Without joking around, what point are ”sovereign citizens” trying to make?
Posted by MrOaiki@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 80 comments
I’ve seen the clips of people speeding or driving without a drivers license, I’ve seen the court proceedings where they talk about ”not the person, the individual” or whatever they’re saying. And most comments about it are people poking fun at them snd explaining it with ”they’re just idiots”. So if for a moment you could put ”they’re idiots” aside, could you please explain what these people believe, how they live and what they want?
rhinocerosjockey@reddit
It mostly boils down to the fact that they don't believe the rules of living in a society apply to them because they did not consent to the rules and laws in the first place. So laws and police and such only have authority if you consent to giving them that power, which they have not.
Rourensu@reddit
I’m definitely not a sovereign citizen, but this is more of a philosophical question I’ve wondered about.
Is it possible for someone to not live in a society? I understand a person could theoretically live in the middle of the woods by themselves and not interact with anyone, but that land in the middle of the woods is, presumably, owned by someone, if only the government, so the person who doesn’t want to live in a society is still under the jurisdiction and authority of the government.
Are there some islands in the middle of the ocean that is not under some government’s jurisdiction? Is there any place on the globe where a person could actually live “free” from society and the government? I think there’s part of Antarctica that’s not technically claimed by any specific government. If so, would that part of Antarctica and maybe space asteroids be the only options for a sovereign citizen to not live in a society?
rhinocerosjockey@reddit
This is an interesting question for sure. And could really go down a rabbit hole. I thought about this, and I don’t think you could not live in a society, hear me out.
First, to keep some scope, I used the following rules to come to my conclusion.
1) This question is based on modern times, with a modern society, modern technology, and modern land ownership and borders.
2) You are not living “under the radar” somewhere. The closest modern government, or at least society to you is fully aware of your presence in the land you occupy.
As far as I know, you are right, that even the most remote islands are claimed by some country. If you decided to live there, it’s unlikely they’d let you stay there free from their societal rules once they knew you existed.
I thought of the infamous North Sentinel Island people who live in a reverse situation where India has laws against contacting them. In that situation, they live free from Indian laws and society. They killed that missionary in 2018 but there tribesmen involved where not out through the Indian justice system. We were just told to stay away, again. But they are also a society themselves, and if you were born into the tribe, you could in theory make the same sovereign argument about not contributing to the tribe.
Antarctica, maybe, but I think if you were know there, the various countries that do perform science there would probably not live you just live it out.
Space is probably your best shot, but even then you’d probably have to argue your point against some country laying claim to the territory, even if just in the name of science.
There are philosophical ideas that humans act selfishly. There is also a paradox that a society of selfish humans would lead to detrimental results. The Prisoners Dilemma game theory comes to mind. And we can see parts of that in real life. So basically all land is claimed at this point, and governments know a society of selfish people will collapse, so we are forced to operate within the confines of the society of the land we occupy.
Last thought that came into mind. Ocean volcano makes a brand new island and you’re first to find and claim it. Some country might just forcefully take it, but I’d imagine otherwise you could live sovereign that way.
I don’t know, just the ramblings of a layman who does enjoy thought experiments he’s not qualified to have.
Frodo34x@reddit
Territorial waters and fishing rights could make this island incredibly attractive. The chance that you'd be left alone by the US, Chinese, etc governments seem almost nil.
I think if you left the US to go settle this new Pacific island and succeeded well enough to be sustainable, the US might just declare it de jure US territory as a result.
Kiyo-chan@reddit
There are a few instances where (in the US at least) you could do that; but you would need to set a few things up first. You need to setup a situation where you don’t do anything that incurs a tax. The easiest way to do that is to live off-grid and (genuinely) live off the land. Since owning land is taxable, you would need to have permission to live on someone else’s land. If you had a friend or knew someone that has a large spot of land, that also has resources like drinkable water and plants/game that you could hunt/gather them you could potentially be self sufficient.
Rourensu@reddit
Sure, but that land would still be someone else’s, and backed by the power/authority of the government, right?
If someone came across the sovereign citizen’s log cabin (assuming the sovereign citizens has the land owner’s permission to be there) and the sovereign citizen killed that person (even if self defense) I believe the government would then get involved and the sovereign citizen would be minimally arrested and detained as ultimately the government has jurisdiction over that land.
Frodo34x@reddit
That's essentially getting at one of the historic issues with living apart from society. You have the aforementioned "living in society is better" argument, where it's just easier and more productive to work together.
The second issue, the one that you're approaching here, is that those living outside of society only do so at the consent of the society. One can choose to not interact with society, but if the society chooses to interact with you (and they have a monopoly on violence) then you have no option but to interact with society.
I think for this reason, even living in Antarctica or space wouldn't be feasible in terms of philosophically rejecting consent for living in a society. One might be able to make a home and sustain it in such an inhospitable environment, but that only works until a superpower government comes along and decides that they want your resources.
sapphireminds@reddit
They are interacting with society when they met up with that person who is protected by society.
If they are all off-grid and just don't report anything, then no one is going to interfere.
Rourensu@reddit
That hypothetical person entered the off-grid person’s area. The off-grid person went off grid to be away from people, yet some random person showed up.
If that random person’s family issues a missing person’s report, and they track the person’s gps to narrow down the person’s last known location and, like the person, stumble upon the off-grid person, then they are interfering when the off-grid person wanted to be left alone.
sapphireminds@reddit
That random person has protection from society. Walls and security would help them avoid people wandering in.
Rourensu@reddit
Sure. And if the random person, for whatever reason, wanders in regardless, then the off-grid person is having society (ie the random person) forced onto them.
sapphireminds@reddit
They need to take more steps to prevent that person from wandering in.
IthurielSpear@reddit
You could always go and live in slab city (yes it’s real) and take your chances there
rebby2000@reddit
I mean, this is something can go down a *really* deep rabbit hole since this is something that's been debated for a long time. You might be interested in the works of John Locke and other philosophers of his time since they explore the question.
Another angle to consider is that the views on what being a free individual meant has changed drastically throughout history. In ancient Greece (specifically Athens) it was viewed as being able to participate in civic life, basically. In that case being free meant *belonging to* a group instead of being free (for lack of a better term) from it. Over time that evolved into, effectively, into being exempt from certain obligations because you were a member of a group in the middle ages (freemen vs serfs) which is closer to our modern concept of freedom, but still not quite there. But you can see how it likely evolved from that point to now. So, from a historical standpoint...At the times when *maybe* you could have lived free (modern term) from society, it was a time period when you wouldn't have wanted to.
Rourensu@reddit
Well, I’m guessing I’m not going to be the one to figure it out? lol
I’m coming at this more from OP’s comment about the sovereign citizen position that “they did not consent to the rules and laws in the first place” thus believing themselves not bound by said rules and laws. I’m generally of the opinion that if one consents to X, then they consent to the, for lack of a better term, terms and conditions of X. So if a sovereign citizen consents to living in Jurisdiction X, then they consent to the terms and conditions of Jurisdiction X, which includes the laws and authority of Jurisdiction X.
But, if every place on earth is under some authority, and it is impossible to live not under some authority, and the person did not consent to being alive (under the terms and conditions of always being under some authority), then there is no possible option for them to (potentially) consent to—they were forced into the situation under the terms and conditions and they are unable to choose an alternative situation with different terms and conditions.
There appears to be some areas on earth, such as the unclaimed part of Antarctica, that is not under some authority. I mentioned an asteroid in space as another (theoretical) option of an authority-less place. A third option, one I’m not advocating for but mentioning as a non-impossible option, is to not live (anymore).
If a person consents to live in Jurisdiction X, then they agree to live under Jurisdiction X’s authority. If not, there are other jurisdictions to choose from. If a sovereign citizen does not consent to the authority of any jurisdiction, then it seems like the only options are to live in one of the few places like Antarctica, live in space, or not live.
It seems like the third option is the most, again, for lack of a better term, feasible/possible, but I don’t think many people would advocate for that. The Antarctica-like places seem technically possible, but I’m not sure how feasible it is to physically travel to those places. The space option doesn’t seem like there’s (currently) any possibility of happening.
If sovereign citizens truly wish to live without any authority (they would not consent to) and truly live in a lawless, stateless area, and there were some island in the middle of the ocean where we could send them to as that’s what they want, I wouldn’t have an issue with that, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a practical option like that.
sapphireminds@reddit
At most they would have to pay land tax if they wanted to be homesteaders that had zero interaction with society, but that also means they would need to be subsistence farmers who do not buy anything, do not travel off their private land, do not interact with other people and do not have children (because children cannot be forced to have the parents' beliefs and they have rights outside of their parents)
Actually living divorced from society is very difficult for a reason - humans have achieved what we have because we live in societies and work cooperatively. The taxes you pay on land would be the cost to be left alone.
Rourensu@reddit
I agree it would be very difficult, but my general question is whether or not it’s actually possible. If it’s possible but difficult, then a person has the option to choose that life. But if it’s (practically?) impossible, then they do not have that option and are forced to live in society under the authority of some government.
From my understanding, sovereign citizens’ “issues” have to do with government authority/laws/etc. Let’s say a person is living by themselves self-sufficiently entirely divorced from society, but someone comes upon the land where the sovereign citizen is living and the sovereign citizen kills the person (even in self defense) then the government will get involved and put the sovereign citizen into custody. The sovereign citizen wants to get away from government authority, but as the land was in some government jurisdiction then the government will exercise its authority on the sovereign citizen despite the sovereign citizen wanting to be free from government authority.
It’s not necessarily that difficult to be away from people, but it seems practically impossible to not be under the authority of some government.
sapphireminds@reddit
The person coming onto the land has rights and protections from the government. If you want to have no interaction with society, that means you live completely isolated. They don't want to do that.
They just want to get away with not paying their share.
the-quibbler@reddit
They believe the law is a series of magic words that specifically don't mean what they say to trick people, and if they cast their incantations, they can defeat the evil wizards trying to trick them.
It's all just a way to steal money from people who have lost their licenses to too many DUIs and think there must be an easy fix, in the form of magic.
Frodo34x@reddit
This is an important core part of it - the progression of logic isn't "I think that the constitution has been legally abolished, so therefore I'm going to travel in my car without a license or seatbelt" but instead "I don't want to wear a seatbelt and/or don't have a licence, so therefore I'm going to latch on to a conspiracy that tells me what I want to hear". They start out wanting to not pay tax, to not have a driver's license, to not have any ID, etc.
If their claims about courts being corrupt and driving licences being unnecessary and all that jazz were true? I would still behave in virtually the exact same way that I do today. I would rather spend time and money on an "unnecessary" driving licence than on being dragged to court and arguing magic words to get let off on a technicality.
Asaneth@reddit
You can't tell me what to do!!
markmakesfun@reddit
You aren’t my Dad!
Lugbor@reddit
They aren't trying to make a point. They're living in a delusional fantasy where the right combination of words lets them do whatever they want without repercussions, because one guy they saw on the internet/TV said so. They genuinely believe that they can claim maritime law makes them immune to the laws of whatever locality they're in, or that they can claim they were "traveling" instead of "driving" and get out of traffic violations.
You can't put aside the "they're idiots" part because the delusion is a core part of their existence.
markmakesfun@reddit
Additionally, many of these people PAID for this horrible advice. So there is the sunk-cost fallacy as well.
sapphireminds@reddit
They are usually having issues in their life, often financial, and are bitter that their life has been difficult without help from the government (in their eyes) and so don't think they should have to pay taxes or pay for things like car registration. They feel put upon and think they have found some sort of magic trick that will make everything better for them and save them money.
In the end, it's partially about wanting to feel smarter and better than others too.
There's also delusional conspiracy thinking in there as well.
ehenn12@reddit
They believe some version of this:
The original American government is now somehow a corporation. As such, they are not subject to the laws of the United States. That's why they won't have a real license plate or a driver's license. The US Constitution is read as giving a right to travel. But that doesn't mean you get to just ignore vehicle laws.
xyzqwa@reddit
Adding onto this, they specifically cite the Articles of Confederation which was the first governing document of the United States after the revolution. I think they argue from that standing point viewing the constitution null and void. At least that's what I get from having heard these people talk.
KevworthBongwater@reddit
I saw somewhere on a YouTube channel that a similar but different situation is going on in Russia. primarily old men will get fake USSR IDs made claiming the USSR was illegally broken up and they are Soviet citizens and the Russian federation has no legitimacy. just like here in the US, it never works and they're in for a bad time
Darmok47@reddit
Same thing in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement
MrOaiki@reddit (OP)
Weren’t there some scandal recently where a group of old folks were arrested for planning some treason? I don’t remember exactly, but one of them claimed the throne.
KevworthBongwater@reddit
haha oh weird! now Im gonna jump into this rabbit hole
Darmok47@reddit
It's kind of comforting that this isn't some uniquely American thing, and that lots of countries have the same kind of crazy person.
xyzqwa@reddit
Definitely crazier to jump back to the 1700s than living memory but yeah still a crazy person.
xyzqwa@reddit
I was going to mention the post Soviet thing but I felt my reply would have gone off topic. At least there is some claim to it even if not realistic but yeah that whole movement is quite interesting.
I believe there was a high court case which ruled the petitioner did not have standing, IIRC it was in Russia.
safarifriendliness@reddit
Which is crazy because let’s say they’re right… so what? If I’m arrested I don’t go to jail because of some immutable law, I got jail because people restrain and drag me there under threat of violence. That’s not going to stop because you argued some logic, they still want to put you in jail so they will
Deolater@reddit
Well that's the other side of it. They think of laws as like magical spells. If you combine the words correctly ("I'm not driving, I'm traveling". "I'm not JOHN SMITH, I'm John Smith"), then the police and judges (who also secretly know the TRUE laws but are hiding them) will have to do what you say
atomfullerene@reddit
To give them the very slightest bit of credit, many of them hear about people getting off on a technicality and think they can do the same thing of only they get some secret set of words.
safarifriendliness@reddit
It’s ridiculous. Like the authorities are 1000% corrupt but they’re going to follow a law no one else knows they have to?
IamGleemonex@reddit
One of the things that isn’t mentioned by any of the comments I saw, but is worth calling out…
If you rewind the clock back in time to the early 1800s, Napoleon’s brother married an American woman. There were concerns after we just fought a war of independence to shed ourselves from the yokes of monarch that somehow, Napoleon’s brother or any children of this marriage could come here and be declared a new monarch here. Because of this, there was significant momentum to pass a Constitutional amendment which was called the Titles of Nobility Amendment, claiming that any American citizen who accepted a title of nobility would lose their US citizenship and become ineligible for any federal office.
This amendment was passed by Congress. But in order to be ratified, it had to be passed by 3/4 of the states. We were also semifrequently adding new states at that time, meaning the exact number of states needed to ratify it kept getting adjusted. I don’t remember the exact book referenced by Sovereign Citizens, but there was some legal book written in the mid 1800s which at the time it was written, we were just one state short of ratifying the Amendment, and it was thought this Amendment would come to be. So when writing this book, they added this amendment as the 13th Amendment.
That Amendment never did get ratified though. And anyone looking up today would see that the actual 13th Amendment is the Amendment to outlaw slavery. However, copies of that book still exist, and some people still point to it to claim that there is a secret amendment for this. And it gets simplified from being “titles of nobility” to just “titles”. This is then used by some fringe folks since then to claim anyone that holds an “official title” is stripped of US Citizenship.
With the Sovereign Citizen movement, they have bought wholesale into this, especially the part about anyone with titles not being US Citizens. This means judges, who have the title “honorable” aren’t US Citizens because they have a title. Lawyers who have titles like “esquire” and “district attorney” and “prosecutor” aren’t US Citizens because they have a title. Therefore they say that these people have no authority over them.
There’s also some who try to use the 14th Amendment which specifically says that anyone born in the US is a US citizen, to try and claim that this amendment created a second class of citizen that was different than the original “Sovereign Citizens” of the state they lived in before this amendment.
Finally, there are again some out there takes to the 10th Amendment. Here is the full text of the 10th Amendment:
The key part being the last 4 words “or to the people.” Sovereign Citizens will say that by specifically calling out “or to the people” the amendment could be written as:
Essentially they claim that by saying “or to the people” you as a citizen can choose to or not include the first part of “the States respectively”.
It’s basically just a bunch of brain dead idiots who believe another brain dead idiot telling them about secret amendments and secret interpretations of the Constitution that the government doesn’t want you to know because it is powerless to stop you from using those rights!!! They want to sit in this weird state of being where the Constitution selectively applies to them when they want it to, but doesn’t apply to them when they don’t want it to. They want laws to apply when people do something to them, but they don’t want laws to apply when they do something that is illegal. They want to avoid paying taxes or paying for a driver’s license, etc, because those laws don’t apply because of these secret amendments and secret interpretations that only they know.
MrOaiki@reddit (OP)
Very interesting! Thanks for the trivia, I’ll go into the rabbit hole!
allochthonous_debris@reddit
They aren't trying to make a statement or achieve a political goal. They are just people that have bought into one of several related conspiracy theories that maintains there are legal "cheat codes" that people can exploit to exempt themselves from government laws, statutes, or taxation.
Most of these conspiracy theories are based on misunderstanding of existing laws or on fictional laws and historical events. One common conspiracy theory in involves the believe that citizens of a country consist of two persons: a human individual and a corporate entity. While the corporate entity is is subject to laws and taxation, the human person is not. Adherents to this theory believe that they can exempt themselves from having to follow laws by divorcing themselves from their corporate entity.
Bright_Ices@reddit
Other people have covered the history and politics and all that, but I think it’s simpler: They want attention and respect from people like themselves, who imagine they are very special boys (and girls, occasionally) because they’re the only thing that stands between democracy and tyranny.
Ironic, I know.
Bland_OldMan@reddit
They aren't trying to make a make a point. They are vulnerable people who bought into a con that convinced them that they can "beat the system" by acting like that. It's actually pretty sad, because when the sovereign schtick doesn't work they often double down, convincing that they didn't use the right words or documents and that's why it didn't work.
There is a growing dissatisfaction in the US tied directly the declining standard of living, corporate greed, growing wage inequality, and/or social isolation. Many people who feel this don't understand the causes of it, and those unexplained (to them) problems with our system make them vulnerable to grifts, cons, and cults. It's the same pattern you see in American evangelicals, white nationalists, the MAGA movement, and the list goes on.
TomBombomb@reddit
I'm not a lawyer or involved with them, so I think a judge or an attorney or a civil servant would probably have a better handle on it, but I think it's a combination of things and that there's no real unified philosophy.
I think some of them are conspiracy minded and think the current justice system is fraudulent. Some of them feel they have "natural rights" and government as it stands is interfering with that. I'm unclear as to why they think if they say the right mix of words they can "undo" a court. Some of them think they have a better handle on the law that judges and lawyers do.
AvonMustang@reddit
This part is sounding less crazy the last 18 months.
smurphy8536@reddit
Yeah but usually it’s because they got their license taken after 3 DUIs so they keep driving while claiming the laws don’t apply to them
TomBombomb@reddit
The criminal justice system is broken in a lot of ways and should be interrogated, requiring a license to drive and declaring that the court has no jurisdiction so you're impossible to prosecute for crime isn't the correct interrogation.
Rourensu@reddit
But they’re not driving, they’re “traveling”…
kanakamaoli@reddit
But the flag has/doesn't have fringe so it doesn't apply to me...
Grouchy-Macaron-1780@reddit
Typically they are "misfits" in modern society who have trouble making a go of being a responsible adult. Almost all of them have legal issues, and/or money issues, that's why they don't bother getting a license plate or insurance for their car.
(I say they have money issues, because ANYONE WHO has money or assets worth protecting from a lawsuit after injuring/killing someone in a car crash) would have insurance, regardless of their views on being a sovereign citizen. They know they have too much to lose. Whereas the typical loser/sovereign citizen literally has nothing to lose in a lawsuit because they have a pot to piss in.
Chemical_Fly9641@reddit
I dealt with a few when I was in LE, they are all different. some are actual criminals who are low IQ enough to think that they can use it as a get out of jail free card. Criminals have like a layered defense system for dealing with cops and every now and then you find one who spec'd wrong. Some of them are truly mentally ill. A lot of them have narcissistic traits and the SC movement gives that aspect of their personality an outlet, it makes them a main character, a victim, a freedom fighter, and smarter than everyone else at the same time. One of them was trolling too.
MrOaiki@reddit (OP)
Do the narcissist ones get a wake-up call when they’re sentenced despite their defence strategy?
Chemical_Fly9641@reddit
I was military LE and the people we dealt with were civilians so when we handed them over to the civilian authorities we never saw them again, so from personal experience I can't tell you anything definitive. But based on anecdotes, youtube videos, and personal experience with people who have those personality traits legal consequences actually reinforce their beliefs and make them worse. More than one of these people, in multiple countries, have ambushed cops and killed them. We treat Sov Cits as a serious threat to officer and public safety, as well as a threat to whatever military infrastructure we happen to encounter them around.
Dave_A480@reddit
1) The overall thing is a con job - selling materials that supposedly teach you how to opt out of obeying the law
2) Individuals are drawn to it because the idea of being legally exempt from civilization appeals to them....
Chance-Ad197@reddit
They’re not trying to make a point, they’re undereducated, often mentally unwell people who are vulnerable to being convinced of something such as the modern day concept of sovereign citizenship despite there being zero documented or published information from credible sources indicating that it’s a real thing, and an endless plethora of documented, credible evidence proving it is not real. You see what I mean? These are the sort of people who will genuinely buy into information they got from an unofficial source without looking into its legitimacy or specifics of how it works. They simply hear it out of someone’s mouth and decide to go all in no questions asked, then go get themselves arrested because they fully believe that they have discovered a fool proof work around for being held accountable for their actions. They aren’t making points, they are unwell and need help.
Ringtail209@reddit
They're mentally ill. That's not a joke.
Showdown5618@reddit
Some of them think they discovered a secret loophole in the laws that allowed them to whatever without legal consequences or make it so the laws don't apply to them.
beggars_would_ride@reddit
There is also some of the conspiracy theorist mindset: Secret knowledge that "they" don't want you to know. How things "really" work. The government is covering up "the truth".
In the case of the SCs, this secret knowledge goes beyond just feeling smarter than the mundanes, and actually unlocks the privilege of getting away with various antisocial behaviors. (so the SC is convinced).
Knowing all about the Roswell grays won't pay for a weak cup of diner coffee, but being a free man on the land means you don't have to pay taxes. So you have all the psychological attractions of other conspiracy theories with financial incentives added to the mix.
moodeng2u@reddit
Most seem to have a screwed up life before they stumbled upon the sovereign 'alternate reality' online.
Some of this stuff has been around for years, the gold fringed flag thing.. Maritime law, etc
Never forget, along with the replacement glass industry, somebody is making off of this.
The 'gurus', and people selling fake license plates...fake documents...etc.
isaacfisher@reddit
I’m not an expert but from seeing some of their videos and trying to hear what they are trying to argue it seems to me that there’s no one coherent idea and that there are all kind of different (weird) arguments under the sovereign citizen name. Anyhow, the main idea they all share is that the law doesn’t apply to them because either it’s not legal in the first place, they opted out from it or there’s some other loophole that make them immune. The bases for their arguments are (as far as I can tell) very varied
rubiconsuper@reddit
They’re sold a course and/or materials with a bunch of cobbled together court cases that they are told will allow them to avoid government taxes and laws. So you got your license suspended? That’s fine you’re “traveling” and you don’t need a license plate because “they’re not engaged with commerce”.
The point is that they’re told they can ignore laws and regulations they don’t want to deal with and buy into it. They don’t actually care about being a sovereign citizen they just don’t want to follow the rules. This is where you’ll also see the “am I being detained” followed by “you didn’t read me my Miranda rights”. Fun legal tidbit they don’t have to read you Miranda until they do the interrogation.
Now if you have true believers I mean the ones that fully believe in the “movement” basically take a libertarian ideology to an extreme amount, some could even be libertarian anarchist type deal.
Proud-Adeptness1863@reddit
That they are insufferable narcissists
Character-Tennis-241@reddit
That they are crazy.
Antique-Campaign-738@reddit
The law equivalent to flat earthers. Absolutely zero understanding of what’s going on, but convinced they’re smarter than everyone else.
JustATyson@reddit
What they want is a "get out of consequences free card." They're entrapped in this belief that the law is some big loophole and if you can find the right loophole, then you can avoid the consequences of the law.
These loopholes include bullshit around maritime law and flags (something about the fringes of the flag meaning something, and therefore the courtacls jurisdiction over them), to bastardization of contract law where they view everyone and everything as an incorporated entity. And they don't recognize the incorporated entity of themselves (like John Smith Inc) cuz they never consented. There's also a group that has believes about the Moors and how there's a whole separate US Moorish Republic due to some old ass treaty/old document. And other beliefs.
They aren't a centralized group. Unfortunately, their arguments and way of thinking can be enticing to several types of people. Particularly those that want to feel smart and those that are desperate. They can also prey on the naive. They'll come up with a whole argument and reasoning that sounds smart, but any bit of knowledge or thought exposes its flaws.
Like, c'mon, if having the wrong flag in the courtroom is gonna fuck up jurisdiction, then most courts are gonna be on top of that! And cases don't get thrown out due to that nominal issue.
Additionally, every so often they have a "win." A win being their case was dismissed or something of thay nature. But, it's pretty much never on the grounds of their argument but something else. This could be bad policing or the system just not wanting to deal wirh a person who'll turn a 5-15 min speeding ticket hearing into a fucking circus.
But, either purposefully or ignorantly, misconstrue this success as a win on the merits rather than other issues. Granted, even layman can make this mistake.
CharlesAvlnchGreen@reddit
It's partly bad legal advice that has been passed around on YouTube and in jails/prisons/criminal communities that offers the possibility of a Hail Mary -- the ability to get off on a technicality, through their "knowledge" of some arcane area of the law.
It's also partly a way to waste time, on the part of law enforcement and courts, again offering the promise of getting their case thrown out. (Which does happen every now and again; and the Sovereign Citizen influencers use this as proof their arguments work.)
It's the legal equivalent of quacks who convince patients that coffee enemas or raw juice can cure cancer. They are presented with truthy-sounding evidence and testimonials, and buy it hook line and sinker.
Techaissance@reddit
The idea is that the legal entity of a person doesn’t actually apply to that person. The claim is essentially that the law doesn’t apply to actual people because the law only refers to the references to people like documents. For example if John Doe tries to drive without a license and get away with it, the legal argument he’s making is that the law applies to an entry in a database somewhere registered to John Doe with a matching birth certificate. This then makes the actual person immune to all laws. The objective is just that: be immune to the law in general.
MrOaiki@reddit (OP)
How is the entry in the database supposed to drive a car? I mean, if for a moment we pretend the person and the entry are two different things.
Techaissance@reddit
Congratulations! You found a hole in their argument. That’s how weak it is.
MsSamm@reddit
Didn't Shaggy make a song about that? 🎶 It wasn't me
Roadshell@reddit
Sovereign Citizens are not rational people. They've been mislead into thinking they've found a loophole in the law that basically makes them immune from having to obey laws. They are very wrong about this both on the legal merits and about how they will be treated by police but they're so entrenched in this view that they will not listen to anyone trying to set them straight.
Grunt08@reddit
It varies. At baseline, there are beliefs that the Articles of Confederation are still in force and thus the entire legal regime is illegitimate. There are abstruse and absurd readings of the Constitution and customary law, and a refusal to accept that the law is actually pretty resilient to "gotcha" language games.
You can Google and just find infinite nonsensical arguments, but the bottom line is it's people who want to believe they've accessed secret knowledge who somehow fail to realize that this will fail in literally every interaction they have with the legal system.
(My personal favorite is the belief that if a flag is displayed a certain way, the court is an "Admiralty court" and thus has no jurisdiction. To which judges typically say "no it isn't" and continue.)
Eatingfarts@reddit
There are some people who believe in no government at all.
This is on the left and right on the political spectrum.
I’m not quite sure how these people thought the roads were built to begin with but I won’t get into that. You can easily rabbit hole yourself however you want, sans political affiliation.
SuperBeavers1@reddit
They're running on the original constitution known as the "Articles of Confederation"
This original constitution doesn't follow a natonal government, the short version is that this constitution preferences independence over unity and you're seeing a modern version of it being "exploited"
MsPandaLady@reddit
Sovereign Citizen believe that the American Government is not legitimate government for a variety of reasons.
Because the American government is not legitimate they believe laws do not apply to them and they do not have to pay taxes.
trampolinebears@reddit
You're right to look at it this way; they're not idiots, or at least there's more to it than that. Sovereign citizens, flat earthers, anti-vaxers, and conspiracy theorists of all sorts tend to have similar motiviations:
In a bewildering world where you have no real power and inexplicable things happen for no apparent reason, it feels good to believe that you're one of the special ones who has it all figured out.
It's like having a secret hookup for getting something that no one else has access to. It's like knowing a magic spell that muggles don't even believe in, but you know it really works. It's like learning the secret handshake that gets you in to a hidden club.
cyvaquero@reddit
For various reasons they think certain laws should not apply to them and attach themselves to whatever idea, real or not, that provides justification.
Some are just plain old contrarian, some are financially desperate, etc.
kepler16bee@reddit
There is no real point other than having main character syndrome. They want to get away with doing whatever they want and not having to obey the laws that everyone else abides by in a functioning society. They're selfish, uneducated idiots.
Annunaq@reddit
It’s the highest expression of our desire to be independent and free from submission to anyone or anything. Even if it is god awful stupid.
Basically, theyre incompatible with modern society and this is how they express it
AutoModerator@reddit
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.
If you see any comments that violate the rules, please report it and move on!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.