The sovereign citizen movement rejects the legitimacy of the government. Its fast-growing popularity has had authorities scrambling to get a handle on how far its tentacles have reached.

Unfortunately, Mr Oxby was persuaded by this theory during the seminar, which I infer from his evidence, was presented in a persuasive and charismatic manner."

He was ultimately fined $14,000.

  • alansuspect@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    8 months ago

    poorer quality services that could be provided better by private industry.

    That could is doing some heavy lifting there.

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Fair, government funded services tend to lead to monopoly such as one single trash service, etc which allows the favored to charge higher prices than would be tolerated normally. Lots of small companies competing for business keeps prices low for as long as possible and inflation is the main source of increases.

      • goodthanks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        “government funded services tend to lead to monopoly” I don’t think you understand the concept of monopoly lol. We are talking about a service provided by the government, not a privately owned service subsidized by the government.

        • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Six of one-half a dozen of the other. I still only have one trash service, one power company, etc. etc. They look no different.

          • goodthanks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            So advocate for better government services, taxing the ultra wealthy to pay for it, and recognising that private industry is incentivised towards benefiting shareholder profits instead of the public good. If we can drive down wealth inequality through fair taxation policy, everyone benefits and society becomes healthier and the economy becomes more dynamic. Winner winner chicken dinner.

            • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Okay, fine. If you tax the ultra-wealthy at 100% for example, then they have no incentive to work and therefore will no longer be ultra-wealthy and that will pay for what maybe 1% of what’s necessary to fund these services and now there are no more ultra-wealthy people so who are you going to tax? The middle class of course.

              • goodthanks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                The key thing to recognise here is that we’re not talking about high income earners. We’re talking about people who are wealthy due to owning massive amounts of assets which generate passive wealth, and they acquire that wealth because they belong to wealthy families. They don’t contribute to the dynamism of the economy. These people don’t earn money from working, they suck up all the money from the productive workers. If you’re grinding it out and earning 200K that’s fine, more power to you. Those people aren’t the people I’m talking about.

                • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Right, but the government is a very wasteful spender. As an example, the US government spends the market cap of Apple Incorporated every 100 days. If Apple did that, they would not exist in 100 days. But the government continues to exist. I completely understand that once you obtain a certain amount of wealth, you really don’t need any more. However, with that said, I think taxation is the wrong way to handle it and that using another service is the correct way to handle it.

                  • goodthanks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    The government spends money, and takes that money back through taxation. If the government spends money, incurs debt, and doesn’t get the money back, it’s due to a failure of taxation policy. Government money spent on services that are valuable to the public is not wasteful, which is the key point you are not understanding. They don’t need to generate a profit, like Apple does. They need to ensure that the wealth flows through the appropriate channels, which they have neglected to do since the advent of neoliberal policies. The government has no imperative to further technological innovation, like Apple does. It’s not their business. They are in the business of maintaining a basic quality of life for the population.

                  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I love how you dont even understand the concept of a line of credit and everything is a zero sum game. You have a very broken outlook on life. Very toxic mindset.