A question from one of our followers, Austin asks:
Hello I was hoping you could point me in the right direction of being able to educate my self more on the topics you represent. Id like to learn so as to be able to effectively defend myself and stand up for what I believe that taxation is theft, and be able to help educate others, but I'm a little more than naive on the subject and it's a little difficult to find trustworthy and well educated sources on the matter from my current research. Any help and advice would be appreciated. This really spurred from the post I saw about registering cars and traffic tickets. Now I know not to go reading from laws and codes and all.
That's great that you're interested in learning! It really is a struggle because there isn't any place that has all the knowledge, and there's nobody that I can call an expert in all of this. I wouldn't even call myself an expert.
For a background, a lot of the philosophies are based on libertarian, classical liberal, voluntaryist, anarcho capitalist views. Depending on who you talk to, those can already mean completely different things. Personally, I believe that everyone has the right to do as they please without harming another person. Also that no government or organization can be delegated rights by a person who does not have those rights. For example, I can't hire someone to tax you if I don't have the right to tax you myself.
Once you understand these underlying philosophies, you can see that a lot of what the government does is immoral. Then if you reread the declaration of independence and the constitution, you'll see that the authors were actually very close to this mindset. This is the true mindset of a free people. You'll even learn that there were a lot of people trying to stop the constitution from being written, because it's authors were delegating rights to a new government that they themselves did not already have.
This means that even playing by their rules and following all the laws they have written can result in a violation of your rights.
All that said, the constitution did make it difficult for them violate some of our rights more than others. This means that a lot of the things government does to us, and a lot of things that it charges us for the "privilege" to do, are actually things they respectively should not do and should not charge us to do. But they get around the legality of it by imply coercing us into giving up rights we didn't know we had. With driving, the past couple generations have been told since birth that "driving is a privilege not a right". That statement is actually a piece of propaganda that has convinced us that government has the right to decide who can or can not drive, and can charge people to do so. Because we are told this lie all our lives, it becomes a belief that we never stop to examine it's truth.
The media rarely objects to government, and it's even more rare for it to object to an entire department of government. For example they might criticise the IRS once in a while when they get caught in a scandal, but they'll never ask you to question the entire existence of the IRS. The people who do quesiton this will never get air time on the main stream media, with the exception of a single appearance by Joe Bannister a while ago. Even then, the news made him sound like he was a criminal tax evader, taking the government's side.
So the few who have fought the system have had a very limited way of getting this information out. And while there have been many fighting the income tax since it's inception in 1913, a lot of that information couldn't be spread to a lot of people until the internet came along. The information is still scarce, and sometimes you really have to dig to find it. You won't find it in law school or law book, because those information sources are regulated by the Bar Associations - essentially a regulatory agency for lawyers. These institutions collectively have an interest in using the information to validate their existence.
The dissenting information we have comes from hundreds or maybe thousands of individuals who spend a lot of time researching the laws and finding the constitutional "loopholes". They do what they can to avoid getting coerced into a position where they are vulnerable to a government attack, but when the government does come for them, they experiment with different methods to defend themselves. These are often methods that lawyers will not even try for fear of disbarment.
One plain example is the idea of jury nullification where if a jury finds that a defendant has in fact don't what he has been accused, and that is a violation of a law, but the jury believes that law is unjust, they can vote not-guilty. But it is illegal in many cases for this to be told to the jury. People have been charged with contempt of court for attempting to do so, so lawyers won't even try. Most lawyers I have spoken to don't even know this a legal option, and those who do don't spend much time thinking about it because they can't rely on it to defend their clients.
There's a lot of information scattered around YouTube, but some are just misinformation and conspiracy theories. Not to say there are no conspiracy theories that are true, but a lot of them are exaggerations of the truth and include many unproven and misleading ideas presented as facts.
There are groups called sovereign citizens, and while I can agree with a lot of their philosophy, they are not entirely truthful regarding the law. Some of these groups even cite court rulings in their favor, but the quotes have been altered and the originals are not exactly as helpful as the modified version.
As far as cars, driving and travelling goes, there is a site called the National Motorist Association that's got some pretty interesting information. One thing that's really cool is their membership program. Members are given tools to fight their traffic tickets, and if they lose, the NMA will reimburse them for up to $300 per year. There are also a lot of sites if you search for "right to travel". With this one, keep in mind there is a lot of bad information. So of it's conjecture or opion, but some is based on luck, and some is based on reproducible fact. But even when something is entirely based on fact and law, it could be completely different in another state - and especially in another country.
There are many cases where a case will be dismissed, and the defendant will say it's proof of some grand conspiracy, when they could just be completely misinterpreting or making assumptions about unexplainable actions by the government. I got out of a misdemeanor traffic ticket which was dismissed without explanation after making several claims of my sovereignty. The commissioner, who i later realized was not a judge, called me a foolish constitutionalist and denied my request to dismiss the case. On my next appearance the prosecutors, who laughed at my previous claims, requested to dismiss the case in the "interest of justice". I have told this story in detail to many people who claim that this is proof that my claims worked. It's possible, but there's still a good amount of doubt in the back of my head that the prosecutors just didn't want to deal with my crazy shenanigans over a relatively minor offense.
As much as there are laws that arguably don't apply to you, I wouldn't say to avoid reading them. They are the justification the government will use when attempting to coerce you. Often there are a few really important codes that can exclude thousands of other rules. For example the entire tax code has definitions and declarations of jurisdiction, or who the rules apply to. If you can make sense of those to understand where they don't apply to you, then you could point those out and use it against them if the need arises.
Whatever happens, be safe, learn, and share your experiences and knowledge!
Best of luck!