The Man pulled me over today for driving without an inspection sticker. I have not been pulled over for anything in years, but to be honest I have not had an inspection sticker on my vehicle for over a year as well--not because my truck won't pass inspection, but rather because I think the idea of getting an inspection sticker is ridiculous in so many different ways. First of all, by the state making me get my truck inspected, they are assuming that I will break the rules if they don't do something about it first. The burden of proof lies on me. I must prove that I am not breaking the law before I get on the road. Secondly, the state assumes that I am guilty of having a dangerous vehicle, so to "protect" everyone else, I must first get my truck inspected. Besides all of that, they will make me pay about fifty bucks to get my struck inspected. They will make me pay fifty bucks to prove my innocence. If I don't pay the fifty bucks, then they will pull me over and give me a ticket, as they did today. Now, if I don't pay the ticket, they will come to my house and arrest me, and if I resist I get shot. This is government sponsored slavery pure and simple. Now it seems I have a choice to make:
Pay the three hundred bucks of ransom money they are demanding from me,
Lie to the mob boss, I mean Judge, who is trying to extort this money from me in order to get out of the ticket,
Refuse to pay and spend a few days in jail,
or offer myself as an indentured servant to the Man and work off the extortion money by doing community service
It seems that the only ethical choice to me would be the last. Does anyone else have any ideas?
Thanks
Well put, my friend.
Do you think you can get away with lying?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
thecapitalist:Do you think you can get away with lying?
I thought about it, but I suck at lying. It's kind of hard to beat the Man using his own tactics, don't you think?
Have you heard of Marc Stevens? He may be able to help you. He has dealt with this kind of issue in the past.
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
AndyTheAnarchist: I thought about it, but I suck at lying. It's kind of hard to beat the Man using his own tactics, don't you think?
Well said Andy. The Judicial system is set up so that it is impossible for any average joe to beat it. See this article
for a similar situation: http://www.mises.org/story/2817
.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...