Am I owned by the state because some paper with scribbles on it say's so?
Or because I don't have the "original" "legal" "document" that say's so?
Can you prove it?
Scribbles on paper don't say anything. And I don't have to go anywhere to get those pieces of paper, or something like that. That would be like acknowledging that you are owned by the ones who give you the papers back.
You are speaking of papers as being legal or illegal documents.
There is no such thing as legal or illegal. Who declares something legal or illegal. And just because some mortal declare something legal or illegal and write it down doesn't make it legal or illegal. Where did they get the authority. In other words what made it legal for them to declare things legal or illegal........more papers and documents written by other mortals?
And how is he gonna proof it to me that he got the authority. By letting some other mortal write it down on paper?
I own myself and my body. If you say I'm owned by someone or something else. Proof it.
The proof is in that they hold that ownership to be true, and based on it can, and do, treat your body as their property. The fact that LEOs and other government agents are free to do whatever they want to you, your body, and your property shows pretty well how this "ownership" is played out.
I agree with you that their "legal" ownership is just a part of the game that they are playing, and the purpose of this article was to show people this piece of the game-board so they can step away from it accordingly.
I know what you mean. Just checking.
I've also investigated here and there, I probably know more about how it works in the US and Canada than in the country I was born in.
Where I live you can do something similar. The problem is that there are probably people from the government infiltrated in the organization that helps you with this kind of stuff.
I rather stay under the radar as much as possible, it probably is an illusion I know, but making myself known as a sovereign makes it very easy for them, to know where to go, if they ever decided to round up their opponents.
The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. There simply cannot be proof of human ownership, and it is in violation of many laws as well. So, if in practice they act as though they own you, they are caught in a situation where they are also violating their own laws as well as logic. When it comes down to it, they have to drop it at the point you get them to admit that they claim such ownership. Up to that point, it is not challenged.
They have tons of "proof" in the legal sense, which is what was discussed here. The simple fact is that they are perfectly within their laws, as they were written specifically to accomplish these ends, and unless humans stop playing the game that has been set up, their going to continue to be treated, traded, and leveraged against by the state.
How does a judge rule in a situation where one law mandates what in another law is defined as a crime? The only answer can be 'Depends on who pays them'.