Sovereign citizens spin history, reject government

[Solauren]

Nah, INS jail is pointless, cause we know they were born in the United States. That also semi-legitimizies their claims.

Nailing to the wall, within the bounds of normal law, however, does not legitimize their claims, and further reinforces the fact they are subject to those laws.

However, I am perfectly willing to allow for the option of 'okay, so you say you're not a citizen, then you have a choice; deportation and not being allowed back into the country, OR your jail term. Your choice."

When they ask where they'd be deported to, you give them a list of areas without a central government to object. All drop offs are by parachute.

Antarctica, Somalia, the tribal regions of Afghanistan / Pakistan, or my personal favourite; international waters (Say 100 miles into them)

[Simon_Jester]

They shouldn't make up so much crazy revisionism, but individual sovereignty is a legitimate philosophical idea with quite old roots. It'd be more interesting if they dropped the historical "theorising" and developed this philosophy as a positive programme for reform.

How, exactly, do you justify the idea in a real-world context without crazy revisionism?

For that matter, what possible form could "positive reform" based on the idea that people are not bound to follow laws take?