Lets start from the beginning

[Pottapaug1938]

PD:

Let's try something simple.

Assume a tourist from some foreign country decides to vacation in Florida, rents a car, blows a stop sign, and t-bones your car.

Has this person entered the social contract? Has he consented to be governed?

no he has not entered into the social contract, however when you injury some ones person, rights or property, then common law applies even for non citizens.

And, more importantly, how does this scenario differ from an event involving a person who is a resident of Florida and / or a citizen of the United States?

none as common law is applicable to citizens and non citizens alike, including sovereigns.

Every governmental unit in the world maintains sovereignty over its territory and every person within it. It doesn't matter if it is a repressive dictatorship like North Korea, a fundamentalist Islamic state, or a democracy.

ALL governments exist by cooperation and / or coercion. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that (just like any gambling casino) you either play by the house rules or you don't play.

If you have a problem with being governed by a representative government elected by majority vote, you have three options:

1 - Become politically active and get the government to change the rules to agree with what you want.

2 - Ignore the rules and take your lumps.

3 - Find another sandbox to play in.

A refreshing take on the 3 options I never heard before, most enlightening sir.

A most inane, boring and content-free take on the 3 options I never heard before. Most irritating, Sir. I wish that you had taken the time to actually address the three options and maybe select one; but then, when have you ever taken a stand on anything?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Yes I know, the public school brainwashing of just taking someone at their word did not take hold. I need verified facts from many sources, not air from some guy on the Internet. Well unless I want my name on your forum of shame like the rest of those dimwits.

When I have satisfied my questions then I will go from there.

You are already on the wall of shame and dig yourself deeper with every sentence you write. You will never be satisfied until everyone agrees with your happy, little fantasy world, which will never happen.

of course, I won't be happy until everyone agrees with me, man your so smart. Like that would be a realistic goal or something. After all that talk of beliefs here I go and try to change everyone's minds to agree with me, man you really saw me coming. You got to be a rocket scientist dumbing yourself down to talk taxes, your just way to intelligent to be a tax guy.


And, just like any Proper Sov'run, you spout off about the public school brainwashing. Hate to break it to you Buckwheat but every single person on this board went to a public school of some type. I don't remember a single one who was sent exclusively to private school or home schooled.


"Our schools have been scientifically
designed to prevent over-education from happening.
The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life,
because they're not tempted to think about any other role."
William T. Harris
U.S. Commissioner of Education
1889


A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government.

On Liberty (1859) John stuart mill 1859


"Every child in America who enters school at the age of five is
mentally ill, because he comes to school with an allegiance toward
our elected officials, toward our founding fathers, toward our
institutions, toward the preservation of this form of government that
we have. Patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty, all that proves that
children are sick because a truly well individual is one who has
rejected all of those things, and is truly the international child of
the future."

Dr. Chester Pierce
Harvard University Professor


And every single regular on here has explained the concept of jurisdiction to you, either in legal terms, with cites, or in common sense terms, with examples. Yet you argue that you need verified sources, not air from some guy on the internet.

yes correct, they have explained it to me the way they understand it, and of course they came about their knowledge unbiased and belief free you expect me to believe? If you do, that is fine just admit it

Funny part about that inanity is that you've been caught copying and pasting your "research" directly out of Sov'run sites. Not once, not twice, but multiple times. I've seen at least twice that you either copied and pasted from Constitution dot org or copied from someone who did. Even down to the same spelling and grammatical mistakes. Arayder caught at least one that I remember and others have pointed out that the same failed arguments are to be found on other sites. Your entire diatribe comes directly from approved Sov'run sources, no other research involved.

I see the problem. You assume because I post info from sovereign sites that the I formation is not only false but that I have not taken the time to read relevant parts of the corp stuff put out by the state and fed. I can assure you this is not the case, but you won't listen anyway. That old belief about people like me. Since I do not study any regular law books, I most likely do not have Gilbert law summaries "property" by Jesse Dukeminier on my lap. Since I don't and most likely could not comprehend it if I did, could you fill me in on the right to exclude? Who can I exclude? What can I exclude them from?


While you continue to belittle others, who happen to know quite a bit more then you, you continue to show your own ignorance and lack of even general comprehension skills. Your obvious dislike for anyone who is an actual authority, that does not agree with you, is, well, pretty obvious. And it shows more and more.

You will never be satisfied learning the answers because, like I said before and you admitted, you already know all the answers

nice twist on my words, what I said was I already know the answers most of you belief babies would offer up, very little thought. I seriously have gotten better anwsers from part time hand r block people.


and want someone to verify them for you. If you don't like the answers, or if they don't agree with what you already know, you will just discard them.

I do not suffer from confirmation bias nor cognative dissonance but you appear ripe for those problems

You have claimed to have all this learning yet cannot make a simple statement without either screwing it up grammatically or phonetically. You have yet to figure out the big secret of learning and you never will. I would love to go on and on but...... #seal clubbing.

Yes I must admit that I do have a spot of trouble from time to time, English never was a fav subject of mine, I guess that means I can not learn anything. Lmfao

[Patriotdiscussions]

Tell you what pott, I will pick one if you can tell me in an intelligent manner who these people are that I have bolded in the quote below, from the articles of confederation.


The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;





Notice they are NOT entitled to the privileges of the citizens(and thus have none of the same obligations either).

[Patriotdiscussions]

So, tell us PD, did you win your traffic court case?

Yes sir I did,

If you believe individual consent is required why did you bother going to court and defending your case? Why did you believe the law applied to you that day?

Because I am a citizen domiciled on federal territory, subject to the contracts I entered into, responsible to obey all laws passed for the general good of the people.

[wserra]

Enough drivel.