I cannot help but notice an increasing interest in what is called the "sovereignty" movement.

In essence, the "sovereignty" line goes something like this:

You are a natural born person, and unless you specifically enter into a contract with the state - then you have pre-existing natural rights, including the right not to be taxed.

Claiming your "sovereignty" requires a lot of "self-education", and the assistance of those who claim to have done the necessary research.

Some of the catch phrases of this movement are things like: "taxation is voluntary"; "the Federal Reserve is a private organization"; "governments have lost control over the money supply, which is now, world wide, in private hands".

The above is not exhaustive - nor meant as a statement of truth or falsehood - just terms I have seen used. I have also detected a "hint" of old Social Credit theory thrown in here and there.

And I guess it would be true to say that the "sovereignty" movement has grown out of the earlier "tax protester" one.

Now, I don't want to argue the "finer" points of the sovereignty thesis - rather to look beneath the surface and explore the fundamentals.

I'll state my case right up. I believe that much of what passes for fact in this movement is false - and unfortunately, very likely to get people into hot water.

And it's all done for all the RIGHT motives - the desire to assert one's right to one's own life.

The basic assumption of the sovereignty movement is that government is acting illegally towards us, regards taxation - that we have no obligation to comply - that we can simply "unvolunteer" ourselves.

And this basic assumption is based on the concept of constitutional law - that governments are supposed to adhere to. This leads one into a legal minefield of attempting to "test" the law and its constitutional basis.

I believe that the sovereignty viewpoint is essentially naive. Why? Because it takes the Constitution seriously - while in the real world politicians and bureaucrats abuse it at will.

Just this week, a leading sovereignty advocate has been arrested - according to the following, which came down to me off the net.

"Eldon Warmanis in the clink, arrested without warrant, and on bogus charges. They got him less than an hour after he got out of hospital for major surgery. The charges are bogus, and among them is 'diatribe against government', apparently. I personally tried to connect to http://www.detaxcanada.org but was denied access. The domain name is still registered at Internic, as of today. A PING to detaxcanada.org yields a response, so does a traceroute."

And this illustrates the point I want to make. The State, in the last resort, has the guns.

Declaring one's "sovereignty" in this manner is in effect, giving the fingers to the government. It's saying "look at me, I'm flouting your commands - and you can't touch me - because the Constitution is on my side".

Now, while I applaud courage and standing up for oneself, one also has to take into account the political reality that exists. And THIS is the reality: Regardless of what the constitution says, the State has the means to "take you down" if it so wishes. Sure, they may ignore you (if you're lucky) - but IF they want to, they can ruin your life.

And in this situation, if your ONLY protection is your belief in the Constitution (or Common Law) - then your defenses will be very weak indeed, and your property very insecure.

We have gone too far down the road to tyranny for appeals to constitutional niceties to have any real effect. This is confused, however, by the fact that people DO exist who maintain this chosen "lifestyle". I would claim that their existence is by "permission" of the authorities - in the sense that the government has not really attempted to "gun them down" at this point in time.

Now, in case I'm being misunderstood - I am not advocating lying down and simply putting up with government abuse. What's essential is that whatever strategies or tactics are employed against Big Brother, they must be effective.

So let's cut to the chase. If you have money and other assets - including your very own life and freedom to protect - then these can be stripped away from you - IF the government has the desire and the will. Given those two requirements, then they simply bring out their guns to enforce it.

So, if your intent is to genuinely protect what is rightfully yours, then you need to employ a strategy that WILL protect your assets, should the going get rough.

And there is an element of the law - TAX law - that can be manipulated to your own requirements. Unlike a Constitution, which deals with abstract principles (open to misinterpretation), tax law is set by precedent. Tax law has loopholes. And tax law can be used to advantage. This is the basis for a sound "offshore" strategy - setting up structures that reduce your tax liability while still obeying the "letter" of the law. Maybe not the spirit, but at least the letter!

Now, if that's too tame for you, and you wish to be more aggressive, there is also another (less popular) strategy - and that's ultra-privacy. An example of this is illustrated by what WG Hill suggested as an alternative to "structures". At its simplest, it would involve setting up an "alternate" identity, having documentation to support it, and opening a bank account in this other name. There you have it - a way of keeping money OUT of the government's hands by vesting it in "somebody else". But, of course, not everyone would want to proceed this way.

It's also entirely possible that this latter alternative (privacy) could become more viable - with the impending arrival of more and more privacy tools - including truly private financial services.

Privacy, of course, is the opposite of making oneself a target by openly flouting the law.

Whether you're declaring "sovereignty"; setting up a tax-compliant offshore structure; or simply disappearing off the government's radar screen - we all have one thing in common: we are determined to protect our lives and property. On that we can all agree.

So, in the end, it comes down to tactics. And my assertion is that the sovereignty movement's strategy is the weakest of those available - and is based on a misguided trust in the supposed constitutional foundation of government.

Tyrants have unlimited political power - including the ability to ignore the Constitution (or even rewrite it) should their ultimate objectives require it.

You see, playing the "constitutional" card, is playing into their hands - playing by their rules. Rules that, if they wish, can be changed on a whim. It's buying into the political process.

Becoming truly "sovereign" requires thinking outside the square, thinking outside the box created for us by our "masters"; and more than just playing by their rules.

To be truly Sovereign, one must ultimately step OUTSIDE the government "frame of reference" - the government "Matrix" - and create a world on our own terms.

When it comes to Individual Sovereignty, the revolution has just begun!

Index

Join OPC