as relevant here as anywhere else.

M.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by ruckman101 » Mon May 30, 2011 1:38 pm

"Politicians are not leaders; they are followers. They think that, because they can plunder the public treasury, they are leading. In fact they are terrified of the people. The people are a problem for them to manage, and when they can no longer manage them, they must follow them or, oppress them."

"I'm not even sure that the system has to change. People have to change. If people behaved with self-restraint, generosity and compassion, even capitalism could work. We are never going to create a system that generates fairness, equity, goodwill, and justice. I became a Buddhist in part because I believe that change like that has to start internally and be expressed one person at a time. It is true that a system can advance or repress certain attributes of human behavior, but no set of rules is going to make us perfect."

Peter Coyote, from an interview in the June, 2011 Sun magazine.



neal
The slipper has no teeth.

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Li

Post by ruckman101 » Mon May 30, 2011 1:43 pm

So Adrian Wyllie hopes to receive a citation for driving without an operators license so that he can challenge the law requiring that license. I suppose he hopes to replace it with a new law. How is challenging the system with the same set of legal tools an expression of limited government?

I'm so confused.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

Post Reply