Comment: Aha

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: And how does spelling matter (see in situ)


"...can the state or federal government levy a bank account in that name without your consent? Can it take a vehicle or property deed in that name without your consent? If it can do these things without your consent where does that authority come from so as not to be deemed theft?"

You've touched on the central fallacy of freemanism, which is as follows:

(a) Government is unable to seize property from people unless those people have ceded rights to the government

(b) People don't think they've ceded any such rights

(c) The government does in fact seize people's property

Therefore, people must have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government (via "registration" or whatever you call it)

The error lies in (a), of course, which is patently absurd. The government passes laws saying it can seize your property and then does so because it can. End of story. The government doesn't need you to have ceded your rights to it unwittingly via some arcane legal process.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."