Can we discuss the history of sovereign citizens/people of t

>>2294238
I think there needs to be some balance, because for its flaws I like our current system and all that it has given us. If everyone were to suddenly stop paying and start resisiting everything the system would change and I don't know if it would be for the better. That being said when those in power become too greedy and forget that the people below are still humans they do to meet resistance to show that actively fucking over the majority of the population is only gonna end badly for everyone.

>Freemen believe that since they exist in a common law jurisdiction where equality is paramount and mandatory, the people in the government and courts are not above the law, and that government and court personnel therefore must obtain the consent of the governed. Freemen believe that those government employees who do not obtain consent of the governed have abandoned the rule of law. They believe this consent is routinely secured by way of people submitting applications and through acts of registration. They believe the public servants have deceived the population into abandoning their status as Freemen in exchange for the status of a 'child of the province' or 'ward of the state' allowing those children to collect benefits such as welfare, unemployment insurance, and pension plans or old age security. Freemen believe that the government has to establish "joinder" to link oneself and one's legal person. If one is asked whether one is “John Smith” and one says that is so, one has established joinder and connected the physical and human persons. The next step is to obtain consent. Statutes are merely invitations to enter a contract, and are only legally enforceable if one enters into the contract consensually. Otherwise, statute laws are not applicable. Freemen believe that the government is constantly trying to trick people into entering into a contract with them, so they often return bills, notices, summons and so on with the message "No contract—return to sender".

There were many factions at work during the period of the three related English civil wars. They included the Royalists who supported King Charles I; the Parliamentary forces led by Sir Thomas Fairfax who would later emerge under the name of the New Model Army; the Fifth Monarchy Men, who believed in the establishment of a heavenly theocracy on earth to be led by a returning Jesus as king of kings and lord of lords; the Agitators for political egalitarian reform of government, who were branded "Levellers" by their foes and who were led by John Lilburne; and the True Levellers, who were branded "Diggers" because of their actions. The latter were led by Gerrard Winstanley. Whereas Lilburne sought to level the laws and maintain the right to the ownership of real property, Winstanley sought to level the ownership of real property

Winstanley took as his basic texts the Biblical sacred history, with its affirmation that all men were descended from a common stock, and with its scepticism about the rulership of kings, voiced in the Books of Samuel; and the New Testament's affirmations that God was no respecter of persons, that there were no masters or slaves under the New Covenant. From these and similar texts, he interpreted Christian teaching as calling for the abolition of property [in land] and aristocracy.

>>2294238
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVbiefMdNU

I fucking love SC. They're so entertaining.

>>2294238

This is purely a /pol/ subject, keep it there.

File: IRA fighter in the 70s.jpg (528KB, 1100x1147px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1100x1147px

>>2294238
If we lived in a world in which existing power structures are morally justified, then there would have to be some leeway for people to reject them and be on their own.

But power structures in the real world exist for their own sake, and for the satisfaction of those who control them. And those have no interest in people's ability to separate themselves.

They've done a good job on educating everyone to follow their line of thinking. What people think is: Every part of the earth must belong to a state, states may merge but never separate, power may accumulate but never dissipate, separatists must be stopped at all costs.

Any attempt to reverse that tendency is met with derision. See: Any separatist referendum ever, in which the mainstream media will universally agitate against separation.

Alternatively see the EU: First politicians consolidated power nationally and strengthened central governments, then they became willing to give up sovereignty in hopes of gaining even greater power over more people.

And yeah, I know I'm just a nutjob.