Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest
Aren't we supposed to rule the government? Not the government rules us? So essentially we have the power? Anyway, the guy seems a bit wierd but here in this country he can believe what he wants. If he get away with it then all the best. If he doesn't then he's in for a ride.
I was bored and said hello to this guy while in a Deny's. I ended up having coffee with him and he talked to me about law. He said he wasn't a lawyer but he loved reading about it and interpreting what it means. Why laws come to pass and what constitutes a law. He said something like this but it was a while ago so it's not exact. "In Canada we signed agreements as a country towards civil rights. We have these rights no matter what. When a law is made here called an Act it can't be a real law because it has violated these civil rights. Therefore it is an Act and not a true law and can never be ratified as a true law because it's in violation of these original agreements." It's one that stuck to me anyway.
When it comes to something like this guy here he seems like he is suffering from self entitlement syndrome. However, if enough people join his merry band of miscreants, would that also force change into our society as well? The people make the rules and the people can change them as well? However, I digress, I am talking completely from my rectum here.
|
Except that we give the government ruling power through proxy, we abrogate our responsibilities to rule this country through the vote, and all it means if you didn't vote is that you decided to take part in the process, but it does not mean that you chose not to allow the government to govern you.
And this guy is making interpretations through fundamental misunderstandings and interpretation through the study of chosen information and wrong information.
Your participation of this country and its right to govern you and set laws that you must live by is implied by continuing to live within its border. This guy was driving on a road that was probably paid for by the government so he was using a government service so his consent at that point becomes implied.
When he woke up in the morning and turned on his lights which was at some point delivered by a government agency it was implied.
And as far as the whole act contravening civil rights, I think he has it backwards if he talking about international agreements on civil rights.
Freeman on the land is a crackpot movement fueled by morons who create their basis by limiting or removing information that disagrees with their views.
Bottom line, this clown didn't show up in court to fight his ticket not as a protest, but because he knew that his argument would fall flat and be destroyed by people who actually have studied the law and know how it works.