5 ms·
The summary is slightly inadequate. There wasn't a corporation that usurped the government - the government made corporations of everyone Basically it goes lik
by volak 8y ago
The summary is slightly inadequate. There wasn't a corporation that usurped the government - the government made corporations of everyone
Basically it goes like this -
* SSN Act (created after the market crash) was created not only to provide faux "retirement" accounts but also "incorporate" every citizen of the country as a company upon birth.
* New baby John Smith instantiates company JOHN SMITH with account 123-45-6789
* ALL banking and financials go through your company account JOHN SMITH (check your checks, statements, loans). This included Liens, child support, taxes, alimony, etc.
* The line you sign your name on your check is not actually a line but very tiny "Authorized Representative" IE: John Smith is acting on behalf of JOHN SMITH
Why?
Because Feds didn't have the power to enact laws on individual citizens at the time. So they created companies out of every citizen which they can then force to pay into Social Security (among other things). This has evolved over time granting the government the power much more power over individuals through their "shell companies"
Some sovereign citizens claim to be able to gain sole control over their shell corporation JOHN SMITH and with that all government encroachments on their rights via liens and taxes are invalid.
Disclaimer: I have no position on this conspiracy theory just providing a better summary
- ryanhuff 8y agoFeds didn't have power to enact laws on individual citizens, so they enacted a law on citizens to convert them to corporations? Puzzled.
- volak 8y agoCitizens apply to SSN and a corporation is created for them - they are not forced to apply for one. Even to this day you can have a baby and not apply to SSN (increasing a good idea given the state of the program)
- crooked-v 8y agoNot applying for a SSN doesn't remove the requirement to pay FICA taxes. There's only a specific list of allowed exemptions.
- habnds 8y agoyeah actually, it isn't a conspiracy theory but more like cultural critical theory, the book Seeing Like a State, is a great read about how the state works to transform the natural world into a world that can be quantified and managed by bureaucracy. One of it's most interesting examples is how early modern governments reformed agricultural practices, not to raise productivity levels but to make them more easily measured and therefore taxed.
- __ralston3 8y agoWow thank you for this concise explanation
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoIn the UK we sometimes get this stuff leaking in, which is really interesting to me as obviously it fits far more poorly (ie doesn't) with the legal-historical position here. It happens with "wage gap" stuff too; people assume the USA wage gap stats apply to them here. Oh yeah, and we get Trump supporters. I think copyright is the only other area I can recall where people assume USA legislation applies (that's a pre-internet example), some think you have to add © to get copyright protection.
- learc83 8y ago>as obviously it fits far more poorly (ie doesn't) with the legal-historical position here A country with a thousand years of accumulated legal rulings seems like fertile soil for conspiracy theories. Superseded common law is the framework for many sovereign citizen's arguments in the US. >Oh yeah, and we get Trump supporters. We also weirdly get Brexit supporters.
- joe_the_user 8y agoI've always been impressed by an odd contrast within theories of this sort. The theories posit that the government acted illegally in various ways. But at the same time, the theories posit that despite this, there is some deeper framework of law that the government still has to obey. Yet what force would cause this deeper law to prevail if the state was committed to its conspiracy? Of course, this sort of thing could only appeal in the US, where a lot of the laws aren't product of a giant conspiracy but rather a complex patchwork of local, state and federal strictures, so a spew of incoherent legal nonsense takes a given court office a while to deal with.
- tormeh 8y agoI dunno. Germany has the same kind of thing. Search for "Reichsbürger". Essentially these people reject the modern German nation, and say they belong to one reich or another - either the Kaiserreich or the Nazi one. What these conspiracy people don't get is that a nation exists as a consequence of its subjects and warriors loyalty to it and obedience of it. It's just a power structure. All the legalities and voting and bureaucracy around it are just there because it's much easier for everyone to live with a power structure that behaves predictably, justly and generally nicely. But the legalities are not actually necessary. At the core the answer to "Why?" is "Because we can". Note that I'm generally pro-government. I'd rather have one nice power structure to deal with than a world operating after the rules of school, where I have to protect my lunch money myself. This is just reality.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- krapp 8y agoOr as attorney Leonard French said regarding one Sovereign Citizen case on his Lawful Masses podcast[0]: "We live in reality, where the four laws are not common law, statutory, code and... whatever. The real laws are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. Everything else is fair game." [0]https://youtu.be/nqPiQiinDTs?t=3143 https://youtu.be/nqPiQiinDTs?t=3143
- tptacek 8y agoReally? You have "no position" on this conspiracy theory? You think it's possible that it might actually be true that everyone has been "incorporated" via the Social Security Act?