Opting Out

145
2536
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As official lawlessness spreads, respect for the law understandably wanes. Why should we obey when they do not?

This double standard has existed for a long time – as for example in the case of the speed limit enforcers who routinely “speed,” with de facto legalized impunity – and who enforce “buckle up” laws that they themselves are similarly de facto exempted from. Their being no one to enforce these strictures upon the enforcers, themselves.

But it has gotten much worse.

The Supreme Court  just “ruled” that teachers (and so, in principle, everyone) must take the Jab else lose their jobs – but the persons issuing these “rulings” are exempted from any “mandate” that they roll up their sleeves as the price of being allowed to continue wearing their robes.

Judicial Privilege, you understand.

Similar privileges and exemptions applying generally to every government  “representative” in Washington, DC. These Executive and Legislative Branch persons being exempt from TSA fondlings and Face Tampon-wearing requirements when they fly private/chartered (and paid-for by taxpayers) airplanes. They are also self-exempted from “mandates” that they buy government-decreed health insurance.

The same government which has held in confinement and without bond for months ongoing dozens of ordinary people involved to one degree or another in the protests about the sketchy  presidential selection takes no “action” at all against a man who actually did commit treason – by definition – against the United States, General Mark Milley. He has admitted – he has boasted about – communicating with the government of a hostile foreign power, without authority or authorization – to undermine the lawfully elected president of the United States – after having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

He remains the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The regime now demands to know, in real time, every time one of us makes a bank transaction of $600 or more – but exempts its own finances from any similar scrutiny or accountability. How much of our money is the regime spending on “black” projects, for instance? We haven’t got the right to know that – but the regime demands to know when we purchase a sofa – with our own money (whatever’s left of it).

It wears on people.

And it begins to manifest – in the form of various forms of opting out.

As for example the proliferation, in my area at least, of Farm Use tags – as a way to opt out of paying $50-plus every year for a color-keyed government sticker.

Farm Use vehicles are exempt from this requirement and people are increasingly using this exemption to “get away” with not paying the $50 every year that the government demands, in exchange for the color-keyed sticker.

I’ve personally saved several hundred dollars that would otherwise have gone down the reeking maw of government – whose appetite for other people’s money is never sated – by affixing Farm Use tags to my truck. Instead of being wasted in this manner, the money was used for productive purposes – such as paying for some much-needed computer help.

I see lots of Farm Use tags lately – and each time I see one, I smile – for it is an act of defiance against tyranny.

I ponder taking another, more risk-fraught step. But one that would save me even more of my own money – better put to other purposes. I speak now of the money I am forced to waste on vehicle insurance, something that is not in principle evil but becomes that when it is forced – because it becomes extortionate.

It is one thing – an unobjectionable thing – to freely purchase a product or service for a sum that is worth paying, as far as the person paying is concerned. It is another thing to compel a person to pay in excess of what he is willing to pay for a product or service he would otherwise decline to pay for.

I tire of paying $500-plus each year to “cover” vehicles that have not been wrecked and for claims I have not filed, nor have had filed against me.

Especially now that the government has caused the cost of the gas I need to fuel my vehicles to go up by 70 percent. Meanwhile, the cost of fuel is of no consequence to the government – to the smug control freaks who are the government – who use us to pay for their fuel, whatever it costs – and as much as they like.

I begin to think it would be smarter on my part to use my money to pay for fuel – to offset the cost of government – than to pay again (and more) to rent-seeking corporations (the insurance mafia) that use the threat of government to cow people into paying.

Yes, I know – failure to maintain insurance could cost me my license, i.e., the government’s permission to use the formerly acknowledged public right of way. But if I’m careful, they may not catch me for a long time – and even if they do, what are they going to do?  Take my license?

Be my guest! We increasingly have little to lose.

Maybe they will take my car, too. But the fulsome scurvy truth is they have been taking it, piecemeal – for years – via all these mandated fees and “mandates,” such as the one regarding “mandatory” insurance. I could have bought another vehicle – if I still had all the money extracted from me in registration, personal property taxes and insurance over the past ten years.

Maybe it makes more sense to buy a low-value vehicle, drive it for as long as you can – and if it is confiscated, let the thugs have it and go buy/drive a new low-value vehicle. Repeat as often as necessary.

Si, se puede!

This is the strategy of the “refugees” and “immigrants” who flood the country and whom the government does not require to produce ID or file papers, nor punishes in any meaningful way for not obeying all the laws we citizens are expected for respect. Or at least, imposes no real sanction upon them for living the Pirate Life.

Which, it begins to dawn, may the only way to live in this laws for us but not for them society.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! 

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

Also, we do accept Crypto. If you’d like to donate that way, please email [email protected] for details.

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share Button

145 COMMENTS

  1. The idiot insurance commissioner in the state of Washington has issued an “emergency rule” banning insurance companies from using credit scores in setting rates. This after the state legislature rejected the idea earlier in the year. So now people who have good driving records and pay their bills on time will be forced to make up for the deadbeats who don’t – because one guy says so.

    https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/new-rule-forces-washington-residents-with-good-credit-to-pay-more-for-insurance/article_8588333a-2724-11ec-876b-5ba6885f4e2d.html

    Credit scoring is widely used – where still permitted – in setting rates, not just for car policies but for other kinds of insurance as well. It has proven to be a reliable predictor of claim activity. Plus, it is (surprise!) an indicator of how likely the insured is to pay his bill.

    Even the Federal Trade Commission has found no evidence of racial bias in the use of credit scores to set insurance prices. Instead: “Credit-based insurance scores are effective predictors of risk under automobile policies.”

    But the commie commish babbles that insurance companies are “driven by numbers,” and that based on those numbers they are judging “Oh this is a good person” or “This person is a bad person.”

    Complaining that insurance companies are driven by numbers is like complaining that cars have wheels. What a moron.

  2. I can remember seriously considering ‘Going John Galt’. I’m glad that I didn’t. One thing I learned from Vietnam, choose ‘the hills you’re willing to die on’ carefully.

  3. It is crazy Eric – the gov wants to know about every transaction of over 600 dollars…. will they however give accountability and disclose every amount they have spent over 600 dollars?

    • Did not the Pentagon loose track of a few billion back in the Bush II era?
      We are ruled by 537 complete morons. They can’t build and follow a budget, nor balance a checkbook. They’re just looking for targets of greater opportunity.

      • Greetings John,

        On September 10, 2001, then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disclosed that his department was unable to account for roughly $2.3 trillion.

        $2.3 thousand billion.

      • $600? Seriously? in a couple of years, or much less, that will be couch change. $10k was bad enough. Hell, the fact that the banks are working for the IRS is inexcusable all by itself.

        • Hi John,

          The banks are completely against this. They are requesting banking clients to contact their representatives to express their disapproval. This is a logistics nightmare for the financial industry. A $600 + transaction report will never see the light of day. Biden and Yellen know this as well. They request a ridiculous amount knowing people are going to fume. When this goes into law the transaction amount will likely be $5K or $10K. People will breathe a sigh of relief believing that they overcame “evil”. Did we? Nope, we allowed a few more deterioration of civil liberties and the oligarchy will have the last laugh knowing once again how they played us.

          • I was under the impression we already had a 10k limit for transaction reporting, and the IRS frantically searching for people “intentionally” trying to avoid it. Like making daily business deposits between 5k and 10k.

            • Only for cash deposits and cash withdrawals that exceed $10k.

              If the bank believes cases of money laundering are taking place “suspicious activity” cash amounts of 5k can be reported.

    • This will be every hacker’s dream. The IRS has old computers where virus software is no longer available, they are 35 million + behind in processing 2018-2020 tax returns, they are also in charge of overseeing the various stimulus payments over the last two years, they answer 1 in 17 telephone calls, and have millions more in correspondence that they have not yet responded to.

      Does anyone think the IRS is going to be able to actually have the time and capability to oversee every Americans bank account? No way in hell, but if you are a computer jock….the sky is the limit. I guess this could also be beneficial for those Administrations and Congressional representatives that wish to demean and embarrass their enemies.

      All we can do is refuse to play. Cash your paychecks and keep nothing in the bank.

      • “All we can do is refuse to play. Cash your paychecks and keep nothing in the bank.”

        They are going to solve that problem within the next few weeks. There will be some type of event that makes cash out to be very bad and something only “antiMuricans” use. They will use it to introduce a central bank digital currency. Once that has been in place for a time, they will start eliminating cash, but many businesses will make it unusable before the government outlaws it. Once it’s pretty much banned the social credit score and negative interest comes in to full play.

        I have no idea how it goes down exactly, but it will. You can bet on it.

        We need to be ready to make swift changes once the “crisis” happens. It won’t be easy because most of us have seen a currency change or reset in this country in our lifetimes. Also, 1972 and what followed for a decade was nothing like what this will be.

        Hopefully I’m wrong.

        • I recently read about a credit and/or debit card which records what you wish to purchase, not just the amount, and denies you the use of the card in case it does not like what you are buying.

          Do you know anything about this?

          • Hi turtle,

            This is true. Some MasterCard accounts (not all) will do this. I believe it is optional (at least for the time being).

        • The Federal Reserve is working on a US digital currency called the Fedcoin. I expect this to be offered in the next couple of months.

          I do not foresee a complete depletion of cash, no matter how much the government tries, but the average American prefers convenience so they will likely sign up for anything that they believe will make their lives easier.

      • RG – I think they will use this as an excuse to set up a live transaction reporting thing to the government, which will then be monitored and trolled through via some sort of AI to look for anomalies and stuff, and query that. Which is why I suspect a lot of gov contracts are going to Amazon/AWS or MS Azure.

        I mean you think its impossible – but have you seen what they have done with MIFID reporting in Europe ?? Every derivative transaction along with a ton of details goes to the regulators…. its crazy… and only a matter of time before they start using the data they collect to screw us….

        • Hi Nasir,

          I don’t dispute the end game is a worldwide digital passport, Tony Blair and the WEF have been huge advocates of this for years. It is obvious most countries are playing along, but they aren’t going to corral everyone. Does anyone believe the Mexican drug cartels, the Italian Mafia, or the many cash businesses that launder money are going to willingly back this?

          This new reset may have some participants, but in life not everyone is a winner. There will be countries, unions, groups, and individuals that will get the short end of the stick. They will rebel against this and if history is any indication these types of forced scenarios always crumble.

  4. Eric – I have started thinking more and more that the “illegal” immigrants are following the model more and more of us will eventually need to adopt.. here in the UK, running a cash hustle washing cars or driving a gypsy cab, driving without insurance or even a license I was quite annoyed, even more so when I learnt most are given housing and even benefits from the gov to live (we have the worlds most generous welfare state). ….. but now I think why not – get whatever you can out of the system, because just avoiding the state will not mean they leave you alone. Why not actively go on the offensive…. it seems more obvious than ever that now it is us vs the state…

  5. I just hope to open the eyes of some dumbasses here, commenting on your site. FL is not the nirvana state. The rules and regulations here are as plenty as up north. I have a son just turned 20 who’s in college, the auto insurance for the 3 of us, me with an old car, is about 8000$/year. this with this supposedly taxpayer friendly repugnlicans in charge, i am not a donkey guy, just a plain old libertarian party guy.

    • Hi Anon,

      Yup. Your example is illustrative of the financial damage done by mandatory insurance. You are forced to pay $8k per year to the insurance mafia. Over five years, that is close to $50,000 – a huge sum of money that has left a gaping hole in your financial security. Clovers will retort: But if you/your son caused a major accident, the cost could have been much higher than $50k – which is true. But only a neurotic afflicts themselves with certain harm to palliate an unreasonable fear of possible harm.

      How many responsible/competent drivers cause $50k in harm to others? Italics for emphasis. Yes, irresponsible/incompetent drivers often cause such harm to others. But – assuming one is not irresponsible or incompetent – why would one choose to harm oneself based on the probabilities applicable to the irresponsible and incompetent?

      Would it not be wiser to set aside the $8k annually? Perhaps invest it, conservatively? Such that – in the unlikely event there is need for it (to pay for harms caused) it will be available. But if the need does not arise, one still has the money – plus the not-lost opportunity cost of that money?

      • Insurance is a bottomless pit. There is no end to what risks one “might” incur. Risk avoidance has apparently become the national pastime. Here’s an interesting fact. Before Babe Ruth firearm sports were the national pastime.
        Safety is not a thing, it’s a feeling.

        • Firearm sports are still the National pastime. We will NOT follow the path of the Brits, Canadians and Australians. Give up our weapons? Never! Come and get them, if you dare.

      • Eric, no one is going to set aside money for an accident. My nephew was seriously injured by a dead beat that owned nothing, had no insurance. This piece of shit ruined a young man’s life and is out driving around in another clunker. My nephew can’t drive anymore or much of anything else. I don’t know what the answer is, but liability insurance would have at least covered the hospital bills.

        • Hi Henry,

          I’m sorry, first of all, about your nephew. No question there are deabeats and irresponsible pieces of shit . . . despite mandated insurance. Right? Isn’t it like “gun control”? Laws that force you and I to jump through hoops or which limit/deny our right to own a gun have not disarmed or deterred criminals. Similarly, mandatory insurance laws do not prevent deadbeat, irresponsible people from driving around without insurance. They just make people like you and I pay more for it.

          As regards the rest: If you aren’t being serially mulcted for insurance – car, health, etc. – then you have money. You will be in a position to pay for damage you may cause. Which – assuming you are responsible and competent – you will likely never be obliged to pay.

          • Can only imagine the kind of savings, along with the increased quality of life and relationships in general that people could have, if only the infinite mulctings from every angle were to cease. All the free time it would make for self care and creativity instead of slaving to make ends meet, stressing about same, and the resulting need for folks to cope with that inevitable desire to escape. And escapism sure gets expensive.

            • Preach it, Moose!

              I’ve been doing it for years. Even with income taxes, most people could afford to buy – to own – a home, fully paid for, by age 40. If they were careful and saved – and weren’t serially raped by the insurance mafia and all the various “little” taxes that add up to big expenses. If – once they paid off their home at 40- they were not forced to continue paying taxes on the home, forever, most people could live comfortably from that point on with $2,000 or less per month coming in – about $24k in net (after income tax) income. One could get by on less than $1,000/month. Either way, all it would take is a part time job to manage that.

              Which leave time for life, before we reach the end of it.

    • Thanks, Moose!

      Also, I should clarify my situation: I live in a still rural area and don’t have to deal with AGWs much. I am able to “get away” with more for this reason.

      I also legitimately have a small farm and so am not violating either the letter or the spirit of “the law” as regards Farm Use tags.

    • Good advice to certain extent. It boils down to shut the fuck up. Agree/consent to nothing. Also keep your phone recording and sending to a secure place.

  6. Needle me once, shame on you, needle me twice, shame on me.

    Space Cat Joe should mandate that all first born males and females under the age of 35 be killed, at least castrated/ovaries removed, do it for the children, of course. It will reduce the number of vaccines jabbed into the arms of children.

    Extinction of the human race is a goal nobody has accomplished, not yet, anyway.

    Joe reminds me of Custer.

    Jack Crabb : General, you go down there.

    General Custer : You’re advising me to go into the Coulee?

    Jack Crabb : Yes sir.

    General Custer : There are no Indians there, I suppose.

    Jack Crabb : I didn’t say that. There are thousands of Indians down there. And when they get done with you, there won’t be nothing left but a greasy spot. This ain’t the Washite River, General, and them ain’t helpless women and children waiting for you. They’re Cheyenne brave, and Sioux. You go down there, General, if you’ve got the nerve.

    General Custer : Still trying to outsmart me, aren’t you, mule-skinner. You want me to think that you don’t want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really *don’t* want me to go down there!”

    Little Big Man

    Custer was slaughtered on June 26 in 1876. Some army folks got smoked by the savages.

    On July 4th in 1876, the Centennial of the Republic was a solemn somber sobering day.

    Crazy Horse got the job done.

    Some crazy renegade savage can do it again.

  7. Good afternoon Eric,

    I let my drivers license expire shortly after the U.S. illegally invaded Afghanistan. I want nothing to do with the criminals masquerading as “government”. I don’t drive anymore, as I’m not for hire. I travel in my automobile now, which is a constitutionally protected right that we all have. Unfortunately some members of the police state bureaucracy don’t want to understand what used to be commonly understood by everyone. I don’t want my comment to go on forever, which it could, because there are literally thousands of “right to travel” vs. “regulated occupation for hire” cases I could list so I’ll leave just a few…

    18 U.S. Code § 31. Definitions

    (6) Motor vehicle.—
    The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

    (10) Used for commercial purposes .— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

    “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

    Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 221;
    Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
    Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
    25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

    “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

    “… For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”

    State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
    Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
    Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
    Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

    “No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a driver license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted.”

    Routh v. Quinn, 20 Cal 2d 488.

    “Where a private statute exists of which the intent is regulation of commercial common carriers, the particular agency enforcing that private statute, shall not apply it by trickery and deceit, to persons who are not noticed by the statute as persons regulated and taxed, nor should it permit any party to do so in violation of a person’s right to stay out of compelled license/contract, when he is not a person subject to the statute, unless clearly within its words.”

    State v. Ebershart, 179 P 853, 246 P 2d 1011.

    “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.”

    Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)

    “Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

    II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect. 329, p.1135

    When I let my driver’s license expire much of the leverage they had over me evaporated.

    I hope you have a great day.

    • Just like here in my home State, one is not subject to hunting or fishing regulations until they sign their hunting and fishing “license”.

      • Thank you Eric,

        I started going through the cases I mentioned. While most are legit, some of them I can’t find (yet?) and at least one appears to be completely erroneous. Routh v. Quinn, 20 Cal 2d 488 is often cited in these sorts of right to travel case lists that I find online but it is not a case about the right to travel. It is a case about a delinquent tax sale. (Sometimes there are more than one case with similar names and numbers from different states. Perhaps there is indeed such a case with the above quote. At this time I cannot find it.) Until it’s accuracy can be confirmed this case should not be used as an example when there are many others from which to choose. I apologize for the error.

        Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607 is not really a right to travel case but a case about easements and mineral leases. It does not include the above quote but does include this:

        “The primary and paramount object in establishing and maintaining streets and highways is for the purpose of public travel, and the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived of such use, nor can the rights of the public therein be encroached upon by private individuals or corporations, even with the consent of the municipality.”

        I will continue going through the case law to make sure the cases I cite are accurate. I will pick the best ones that are the most succinct. I think it is important that we use correct information. I don’t know if some of this is just sloppy work or if some people are purposely putting misinformation out on the web to make right to travel advocates look foolish. I will be more careful in the future. With that in mind here’s one more legit case…

        “The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”

        Ex parte Dickey
        85 S.E. 781, 76 W.Va. 576
        June 22, 1915

        Interestingly the old Black’s Law Dictionaries had clear definitions of the word driver. One who is employed… For Hire. I think the 5th edition is where they started clouding the word. If I recall the definition of driver in the 5th edition was something like “One who actually does driving” or some such nonsense. I will look them up some time. It illustrates how the criminals masquerading as “government” have tried to obscure the so called law by changing the definitions of words.

        I hope you have a great rest of the weekend.

            • My pleasure.

              I hope others who are unaware of the contents seek the truth within & find their way.

              It sure made an impact upon me, …yeesh, 13 years ago? My, how time flies.

          • The law was never alive. It’s always been at the discretion of the state what laws are enforced or not, and what the law “says”. Setting aside the lack of a law requiring a drivers license, there is no law that requires you to pay a personal income tax, and yet you are still likely to go to jail for refusing to pay it. Irwin Schiff, Peter Schiff’s father, and the man who introduced me to libertarian thought 40 years ago, spent several years in jail over it. There is STILL no such law.

            • Hello John,

              The income tax is easy to avoid.
              Keep your income below the taxable level. 😉

              I think Irwin Schiff’s biggest mistake was the same mistake Richard Simkanin made. They were both very vocal about promoting §861 (if I recall). They were too prolific. Schiff was selling books and Simkanin appeared in a full-page advertisement in USA Today which announced that he had not withheld income taxes from the paychecks of his company’s employees because he believed the income tax to be voluntary. They were a bit too naive to realize what they were up against. Had they both kept their mouth’s shut they never would have been noticed.

              Interesting times.

    • I’ve got a buddy in NC who also travels instead of driving. He’s also had some hiccups along the way as he’s learned how to handle court procedures, but local cops pretty much leave him alone now.

      Eric, I sent you a picture of his “tag” a while ago. He’s also the one that recommended the book I sent you.

      Looking forward to more on this topic!

    • Hi Adam,
      While I agree with the spirit of what you say, and the righteousness of it- the actual fact is that as far as the modern courts go, this stuff does not hold any water- it NEVER works, and those who try and practice it just end up in jail and fighting constant battles which they never win.

      You are not doing anyone a service by posting this stuff- it just ends in disaster for all who practice it- and the Supreme Court has already ruled on these issues…and we lost. No…of course what they decree is wrong…but the fact is, they and their goons are the ones with more mercenaries and bigger guns…..so they win.

      There are plenty of videos on Youtube of people being laughed at in court and even being reprimanded to psychological examination ofr trying to practice this stuff.

      • So true Nunz, the courts are a joke, the “just us” system for the PTB and a money mulcting machine for the rest of us serfs.

      • …this stuff does not hold any water- it NEVER works, and those who try and practice it just end up in jail and fighting constant battles which they never win.

        The “never” part is untrue. There are many that try this route, fail, and end up in jail, etc, and some of them “never” win. But to say it never works for anyone is false. It comes down to knowing the procedure and not making mistakes.

      • Greetings Nunzio,

        I hope this comment finds you well.

        I agree with you that we often cannot get a fair trial in their court system. Too many prosecutors are immoral people chasing their careerism. Too many of the AGW’s are low IQ thugs who are just following orders. Unfortunately compliance is no guarantee that you won’t be assaulted by ThinBlueIsis. I was assaulted by a cop years ago when I was fully licensed, registered and insured simply because I didn’t kowtow fast enough. I got tired of being, as Eric would put it, mulcted. At some point we have to stand up to the evil in our midst. What good are rights if we cannot use them?

        For how long do we keep paying for our own enslavement?

        I’ve been doing this for almost 20 years. About 15 years ago I was arrested and spent a night in a county jail. It cost ~$700 in bail and impound/towing fees. I believe the biggest reason I was arrested that night is because I had a Florida tag on my car that I bought in a pawn shop. The other reason is because the cop that night was the dumbest cop I ever met. I truly think he was illiterate. They never gave me a court date and after more than a year I quit calling. There may be a warrant out for my arrest.(?) (Interestingly, I noticed a few years back that the cop who arrested me is not only no longer a cop but a registered felon who is not allowed in the county where I was pulled over. If I should ever have to go to court for this it will probably help my case as the cop cannot show up to court.)

        I had four other encounters since then that were much more pleasant. (Thankfully I have not been stopped in the last 10 years.) In two of the encounters I was in someone else’s registered car. Both times I was free to go with no tickets and no hassles but had to sit in the passengers seat. They would not let me pilot the states vehicle. In one instance I had a homemade photoshop tag on my car. Initially deputy Murphy (I remember his name because he was one of the good ones) told me he was going to write me a ticket for driving without a license. He went to his car and about a minute later came back and told me I was free to go. No ticket, no hassle. The other time I was in a van with no tag. This deputy was decent too. He listened patiently and even agreed with me that the “government” is an evil warmongering entity and that traffic laws as applied are just a protection racket. He didn’t ticket me or hassle me either. Many people, even some of the AGW’s, know that much of what they are doing is not constitutional or moral. Some of them are decent people who do take their oath to uphold the constitution seriously. Some of them want to catch real criminals and not just raise revenue for the state.

        There are plenty of videos on youtube of people getting laughed out of court. There are also plenty of videos of people being successful on the side of the road and in court. I guess it just comes down to who you have to deal with and maybe even if they’re having a good day or not. I’ve found that killing them with a little kindness goes a long way. The following video is a good example of what can happen if you get a decent AGW on the side of the road… (Fast forward to 5:20 if you’re short on time)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoEv2r9RhUI

        I live in a rural area and rarely see the sheriff on the road. There are no police around here. If I lived in a city my luck would likely be different but I cannot in good conscience contract or do business with a system I know to be evil. The criminals masquerading as “government” are a danger to us all and I believe that if enough of us boycott them, deny them our allegiance and funding and otherwise stand up to them in a peaceful way that we might just turn this ship around before things escalate further. Acquiescing to their ever growing demands has not provided good results. At some point we have to draw or line in the sand and hold our ground. I’ve drawn my line and I will hold my ground.

        I do understand that not everyone can do what I do. I have no children and my wife is very understanding. Some people need a license for their livelihood. Others simply are not in a position to risk getting arrested and having their car impounded. I do what I do because I cannot support the people who keep taking our rights, stealing from us, devaluing our savings and who now decree that we must wear face diapers and allow them to inject us with experimental drugs that are known to be unsafe. The longer we acquiesce to these deranged lunatic control freaks the harder it will be to make things right in the world. They will never be satisfied and they will keep taking from us until we make them stop.

        I hope you have a great evening Nunzio.

        • I forget which, and it doesn’t really matter, but one of FDR’s SCOTUS picks actually said that “the Constitution says what we say it says”. So it goes for any “law”. The judge decides what the “law” says, even if it doesn’t say it.

        • Thank you, Adam! Not ignoring you…just haven’t had the time to reply in a thoughtful manner. Also, please don’t think that I am necessarily lumping you in with some in the visible movement whom I may poke fun at. (Hey, I might end up doing that…but I haven’t yet! 😀 )

      • Nunz, ya forgot to also mention how sovereign folks have actually been classified by the US goverment as Domestic Terrorists for years now, and how the FBI has recently revived this campaign in in light of the protest back in January.

        All the great days and great evenings in the world aren’t gonna make up for that swat raid.

        Relying on legal precedent creates an even worse precedent towards slavery…entertaining this idea that these systems ever had a right to rule over people to begin with is actively harmful.

        • >>”Relying on legal precedent creates an even worse precedent towards slavery…entertaining this idea that these systems ever had a right to rule over people to begin with is actively harmful.”**

          Moose, THAT sums it up better than anything I could ever say. Even if all of their legal tomfoolery/wrangling/voo-doo had any teeth, what you said would still be absolutely true.

          They’re trying to find justice and liberty by being supplicants to the very system which has destroyed those things.

          T’is far better to evade the system and not run afoul of it…than to put oneself in a position which will afford them the opportunity to interfere with and capture you, and then have to try and use various wranglings to extricate oneself from their grip.

          The premise of the sovereign citizens seems to be one of thinking that they are free, and that they can use some covert hidden law to rectify the violence which the state imposes on them, even though the state ultimately rules by violence, and pays little heed to even the overt law…much less to some covert mish-mash are archaic citations from various sources which they string together as if it were a magical incantation which would repel the powers of the state.

        • There is indeed only one valid secular law. Thou shalt not steal”. Whether that theft be of property, the use of same, one’s bodily integrity, as in rape or assault, or any variation thereof. All other “laws” are tyranny. Curiously enough, that is the foundation of Sharia law. Obviously, given enough time, anything can be corrupted. Or as I often say, any human endeavor that can be corrupted, will be corrupted. Which is why governments should be frequently disposed of, just as Thomas Jefferson advised.

      • Nunzio, I’ve taken the bastards to court three times. Lost all three times. I just want peace and be left alone. Life is too short to try to playing the system of injustice or even using it. The whole system needs to be taken down. It is beyond repair. That said, if professing patriots EVER decide to fight (wisely, as we did at Bundy Ranch) I’m in!

        Think new republics, new borders. I have no desire to fight for America’s carnal cities. Let them eat themselves. I go back and forth between two states. Both have a decent chance of becoming part of a future free republic. Collapse is a process, not an event. It’s FINALLY collapsing at an exponential rate. I’m good with that.

        • Amen, Montana Guy! I think if even the tiny minority who appreciate liberty/just want to be left alone would adopt your (our) attitude….and just do nothing else but seek that peace and stop playing within the system, they’d not only enjoy much freer lives, but the collective effect would do more good for us all (And consequently, more harm to the system) than ANYTHING we could ever do.

  8. I’ve kept my daughter’s 94 Corolla as a spare car. We’ve been thinking of giving it away but I keep thinking in the dystopian near future, a cheap reliable car might come in handy?

  9. Considering that “traffic stops” are the most common (and often only) excuse they have for their armed goons to interact with us plebes when we’ve harmed no one, I think it foolhardy to give them obvious reasons to stop us and exact penalties, just for the prospect of saving a measly few hunnert bucks a year- when “getting caught” just once could easily more than negate tens years worth of such savings.

    This one falls under the heading of ‘pick your battles wisely’. We are living in an overtly totalitarian police state that knows no bounds. There are some things I will not tolerate at any cost- such as wearing of a muzzle, and getting a shot. For such issues, I will fight and die if necessary rather than comply- but to pay a stupid $70 tax once a year or to carry insurance which I would carry anyway, (although I despise that such be mandated) in exchange for putting a target on my back and risking some dickensian penalties…is not the fight I want to pick.

    Granted, Eric, this may work for you because you have the option of driving press cars almost continually- which are properly registered and insured- but for the average person, “farm use” is not going to work (I read as while back already that some states have already been ‘cracking down’ on it)- A farm use tag on Bubba’s Carolla, or even on his spiffy shiny dually F350 chugging down the interstate may work for as long as the piggies don’t notice…but all it takes is that one time that one happens to be behind ya….and boom!- or when Texting Tammy rear-ends you at the stop light…and you don’t want to be uninsured when that happens! (And you don’t want to leave after Texting Tammy taps you…as not only do you forgo recouping your damages (How’s that $50 savings looking now) but you’re “Leaving the scene of an accident”; you’re credibility is gone when Tammy says it was your fault (“He backed into me! If I hit him, why did he take off?!”)….and voila! Now you’re off to the barred hotel; you’re being sued for $50K for Tammy’s ‘back pain’, you have thousands of dollars in fines and court costs and impound fees, etc. and then when you decide that you still need to drive, but can’t risk such an adventure again, suddenly, you’re insurance is $3500 a year instead of $350 and you’re in debt (Tammy!), etc. etc. -all to save a few hundred bucks a year….. Yeah…”These things never happen to me”- Yeah…many of us are propitious AND lucky (right place, right time)….but it seems that if such things are going to happen, they always happen at the exact worst possible time…. “Driving for 20 years and the one time I get pulled over because Timmy The Drug-Sniffing Pig ‘smells something” coming from my car on the freeway at 70MPH, is the day after I ditch my insurance and reggie!”.

    Yeah, if I had a continual stream of press cars…maybe I’d chance it….but for those of us who don’t, it is just not a wise gamble, and really does not restore any liberties, but rather risks losing what we still have.

    • Nunzio,

      I TOTALLY AGREE! There’s also the matter that Eric is in his 50s, which means his physical and mental health will be declining; just becaus he hasn’t had an accident in years is no guarantee he won’t have one. In my case, I used to be able to safely ride a motorcycle all day; now, I’m done after an hour or so; after an hour or so, it’s time to head home.

      Plus, as you pointed out, there’s the lawsuit angle to consider; even if he wins, he’ll be out tens or HUNDREDS of thousands in lawyer fees! Even if he wins, what’s to say that the other party will be able TO PAY him? What’s to say that the other party, even if legally compelled to do so, will be able to make Eric whole again?

      Oh, and even if Eric is in the right, what’s to say he’ll PREVAIL in court anyway?! If we’ve learned nothing else over the last year or so, it’s that our system is CORRUPT AND LAWLESS! Look at how the January 6 protesters are being treated. They’re being treated worse than terrorists! The gov’t is flouting the COTUS. SCOTUS, even when legally obligated to do so, refused to hear the case that TX and other states brought WRT the fraudulent election. COTUS lays out quite clearly that the states have standing and that SCOTUS has to hear it, yet they didn’t! Even if someone is 100% in the right doesn’t mean that they’ll prevail in court.

      Those are my thoughts. As much as he hates it, Eric should keep his vehicles insured; for a whole host of reasons, he should keep them insured. His abilities may decline to the point that he’ll have an accident. Also, even if he’s 100% in the right, doesn’t mean that the system will acknowledge this and rule likewise. Finally, even if he prevails in any legal matter, what’s to say that the other party will be able to make him whole?

      ERIC, KEEP YOUR INSURANCE, PLEASE!

      • Well-said, MarkyMark! And good point about Eric’s impending decrepitness! 😀 I’m, nearly 60 myself…and I can see my own deterioration in many ways (Sheesh! I’m catching up to my nearly 97 year-old mother fast!). And it is so true….the innocent party often gets reamed, while the bad guy prevails in this injustice system. That few hunnert bucks a year just so that the insurance company will send a lawyer to protect their ass if need be, is worth it…even though I’ve never needed it…not to mention the fact that if MY actions did result in harm/property damage to someone else, I would rather have paid that premium than to have a lien on my property and or see my victim not get compensated quickly for a legitimate claim- for that is the other half of liberty: Responsibility. (It’s just the government making that mandatory that I have issue with).

        EVERYONE has an accident sooner or later. I had an uncle who drove a delivery truck for 45 years in NYC without incident- quite a feat in NYC…he even ended up having an accident (and a pretty good one, too) shortly after retiring. (Not that it was due to age though…as I also had an aunt who drove till 3 days before she died at the age of 96, and hadn’t had an accident in 50 years). But it can happen to anyone…regardless how careful one is….just as one can be stopped for any reason these days……
        Consdiering all of the other injustices we suffer, this is not one I am willing to lose liberty, property or life over. After we get rid of income taxes, property taxes, unconstitutional searches and the plethora of other egregious assaults uipon our liberties, then I’ll worry about the insurance I would carry anyway…or the $70 a year registration.

        • Personally, I’m looking forward to the post on traveling vs. driving, the fringed flag, writing in all caps, admiralty law, and “not contracting” with others.

          • Hatt,

            Aww, man! {Wait…I mean your natural person upon the land…not the corporate fiction known as HATTERASZEK)…I have to go get a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary so I can define all of those terms!

            • Everything I know about that stuff I learned from an episode of “Law & Order” back in the mid-90s! Just kidding…. Maybe. Going “off paper” was a hot topic back then.

              • Gosh-darn! When that stuff makes it to the MSM….. If that many people are into it, imagine if those same people were to actually do something productive, instead of giving the sysem more prison fodder!

                The whole thing is ultimately premised on antiquated statutes and noncontextual citations…and even then if it had any merit, one would still have to be so foolish as to operate under the premise that the government and courts are somehow bound to follow the intent and letter of the law- which if they were, then why would one need to appeal to such drivel rather than merely cite the Constitution and other valid precedents?

                Oh, the best part is when they cite the Uniform Commercial Code! -Something which only applies to businesses and corporations….but which they will voluntarily enjoin to themselves by adhesion. So, in the process of seeking greater liberty, they voluntarily put themselves under the authority of laws which don’t even pertain to them……

                There’s nothing like citing archaic 18th century laws and textbook citations in the same paragraph as irrelevant modern UCC statutues, many of which have often not even been adopted by the jurisdictions in which they argue their cases…….

                I felt sorry for these guys at first, as many were just duped by con-men….but then when you actually see some of them, and the games they play…you lose that sympathy.

                  • Thanks, FP!

                    Bear in mind, that I think an adhesion contract is when a legal form sticks to a lawyer’s arm on a humid day when he goes to get up from his desk!

        • You also may get hit by a meteor. Does that mean you take out insurance for it? Risk cannot be avoided, insured or not. You may plough through a school bus full of children because your Tesla told it was OK, in which case your insurance will be next to worthless.

      • Hi Mark,

        This may come off as arrogant – but for what it’s worth:

        My vision is still perfect; I can run 10 miles without much effort; can bench press 225 pounds 11 times for four sets. My physical capabilities are excellent as such and probably exceed those of most guys half my age. Thus, I could lose 50 percent of my strength and so on and still be “average” relative to most guys in their 20s.

        This did not happen by accident. I train hard; I eat well. And – apparently – I have good genetics.

        My point is: I’m not an idiot and know my own abilities – and limitations. I judge my risk of being the cause of an accident to be extremely low. Based on facts.

        That said, I would freely pay for insurance – were it reasonable. My issue with it is that it’s not.

        • Rather than, “I would freely pay for insurance – were it reasonable” perhaps that should be:

          “I would freely pay for insurance – were it optional.”

          People who are worried, or bad drivers, or who have high Dollar shit they want to protect can buy full coverage insurance.

          Imho, requiring insurance is just a scam so the insurance companies are covered.

          • Hello Helot,
            You are correct! Requiring insurance is a scam (and an infringement of liberty)…but holding negligent parties responsible for their harm is both legit and necessary. Problem is, our tyrannical system often relieves people of the latter, while unjustly requiring the former. Just like with Obozocare- First they pass a law decreeing that hospi’ls must treat people without regard to ability to pay (“the problem”….state-created), then they offer a “solution”- ‘You’re irresponsible if you don’t have insurance because if you get sick and seek hospi’l treatment, you will force others to pay” (So then they proceed to force everyone to pay!)- When in reality, there was no problem before government created one by requiring the hospi’ls to treat everyone…….
            Michigan has already taken a step in that evil direction with car insurance, requiring that you carry insurance AND that you or your insurance co, pay for YOUR damages regardless of fault, when involved in an accident- thus keeping the expense and tyranny…while at the same time relieving the negligent and careless and incompetent of any responsibility.

            • Exactly, Nunz!

              I’ve mentioned previously that I grew up around doctors and hospitals and so experienced at first-hand this weirdness of not expecting the indigent to pay for services rendered – which would be ok and laudable, if it were the doctors (and hospitals) freely giving their services for the sake of helping the indigent – but then expecting people who had nothing to do with incurring the costs and did not approve of providing it at their expense being told they have a general obligation to make up the loss.

              Excuse me?

              So howsabout I fix my next-door neighbor’s car for “free” – because he “needs help” – and then march over to my other neighbor’s place fingering my gun and demand he pay the bill?

              I feel terribly for anyone who hasn’t got the money to pay for needed care – including myself (as was the case regarding my shoulder issue, which plagued me for more than a year). But I do not grasp how someone else’s problem, whatever it may be, imposes an enforceable at gunpoint obligation on people who had nothing to do with it and don’t even know the person who has the problem to “help” pay for it.

              It seems to me that such logic implies a hyena society in which everyone has a claim on everyone else, endlessly. Who wants to live in such a society?

              • **”It seems to me that such logic implies a hyena society in which everyone has a claim on everyone else, endlessly. Who wants to live in such a society?”**

                Exactly, Eric! Isn’t that the very mantra of collectivism?

                As the Beatles sang:

                “I am he as you are he as you are me
                And we are all together”

                It’s the inversion of morality and private property…and therefore an inversion of life itself.

                Kwaadoosha has a baby and that somehow obligates me, a stranger, to support her and the sprog. The state rewards her and fulfills what is solely her own and the father’s responsibility…and this is seen as good….but if we dare to keep the fruit of our own labor to fulfill our own responsibilities…that is a “crime”!

              • Meanwhile, they rob us of so much to distribute such “charity” that we don’t have enough left to actually BE charitable. It’s not charity if it ain’t your money. So what they are actually stealing from us are our human virtues. Charity, sympathy, compassion, etc. All replaced by the “charity” of the state, which could not care less whether you live or die, except as it may improve their station or not. Now instead of being grateful for charity, the recipients assume it’s owed them because they voted for it.

            • I have been involved in a couple of minor accidents, not my fault I assure you, since the insurance mandate has been in effect. I discovered a new thing. Cops are not inclined to assign blame for an accident, since every one has insurance. The last one was egregious. Me in the left lane, right lane ending, and the driver in the right lane changed lanes without bothering to look, and hit me. No ticket.

          • Exactly, Helot –

            I bristle whenever I am told I must do something – or buy something. I always ask: Why? The most dangerous question in the world! Why should I wear a “mask”? Why should I hand over hard-earned money I need to buy things of value to me – to an insurance mafia that provide nothing I need?

        • Eric,

          That may be true, but the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God wait for NO man! Sooner or later, we all succumb to the effects of Father Time. 7 time F1 world champ Lewis Hamilton is slipping a bit, and he’s in much better shape than anyone on this site-including you. He’s FORGOTTEN more about high performance driving than you’ve ever learned! He had a couple of uncharacteristic type “brain farts” this season; he’s made mistakes that, in years past, wouldn’t have made. Remember Baku, when he screwed up the brake bias and went off track? Keep in mind that Hamilton is in his mid 30s and trains much harder than you do. Even so, one can see the incipient decline in his abilities, abilities that far exceed yours or mine.

          We could also look at Michael Schumacher’s example. He won FIVE F1 titles! People thought that his records would never be broken. If you’ll remember, after leaving Ferrari, he came back with Mercedes in 2010. He clearly wasn’t the same as he’d been just a few years before. Schumi was in his late 40s-early 50s during his comeback at Mercedes. His abilities dwarfed yours, even at a similar age. His training and physical fitness exceeded yours too. Even so, he succumbed to Father Time, as we all do. It’s just something to think about. My Bible says that pride goeth before destruction…

          Also, the Law of Averages will have to catch up with you sooner or later. Yes, you may have gone decades without an accident, but it’s foolish to presume that you’ll go decades more without one. See the example of Nunzio’s uncle who went accident free as a NYC delivery driver. If Nunzio’s uncle couldn’t escape the Law of Averages, what makes you think you can?

          Finally, what’s to say someone won’t hit you? What’s to say someone won’t hit you from behind, and drive you in to the car in front of you? Won’t you be partially at fault? What if you’re “bare” in terms of insurance? You’ll be out tens of thousands-IF YOU’RE LUCKY! The question is: do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

          I know what you’re saying about insurance being a racket. I agree that it should be something we freely pick. That said paying for insurance beats the possible consequences of being “bare” in the event something bad happens, and you’re held responsible. In my mind, the risks are far too great, and the reward far too small to go bare. Those are my thoughts…

          • Hi Mark,

            You’re speaking of extremes. I speak of averages. I can’t hold a candle, in terms of upper body strength, to an Olympic athlete. But I am probably stronger than 80 percent of adult men.

            As far as driving ability: I am not Lewis Hamilton. But I am not racing, either. On the street, a guy like him at 50 percent is better/safer than most at 100 percent. I knew Bob Bondurant, the retired race driver/instructor. In his old age, the guy was still a better/safe driver than almost everyone not a professional driver (or ex) with that level of ability.

            If you are a good driver, you are already a better driver than 8-10 of the people on the road. You can suffer a diminishment of 50 percent and still be better than that average!

            I don’t live my life based on fear – certainly not fear of trivial risks. It is why I don’t “mask.” It is why I would go without car insurance, as I have gone without health or other forms of insurance.

            I’d rather not be broke than “covered.”

            • Eric,

              I get what you’re saying, but with our corrupt legal system, you could end up BROKE ANYWAY if you’re not covered! All it would take is the right confluence of factors, at the right time, and under the right circumstances.

              I get what you’re saying about the likelihood of something happening to you, and that it’s low. That’s all well and good, but it’s only part of the story. Probability is part of the equation, yes. I’m not saying to ignore it.

              The other part of the story is: what are the consequences if something goes wrong? For example, would you play with a dud hand grenade with the pin pulled if there were a 1/1000 chance of it going off? Why not? Because the CONSEQUENCES of being that 1/1000 are fatal! We must look not only at the probability; we have to look at the consequences should things go wrong.

              I have no problem with you using farm tags. The odds of getting caught aren’t that great, and the consequences are minimal if you do. What happens, you get fined or something? OTOH, if you get caught going bare and the wrong set of circumstances work against you, YOU ARE SCREWED! Everything you have will be at risk. Is it worth losing everything to save a few bucks? Sorry, I don’t see the ROI there. I don’t see how the risk/reward works in your favor.

              Even if you’re in the right, you’ll spend tens of thousands, minimum, to fight it. Even if you win, will you ever be made whole? Will you even win? Will you be allowed to present any facts in your favor? After seeing what’s transpired over the last two years, NO! As long as I live, I shall do whatever’s necessary to avoid court, because, even if I’m in the right, it may not matter.

              I’m not being critical here. I just want you and your site to prosper. What you’re proposing puts both at risk. Thank you.

              • Hi Mark,

                I’m just not as risk-averse as you; and I am virulently averse to anyone ordering me to do anything! It’s the principle of the thing. I also tire of being serially mulcted. I could live a comfortable life on less than $1,000/month if I didn’t have government constantly shoving its hands in my pockets. A point of critical mass is reached; one stops giving a damn.

                I approach that point!

                • Eric,

                  I’m totally with you on the vax. Even if I weren’t naturally immune, I’d refuse the damn thing. Why? Because the risk of getting the ‘rona poses lesser consequences for me vs. taking The Holy Jab. Plus, I’m suspicious of anyone trying to give me the hard sell, telling me I MUST DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW! I’m also leary of using any product which is totally exempt from liability, which all vaccines are.

                  I can’t say I’m risk averse-not when I own and ride a motorcycle! I just bought a brand new Royal Enfield Meteor 350 two weeks ago. I thought I’d hung up my helmet for good, but when I saw that Fireball Yellow bike, I HAD TO HAVE IT! Anyway, motorcycling can be dangerous, so I make sure my bike and I are ready to ride. If things change (say I get tired), then I cut the ride short. If I don’t feel good, I scrub the ride, even if it were planned.

                  While I take risks, I’m careful about those I do take; I try to carefully manage risk. Risk can’t be eliminated, but it can be mitigated. One must not only look at the risk involved of doing X; one must evaluate the seriousness of the consequences should things go wrong.

                  I’m fully on board with you using farm tags. Both the risk of getting caught and the consequences of getting caught are low. Where I live, I can’t avail myself of that, because I don’t live in a rural area. If you can make it work, great! I’m all for keeping as much of my money as I can.

                  If the same applied to going bare, that would be fine. The risk of getting caught or being involved in a wreck may be small. However, in the unlikely event things were to go wrong, you’re facing the loss of everything. ICYMI, rural properties like yours are worth MUCHO $$$ now! Even if you were only facing off against a private party, you don’t think a semi-competent lawyer wouldn’t dig in to your assets and try to sue you for them? Even if you prevailed, what have you won, besides a depleted balance sheet? Even if you can recover damages, will the party be able to make you whole? Then, will you be ABLE to say FU to the system as you can do now? Will you then be able to tell The Man fo f*ck off? Now, you can, because you’re debt free.

                  Maybe sharing a personal story will help here.

                  I feed stray cats; I care for two small colonies. On the way to the nursing home, I discovered another colony by a small apt. building, so I started feeding them. One of the residents yelled at me for doing it, pointing out that the apartment was private property. Not wanting to get in trouble for trespassing, I fed the cats at what appears to be an abandoned house next door. I cleared off part of the house’s overgrown sidewalk, and left food for them there.

                  Guess what? I STILL got yelled at, though that itself didn’t bother me. What concerned me were the threats that were made. One was to call the cops to arrest me, though I don’t know what for. The guy said that they’d called the cops on a lady feeding the cats; that she’d gotten in to it with the cops; and that she was arrested.

                  Another threat that was made was that the owner of the house next door didn’t like it that the cats were living in the basement and making a mess. The implied threat that was made was either the owner (if he exists) of the overgrown, rundown house could either charge me himself, or sue me in court.

                  So, after that encounter, I researched PA law about trespassing. The way I read it, it sounds like the equivalent of burglary, since it talks about breaching the property’s structure. Since I never set foot on the property of this overgrown house (I stood on the public sidewalk, while dumping food on the house’s overgrown sidewalk where it joined the public sidewalk); though there’s virtually no way a criminal charge could be made to stick; there was a portion of the law that concerned me: the provision for civil remedies. IOW, a property owner, even if someone can’t be criminally charged for tresspassing, can SUE the person! See where I’m going with this? I’ll come back to it in a bit. Anyway, I reluctantly stopped feeding that third colony of stray cats.

                  Let’s look at the criminal angle for a bit. Even if the cops have no LEGAL justification for arresting me, what’s to stop them from doing it? What’s to stop them from cuffing me anyway? What’s to say that I’ll even be released when they discover that there’s no charge on which to hold me? Did we forget about the 1/6 protests already?

                  Whatever one may think of the 1/6 protests (I think that they were a waste of time, but that’s just me; they weren’t going to stop the installation of Creepy Joe Biden), there’s no denying this: those arrested are being treated like political prisioners! They’ve been held for months without bail. They’ve been held in solitary. The COTUS have been flouted here. If that can happen to them, what’s to say it won’t happen to me?

                  There was also the matter of the civil part of our trespassing law. Even though, as worded, I’d likely be all right, I didn’t want to take the chance, especially since law WRT feral/stray cats is anything but settled. Even though I never set foot on the property; even though I was never in the house; even though I never did anything to the rundown, overgrown house; what’s to stop a judge or jury from sympathizing with the owner? What’s to say that the law will be fairly interpreted? What’s to say they won’t find against me, even though I’m fine according to the law? If Orange Man did nothing else, he ripped the curtains away and showed us just how CORRUPT our legal system is! It’s worse than any of us thought.

                  There’s also the matter of having some $$$. Though I’m not rich; though I don’t live extravagantly; I have enough to where I don’t have to work. I was able to retire early, so I did. I don’t have to prostrate myself to some slave driver employer, take the shot, etc. IOW, I have enough to say FU to all that.

                  What do you think some lawyer for the owner of that decrepit property will do when he finds out I have money? He’ll go after me, that’s what! Ever hear of the doctrine of deep pockets? That states that, even if a party didn’t really harm another, that party can still be sued because they have money. While I think that the deep pockets theory is wrong; while I think it’s BS; the fact is that it exists; not only that, I could be victimized by it. It may not be right, but it’s reality, and one has to live in accordance with reality.

                  What about countersuing the owner of the rundown, overgrown house? Even if I were to prevail; even if he were ordered to pay my costs and everything; what’s to say he could PAY them? This rundown house, BTW, isn’t in the best part of town; whoever lives there won’t be rich-certainly not rich enough to make me whole after any court fight.

                  So, with all that in mind; after talking to my pet sitter who works with a local, feline rescue; I reluctantly stopped feeding these cats. I figured it was better to keep feeding the two other colonies vs. none at all. I figured it was best to keep my assets, so I don’t have to be snagged in this increasingly tyrannical system. For me, even though the risks may have been low; even though I’m in both legally and morally in the right; the CONSEQUENCES of things going against me were too huge to take the risks.

                  OTOH, last year, if you remember, I eluded the NJ cops. I was out during lockdown, and Gov. Murphy had instructed the cops to JAIL anyone out and about without justification! So, when I saw the cop turn around to chase me down after catching me speeding, I ran. Why not? If I stop like a good boy, I’ll be arrested. If I run for it and get caught, I’ll be arrested. However, if I run, there’s chance I’ll get away, and I WON’T be arrested! I opted to run for it, and I shook the cops. Since the risk equation was different that day in Spring of 2020, the decision was an easy one to make.

                  That’s the end of my rambling. Cheers… 🙂

              • Being critical is exactly what you’re doing. There’s no shame in such, so don’t deny it. Regardless how careful one is, or how much insurance they CHOOSE to purchase, there is still unmitigated risk. Would your insurance even be meaningful if you ploughed through a crowd of school children? Unlikely. The point being, let me decide how much risk avoidance, if any, that I want and can afford.

            • Eric,

              Let me add to the point about risk/reward, probability, etc. Why are so many of us refusing to take the shot? Isn’t it because, even if the odds of something bad happening are low, the consequences are severe. We frequently hear about people losing limbs, becoming paralyzed, or dying. Even if the odds of that happening are 1/1,000,000, the CONSEQUENCES are too severe to take the risk…

              • The one sentence SHOULD’VE read: Isn’t it because, even if the odds of something bad happening are low, the consequences are severe?

              • Hi Mark,

                Yes; but there’s something else. More than one thing, actually.

                First thing – with regard to the “vaccines”: We don’t know what the risks actually are. We only know that the evidence so far indicates a more than trivial risk (especially in relation to the risk of the “virus” for most people). I don’t fly blind. I certainly don’t trust the moral probity of pharmaceutical cartels.

                Second thing, related to the first: I can gauge my risk of being the cause of an “accident” with accuracy – because “accidents” are almost always the result of driver error. I’m many things, some of them not good. But everyone who has been in a car with me (even my ex) will admit I am a good driver. My record as a driver speaks for itself.

                Your comfort level with the “risk” of driving without “coverage” is obviously higher than mine – which is fine. I’d rather run the small risk – in exchange for the very significant reward.

                • Eric,

                  I agree with you about The Holy Jab. I disagree with your decision to possibly go bare. We NEED you in this fight! I just hate to see you get ruined.

                  • Hi Mark,

                    I appreciate the kind words! My judgment has served me pretty well so far; not signing up for health “coverage” when I was in my 20s was among the smartest moves I have ever made. I feel the same about avoiding insurance, generally. It’s a racket. Or rather, a kind of casino. Most of the time, the mark loses. I choose not to be a mark – by not playing.

                    Consider: The average American probably spends at least $500 per month in insurance (car, home, health) and that may be a lowball figure. But let’s say it’s $500.

                    Over 20 years, that comes to $120,000!

                    That is half the cost of typical single family home. It is a sum sufficient to provide for at least five years of living expenses without having to work (or work much).

                    And people just piss it away, on “coverage.”

                    Do you suppose it correlates with most people have no or close to no net worth?

                    • Eric,

                      I get the dollar amounts. Insurance IS a racket! However, so is the justice/legal system. If you ever have to go fight a suit, you’ll easily be out $120K and more! It’s a Kobayashi Maru scenario; it’s a no-win position…

                    • Hi Mark,

                      Well, I’ve been “winning” for decades; that counts for something (to me). I judge – based on my experience – the odds of in incurring a major loss to be extremely low. Ergo, I consider it foolish to obsess about it and financially idiotic to throw away that kind of money. I mean, c’mon – as the senile pedophile says: What are the odds I’d ever have to pay out $120 in damages? Slim to nil. It’s a far safer bet to save the money. That way, if you do need to fork it over, you have it. But if not… then you still have it.

                      Insurance is valuable for the psychological security it provides. If you value such things.

                  • If it’s so important to you and others, I’m sure Eric would allow you to buy it for him. Let Eric decide for himself what risk mitigation he wants, if any, and how much he’s willing, or can afford to spend on it. It’s not your money, nor is it your risk. Likewise the state’s. If he were frail and a poor driver, it would STILL be no one else’s business.

                  • You had that collegiate golfer felled by the shot. There was also a HS football player who took the shot, and now he can barely walk! Too many people are having heart issues as a result of the shot. It creates micro clots, which an MRI won’t pick up like to does the big ones; you need to have a D Dimer test done to see these microscopic clots.

                  • My son just told me that the CDC is recommending NOT to do a draw to make sure that a vein/artery has not been punctured. Because it hurts. So if they have tapped a vein, the vaccine travels throughout your body, which it is NOT supposed to do. Which is why all the clotting problems. Because CDC recommendations were followed. Which is why my trust in any establishment medicine has disappeared.

                    • Yep, that’s why, because it might cause pain. Meanwhile not doing it risks life long injury and death.

                      Yeah risk death or being a life long dependent on the medical industry to maybe avoid a little pain. It doesn’t make sense at all.

          • So true, Mark!
            We are born and grow and improve to maturity…then stagnate for a bit…and then start to decline. Some sooner than later. Those of us who were lucky enough to have good genetics and who have avoided bad habits and kept ourselves in good shape, will age slower than others. Lots of people die in their 50’s! I know a guy locally who is my own age (59) but he’s “an old man” and looks and acts it. I could pass for his son.
            When I was 50 I got into cycling- no easy feat here in the hills! Showed no signs of slowing down- but now? While it may not show, and it doesn’t affect my driving (I’ve always been a glaucomic blindo- so I’m used to it) I have noticed some cognitive and physical decline. Slight mind you, and not noticeable to others (I’m always mistaken for being much younger) but none the less, I can see it. It comes upon you…for some it may start at 40…for others 50….for me, it’s just this last year. You think such will never be the case; it’ll never happen- but then it does. NO ONE escapes this. We are all mortal, and all in decline.
            My mother will be 97 in a few months and is still quite healthy and competent; My remaining uncle is 92 and still drives in NYC traffic…but the thing is (Eric!) they are not what they were when they were 30 or 40 or even 70.
            Half (actually more than half) of the kids I grew up with are dead already- the latest was 57…and the last of his siblings- with himself and his late (62) brother being the only two of the five who made it past 50.

            tl;dr: The law of entropy is coming for you too, no matter who you are. (It may even get old Heinz Kissinger one of these days!)

            • Nunzio,

              I TOTALLY get what you’re saying! I’ve noticed changes in my body and mind too; in so many little ways, I’ve noticed. I noticed when I fell down while ice skating 2-3 years ago. Before, when I fell, I’d smack the dust off, take a breath, and continue skating; even if it were a bad fall I’d feel for weeks afterwards, I’d get right up after it happened. After this fall (which was one of the tamer ones I’d taken over the years), I felt brittle or something. I didn’t feel like I had the same resilience as I’d had in the past. I haven’t been skating since. It’s not because I don’t want to, but because, man, my body isn’t what it was and I don’t feel comfortable risking a fall anymore.

              While I still ride motorcycles, I ride a smaller, slower bike now. I don’t need to go 100 anymore; I don’t want to go 100 anymore; and, truth be told, I can’t safely DO it anymore! My reflexes and ability to process information, while still good, has declined just enough that riding a high performance bike like my old Kawi ZRX1100 is out of the question. That said, I can enjoy a smaller, slower, lighter, and easier to manage bike like my new Royal Enfield, so I do that… 🙂

              Mentally, I’ve noticed changes. Back in college when I was younger, I thought nothing of studying math, physics, etc. for hours a night; four hours a night was typical. Now, I COULDN’T DO that! I still play with math on occasion, but my ability to handle difficult, complex problems isn’t what it once was.

              I’m not trying to tell Eric what to do; I just don’t want to see him ruined. I think he risks financial ruination if he goes bare.

            • Hey Nunz! I’ve had a bottle of champagne chilling for years now waiting to celebrate when that rat bastard Kissinger croaks. I’m 74 and still in good health but I might have to leave instructions for my kids to pour it on my grave if he outlives me. He’s still my number one pick for the antiChrist.

    • If nobody drank during prohibition we’d still be “dry” today. Unjust laws have to be challenged by a hardy group of ballswingers else the repugnant royalty just keep piling it on. Soon a lot of people aren’t going to be able to afford all these mandates. Mix that in with obvious government illegitimacy and mass noncompliance is likely to ensue. They’re taking everything anyway so why not cut your ties and losses now?
      I agree. Sell your nice shit while it has value and buy a worthless but mechanically sound POS. Let ’em take it if they catch you. Then tie up their court with motions to dismiss and rescheduled court dates and appeals. In the end it’ll cost them more than the POS is worth. If enough folks do this the transportation racket is over.

  10. The US federal government is the largest criminal enterprise on the planet. It deserves no allegiance , obedience, or respect. Without the federal government, the State and local tyrants are pushovers. One argument I’ve often made in proposing smaller political units are best, States as the largest, is that your average State government can be disposed of by 50 well armed men prepared to die for liberty.
    More have died under tyranny than have opposing it. Liberty is life. “Give me liberty or give me death” is an instruction for survival.

    • I’ve been kicking around the idea that a state can consist of no more than 1 million people, then divide like a cell.

      10,000 Lichtensteins

      Sure there would be 330 states, but who says they all have to stay tied to the same country.

      Much easier to control the govt & not rich enough to go on crazy spending sprees.

      Also like the idea of a parliamentary congress

        • How about as many as are agreeable to join it? Hell, communism almost works if everyone is agreeable to it. Take the “at gun point” out of the equation and lot’s of possibilities open up.

  11. I carry insurance on the many vehicles I have. I don’t register them yearly. Just run a dealer placard. It’s worked for years for me. More privacy. The scanners can’t track the placard. The cops are more likely to leave you alone because, generally, they are the biggest cowards in your area. That’s why they’re cops. When they run your plate it tells them about you so they can weigh their harassment risk. If they know nothing, they aren’t totally reluctant, but a more so.

    This works especially well in a “business” vehicle with decals. You just appear like a worker bee running his daily life to get by in the grind. They are less likely to bother you in my experience.

    • ‘I don’t register them yearly. Just run a dealer placard. It’s worked for years for me.’ — ancap

      Hope this continues to work where you are. Some states are making it difficult:

      ‘Recently, ADOT detectives decided to do a deep-dive into Arizona’s approximately 3,000 used and wholesale vehicle dealer licenses.

      ‘And they found that just a little more than half of them have very little to no vehicle sales over the last couple or few years.

      ‘While that doesn’t necessarily mean those dealers are misusing their plates, the lack of sales is a tip-off for investigators, and ADOT is in the process of getting in touch with more than 1,500 dealer-license-holders.’

      https://tinyurl.com/at6428cd

        • The late Steve Jobs of Apple Computer did this with his daily driver for many years. He would lease a new car for six month at a time, and under California rules of the time (since changed due to him and others doing this) you had six months to get a plate on your car. So he never plated his car, ever, and it was legal (at the time). When the six months was up, he was on to a new car and the clock would be restarted.

          • Interesting. I never knew about that.

            I have been doing it for years now. It seems that I have had less problems doing that by far than when I had plates. I live where front plates are required. Never put on a front placard and it seems to work well.

            Over the past 18 months I believe the covid stuff has cooled the plate stuff off. I believe there’s a 6 to 8 week waiting period for plates. That would be working in my favor.

            One thing I have always noticed is that cop stops are inevitable to a certain extent. But I have found over the years that having an obvious non moving violation is handy. The pigs almost always use that on a ticket instead of the moving violation. If you’re going to get mulcted, better just the state than the state and the insurance cartel.

      • Yeah, exactly, Jim. I have a friend who used to just throw his dealer plate on anything he’d drive…including an F800 bucket truck he needed to transport from MI to NY. He’d get stopped a lot (and this was late 90’s/early 00’s) would sometimes be O-K…but would spend a lot of time in traffic court (At one point, weekly!)….and even he curtailed that, because they did indeed start cracking down. It’s something one may get away with occasionally…but the longer you do it (or if you do it on a regular basis) you WILL have trouble.
        Personally, I don’t want to get stopped a lot…or at all. I have a problem with pigs…and plus it’s very dangerous dealing with them…and always to one’s detriment. Occasional jaunts at double the speed limit are enough excitement for me….I’m thankful to ‘get away’ with that….don’t need anything else attracting the attention of those who hate us more than if we were mass-murderer hood rats.
        I can’t help but to marvel at how much time my friend would waste in traffic court….even he eventually figured out that it wasn’t worth it.
        One’s liberty is NOT increased by spending hours in their courts…it is very detrimental….and even in the best of scenarios, the best one can hope for is to be left alone again. I’ll just operate in such a manner so as to increase my chances of being left alone to begin with…without the wasted time and potential detriments of their courts.

        • Hey Nunzio,

          In my experience, operating with dealer placards has increased my chances of being left alone. In the instance that I do get pulled over, I wont go spend time in court. I will pay the fine.

          I have been pulled over numerous times in my life. Through those experiences I have used different tactics to get out of paying anything. In the rare instance that I have it has almost always been a non-moving violation. My experience has led me to always have an obvious one so that the pigs will get their ticket but the insurance company wont benefit.

          I have found this tactic to work well, especially lately. Of course, like anything it must be adapted to each individuals comfort level and state they reside in. It’s all individual and I’m not quoting “sovereign” stuff and trying to convince people to go to court. Simply throwing my experience out there. Everyone’s results will vary.

          • I hear ya, Ancap- and it could work better in some places (Here, where one rarely sees a pig-mobile) vs. say NY (Pigs everywhere ya go, with license plate scanners et al)…but the thing is- I’ve gotten pulled over exactly twice in 40 years..and have had to payu zero tickets- so what’s the benefit vs. the reward (Even if I had access to a dealer plate)? Insurance on a dealer plate would cost much more than what I pay to insure my 2 vehicles……. All the other costs…tickets…hassle of interactions with the pigs, and possibility of it going wrong- why open oneself up to that?

            • Hey Nunzio,

              You aren’t getting exactly what I’m talking about. NOT dealer plates. Just the dealer Placard aka, Lithia Ford, Lithia Nissan, etc., etc.

              I live in a state where I can get insurance without registering the vehicle or supplying the insurance company with the registration info. Therefore, I insure but don’t register. Worst that can happen is they ticket me for not registering. The ticket is the cost of registration. If you go for more than a year, it’s cheaper than registering.

              But there is no reason to open yourself up to anything. It’s a personal risk/benefit analysis that you have to do. My way is definitely not for everyone.

              • Wow! That’s a unique situation, Ancap! If you don’t mind…what state would that be in? Such would never fly most places, for sure- even less so than a dealer plate. Many states, your car would be impounded on the spot. But I very happy that you managed to find such a loophole.

                • Idaho. They did just recently make a statute that where the state will rescind your registration if you don’t maintain insurance, but there’s no reverse of that. So I’m insured, but not currently registered. I find this works better than expired tags, though I did make it 4 years on expired tags before being pulled over. Pig gave me an “official warning” but said if I registered that day there would be no fine so I finally registered.

                  I believe that the rona has allowed this to fly under the radar even more so. Plates are months out at Idaho DMV’s right now because of the cAseS. I believe prisoners make the plates in Boise. Other problem(big, big negative)is that it’s the fastest growing state. Hard to get them plates out to all the new comers.

  12. You can’t get a car loan or a (or a home loan) without insurance. Insurance coverage also protects me. The law says anyone causing an accident is financially responsible for all damages and medical expenses. A person can be a great driver but its called an accident for a reason. If you put someone in a coma you are responsible for paying their medical costs. So I think insurance is a good thing.

    • Hi RS,

      I never argued that insurance is a bad thing. I do argue that forcing anyone to buy it is a terrible thing. It is, first of all, extortion – be definition. Second, it amount to prior restraint; i.e., holding people “responsible” for harms they have not caused.

      And thereby, harming them!

      I have not harmed anyone in 30-plus years of driving. I have not had a single claim filed against me. But I have been forced to pay a least $30k by now for “coverage”…

      That is, simply, wrong.

      If you disagree, let me use your own logic to suggest that you be forced to carry gun insurance (assuming you own a gun) as well as insurance to “cover” the harms your dog might cause.

      The reason we’re now facing the prospect of forced “vaccinations” is premised on exactly the same principle used to force people to buy insurance. Because “someone” might cause harm to “someone” else.

      Think about it… please.

      PS: Being required to carry insurance on a car you do not actually own – having not yet paid for it in full – is entirely appropriate. The lender/lienholder has every right to take/insist upon precautions to protect their property. But if I have paid for my car – or home – then it is mine to risk.

      And someone else’s fear of risk does not entitle them to hold me “responsible” for harms I have not caused them.

      • If the state mandated I have to drink alcohol, I would quit. Hell, if they mandated I have to eat I might quit. It’s not always what they mandate, it is always that they mandate at all.

      • Eric, don’t give those gun-grabbing fuckers ANY IDEAS re: “gun insurance”. What that does is create a government-mandated market where NONE existed, which doesn’t work to the benefit of either gun owner or the insurance companies. Of course, it’d not for the “greater good”, it’s to make exercise of 2A financially not viable for many, while skirting the very words of that amendment.

  13. General Mark Milley can’t commit treason. There has been no war declared. We have no legally defined enemy to aid and abet.
    Here’s a curious thing. SCOTUS Sotomayor denied the case against the the vaxx mandates, and just yesterday this was reported as her explanation, “New York City’s Department of Education “has the authority to implement a mandate that is firmly grounded in science & the expertise of public health officials from across the nation,” From ZeroHedge. Today, that same article has been sanitized, and reports she did not give an explanation. Gee, I wonder which one is true?
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nyc-teachers-file-emergency-request-supreme-court-block-covid-19-vaccine-mandate

    • Hi John,

      Gotta love ” . . .has the authority to implement a mandate that is firmly grounded in science & the expertise of public health officials from across the nation.”

      Italics added.

      Here is a lawyer – a Supreme Court “justice” – arguing that laws (and so legislative/representative process) are irrelevant; that the government can simply decree (i.e., “mandate”) whatever it likes, provided “…has the authority to implement a mandate that is firmly grounded in science & the expertise of public health officials from across the nation.”

  14. I no longer have any respect for the law and the courts, period. It has become abundantly clear that “the law” is merely a charade that grants privileges and immunities to preferred groups of people, while providing those preferred people an excuse to “throw the book” at me.

    In other words I do not have any moral guilt whatsoever about violating speed limits, gun laws, taxes, mask mandates, vaxx mandates, etc. My only objective is to not get caught. I do not RESPECT the law, but I do FEAR the government and it’s armed goons.

    That is not to say that I do not follow MORAL codes. I do not steal, I do not rob people, and I do not rape — not because the “law” says that I must not, but because it is simply wrong.

    But only so much avoidance is possible. The control freaks are ever-closing legal “loopholes” as people figure out how to take advantage of them. Remember, the ability to use “farm” plates exists — for now — only because “they” continue to allow it.

    A time is coming — in fact, it is already here — where if you are to be free, you must be a criminal. That was the situation Jefferson and Washington faced; and, had the Crown won the war, they would have indeed been hung as criminals.

    • Any time law extends the power of the state, it needs be opposed and rejected. The simple protection of rights, and the prevention of violence one against another does not expressly extend that power. With just law, much like the military, we could easily remain a civil society with one quarter the law enforcement we have, and a tenth of the laws, or less. And practically no government beyond your Sheriff.

  15. Good luck, Eric. I hope your plan works out.

    As evil as government-forced car insurance is, at least the person paying for the “coverage” is the one who has the risk, however slight it might be.

    As anybody who has written paychecks out of his own pocket knows, when you’re an employer you are forced by the government to pay for unemployment “insurance.” But who is the one at risk of becoming unemployed? It is the employee, not his employer. So why does the latter have to pay for it? If you have a job and you’re afraid of losing it, then you should pay – voluntarily – for the insurance that mitigates the risk that you alone have in this relationship.

    When you have people working for you, you pay through the nose for this crap. And if you do have to lay someone off, it’s a strike against you and the cost goes up.

    Most people have no idea how much governments at all levels interfere with heroic entrepreneurs who put their own wealth at risk to create the jobs, jobs, jobs that politicians continually squawk about.

    • Good points, and…
      If you do happen to invent a better mouse trap, the crony capitalist multi-national business will lobby to restrict your company…or shut it down completely.

      • Yep, they will lobby ’til the cows come home for regulations that protect Granny – and keep new competitors out of the market.

  16. I once posted a picture of confiscated motor bikes at “town hall” here in Uruguay (https://mydayuruguay.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/how-things-work-officially-in-uruguay/). Later someone explained that it was cheaper to occasionally forfeit an old moto than to pay the taxes for years.

    I have thought about the approach you mention. But in Uruguay there is no such thing as a low-cost vehicle. When we moved here in 2009, I sold my 4Runner to a family member in Texas for $6,000. It needed a timing belt; maybe could have gotten a bit more. Looked at ads here, saw same-year, same-mileage 4Runner offered for $32,000.

  17. I came to this conclusion as well. Still trying to workout which laws I will ‘go along with.’ and which ones to completely ignore. The whole world at this point is a dead man walking. Its how we walk from this day on that will set the standards for those around us.

    You make a great point in that not only are those at the top of the .Guv pyramid exempt, but all the trespassers from third world s*tholes are exempt as well. ‘The reeking maw of government – whose appetite is never satiated.’ That is a great line and I think moar of the dumbed down plebes are waking up to that fact.

    The time for me to hoist my Jolly Roger flag high upon my windmill is near. Once flown, this flag means throat slitting time is at hand. Who, what, when, and where will be a matter for the universe to decide.

  18. Didn’t Flo have to stop issuing that dongle due to the device causing fires in a few vehicles?

    OBD II was never designed to have something connected to the port indefinitely.

  19. If we hold to the concept that the reason wee have government is to protect the rights of people, then we have strayed very far.
    The US govt has adopted the role of king and aristocracy, with us a serfs.

    The govt has broken the contract by abusing the powers the people (none of us living) agreed to give to it; and usurping the rest.

    It is no wonder why this behemoth is less respected as time goes on.

    Those with the power exercise an increasingly larger amount of it to try to control the rest of us from taking that power away.

    Like Ben Franklin said, it will end in despotism after a number of years. And it has.

    • Such is the nature of all nations. They end up in oligarchy or aristocracy. We’re getting both. The longer a government exists the more power it will acquire. That’s what they do for a living. The more they do it the better they are at it. This government cannot and will not be saved, or changed for the better. It’s over due to be broken. On the somewhat bright side, governments also get quite suicidal in their old age. The not so bright part being they suck down a lot of mostly innocent bystanders in the process. How long can you tread water?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here