Why do they think babbling nonsense is going to achieve a favorable outcome?
They think law is just magic incantations you say and not, you know, the violence of the state. I don’t get it.
the violence of the state
The phrase you use - I do not think it means what you think it means. (Especially not whatever fine this tool was dodging)
“Social scientists define state violence broadly, ranging from direct political violence and genocide to the redefinition of state violence as the neoliberal exit of the state from the provision of social services and the covert use of new technologies of citizen surveillance. State violence, and sometimes the state in and of itself, is clearly a social problem shaping not only the structure of governance but also citizenship and the quality of life of individuals and communities.“
I’m referring the Max Weber’s definition of the state. As the state has the only legitimate ability to use of violence. I’m sorry it doesn’t fit in directly with your definition, but what I was referring to in my original comment was that law is not magic, but rules enforced through the “legitimate violence” of the state.
This person could end up on the receiving end of that power if they do not do what the courts tell them to do, and they are apparently unaware of that because they have magical beliefs.
Thank you for the definition. Wasn’t trying to harp on it; wasn’t familiar with Max Weber (although I’m old enough to have dated his sister…) but the definition of “violence” in this regard still feels uncomfortably vague. I can see how Libertarians and SovCits could use such a wide brush to paint any picture they’d want.
I believe they’re using it in the political philosophy sense: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Violence includes any coercive act, such as fines. Ultimately they’re backed by the threat of force since the state will take the fine without your consent if it gets that far.
These types of Laws are a guidebook for when and how the state uses violence in whatever capacity, and the procedures around legitimizing it.
Fair enough… Thank you for the link.
Might be from german “Staatsgewalt”, Gewalt would usually be violence, but here it’d be more accurately translated as force or power.
I could be, but it exists as a legal term in English as well. In any event, being ordered to pay a fine doesn’t not remotely fit into the “state’s violence” remark from the commenter above (who, I might suggest, has their own agenda). State’s violence is generally reserved for acts of physical violence (eg, police over-response to a protest) and not being contemptuous / an asshole in court.
These people need to be in a stock in the center of town so others can learn from their ignorance.
What they’re getting at is that the “state” is the entity that is socially accepted to have a “monopoly on legitimate violence.” In this sense, the government asks you to pay a fine, okay, that’s not violence per se, but if you decline to pay it, you may be arrested, or if not directly, then your continued resistance to further attempts to collect the debt could result in your arrest. All government action is predicated on the underlying threat of violence at the end of a chain of resistance to their orders, and that violence will be acceptable the population. Other parties can only use violence in accordance with the agreed limits from the state.
I guess it’s not a useless paradigm, but it’s more anthropology than political science. It’s so fundamental and malleable as to be largely pointless from a policy standpoint, and it therefore allows everyone from cringey libertarians to literally insane SovCits to make bad faith arguments about how legitimate the state is.
Ah, okay - and I agree with you it feels vague and of bad faith, so it makes sense sovcits would rally around it.
It’s actually pretty interesting.
Since they don’t understand legal jargon, they think it is malleable just like all the other words such right wing poorly educated people co-opt.
And since they don’t understand it, then no one else can either, so meaning is arbitrary.
It’s how they get away with insisting on being called ‘patriots’ despite trying to use violence to overturn a legal election.
It’s how they get away with calling everything they don’t understand ‘fake news’.
It is the boundless momentum of weaponized ignorance and it will be the downfall of the United States within our lifetime.
hoo boy this guy’s gonna talk his way into a cell. yikes
Maybe eventually. Most judges will feel sorry for someone so gullible and unable tell apart fantasy from reality. It’s like kicking a puppy. They’ll be yelled at, and fined, but will typically give them multiple chances to come to their senses especially if they’re not a threat to others.
Man they love just tossing out words to try to sound smart.
And again this was when I was starting and out learning this through experience and I showed incompetence and this point and he just found me guilty and charged me a fine.
I have no clue what they’re even trying to say here except for the highlighted parts. Is there some legal shenanigans that I don’t understand as a foreigner? What does any of this have to do with the judge’s “operating in his private capacity”?
There’s a very specific type of crazy person, more common in the US and Canada than elsewhere, who call themselves sovereign citizens. OP is fond of featuring them in particular on this community, because they really are bafflingly, amusingly crazy.
The short version of it is that they believe that no one can be subject to the laws of a political unit without their explicit consent, and that the legal system is built around tricking you into conflating your legal status with your actual, fully sovereign personal identity (EDIT… sort of… @Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works comments below have better info). They believe that if they just say the exact right things in court at the right time, then they cannot be held responsible for any laws, that all of their interactions with the government are really their attempts to escape some illegitimate combination of admiralty law and the “Uniform Commercial Code” which isn’t even law anywhere, it’s just a model prepared by law professors and adapted by states (though never 100%). Some of the SovCits even believe that the federal government is bound by law to hold the taxes paid by them and their ancestors in trust and that if you do the paperwork EXACTLY right, the government has to turn it over to you.
This leads them to do dumb shit like drive without a license, registration, or insurance, and to insist on turns of phrase that are distinctions without differences, such as “I wasn’t driving, I was traveling.” Some of them insist that if a US flag has an embroidered fringe that this is evidence of the conspiracy. They waste time in the courts, and then they take any attempts by the authorities to humor them, to decide not to deal with their shit that particular day, or to preserve their rights to be evidence that the SovCit theory is on the right track and they’ll get it right at the next appearance!
Really, it’s stupid people who don’t understand the world, and who feel like they don’t have everything that they deserve, trying to impose some order and control on a system that is confusing, even if it requires magical thinking to do so. It would be sad if they weren’t acting in ways that are completely anti-social and even dangerous. From there, they usually descend into the rabbit hole of generic New World Order, “the bankers run everything” conspiracy bullshit that actually underpins the “movement”.
they believe that no one can be subject to the laws of a political unit without their explicit consent
No, they believe there IS NO political unit. The USA is a corporation and your birth certificate is in fact the creation of a corporate entitity, distinct from a real person.
They think that the USA has legal standing with the corporate-you (whose name is written in all caps), but not the real-you, unless you agree to enter into a contract with them.
Fair enough. I’m a little rusty on my sovcit “legal” “history”. 🤣
I’m not a SovCit, but I’ve played one
on tvat a larp, so I’ve done an unhealthy amount of reading (pirated) books by them.
Don’t forget that your birth certificate is a berth certificate, like a boat. Hence the connection to maritime law and shipping.
Beautifully put.
They’re just crazy and spewing nonsense that sounds vaguely like legal terminology.
Edit: the fundamental thing with sovcits is that they do not understand legal terminology, at all, so it all sounds like nonsense to them, so they think their nonsense sounds right.
Nothing that person said makes any sense. You’re completely fine.
It’s all fundamentally nonsense, none of it has to do with anything real.
If you haven’t seen this classic or even if you have then you should watch it
Also, more P Barnes
I remember seeing that video ages ago, maybe 8 years or so. At that time I didn’t know much about the sovcit delusion, but now that I do it makes me wonder: Where’s this numpty today? Did he ever wise up? Or is he in a cell somewhere?
I’m going to be honest… He wasn’t really in the right to taze him. Legally.
Yet … He’s a true American hero for doing so and I love him so much.
Why don’t you think he was in the right?
He wasn’t a physical danger. Yeah he was being annoying, and yes he shouldn’t have been trying to go into the court but the taser is there as a non-lethal way to put down a true threat. Not somebody that’s just annoying as fuck.
He might not have been actively a physical danger, but he did make it physical. He was told no and still tried to push through. He then gets angry (indicated by him telling them not to touch him despite them simply standing firm). He then reasserts his intent to go past them. He gave every indication of escalating the situation. That’s a definitive threat. I don’t think they should have to play his stupid games and just push him back until he becomes more and more threatening.
THIS.
He showed absolutely no sign of trying to attack. All he did was walk towards a person. He was just an annoying sovcit. Again…Yeah. On a personal level…he had it coming. Lots of people walking around should have their ass kicked for their behavior and lots of people id cheer if I heard it happened. But that wouldn’t make it legal
The LEO is expected to use experience and judgement, not try be a mind reader until it’s too late in a hallway full of people.
The sovvy physically pushed his way into P. Barnes. P. Barnes is law enforcement assigned to that courtroom. Laying hands (or shoulders or knees) on a LEO is a crime in the US. Whether the taser was necessary is a separate issue.
It’s… Literally the issue we’re discussing right now though. Whether or not he should have been tased. Whether or not he was actually posing an immediate physical threat, whether or not it looked like he was actually about to start attacking people and needed to be put down.
But yes I agree the way he was pushing himself into our hero barns was illegal. But the taser isn’t the ‘you broke the law’ gun it’s the ‘this man needs to be stopped immediately before he causes serious harm’ gun.
P BARNES YEA! No cameras in the courtroom, protecting the identities of the little guy, he is a meat wall of implacability.
I love how matter of fact he is. There’s absolutely no hostility, just facts.
“I am.”
“Leave the camera with your mother, and you can come inside.”
“Step back.”
It’s like every word has to be carefully and neutrally chosen, because they carry the weight of the hammer of God behind them.
As annoying as these sovcit people are, that taser was uncalled for. The interaction wasn’t violent at all. A police officer needs a lot more restraint, not reach for a weapon because they have no patience. Talk it out. And if we cheer this on, we have no leg to stand on calling out police violence in other situations.
/u/BonesOfTheMoon is it to much to ask for some screenshot from the answers of this? I am curious about the answers
It absolutely is not, stand by amigo.
Edit: I’m sorry nobody commented on this one except to say congrats.
Thanks will wait for 🍿;)
