There are multiple problems with the sovereign citizen argument. One of the most basic is an inconsistency of arguing that you are essentially above all laws while simultaneously arguing that you can benefit from the laws of which you and all others are not actually a part. The logical end state of the sovereign citizen movement is anarchy.
A second major problem is who precisely is supposed to come to your aid to insure your personal sovereignty? On what basis are they required to protect your sovereign citizen status (if they are required to at all, and no one is ogligated to. Why should anyone be if all are self sovereign)? Why is anyone required to enforce anyone else's status?
Most of the time, this argument is based upon someone not liking a law or set of laws in a country, and looking for a way to not have to abide by them.
Your sovereign status argument fails the moment that a group of people refuse to recognize it and inflict whatever consequences upon you they deem appropriate.
There are multiple problems with the sovereign citizen argument. One of the most basic is an inconsistency of arguing that you are essentially above all laws while simultaneously arguing that you can benefit from the laws of which you and all others are not actually a part. The logical end state of the sovereign citizen movement is anarchy.
A second major problem is who precisely is supposed to come to your aid to insure your personal sovereignty? On what basis are they required to protect your sovereign citizen status (if they are required to at all, and no one is ogligated to. Why should anyone be if all are self sovereign)? Why is anyone required to enforce anyone else's status?
Most of the time, this argument is based upon someone not liking a law or set of laws in a country, and looking for a way to not have to abide by them.
Your sovereign status argument fails the moment that a group of people refuse to recognize it and inflict whatever consequences upon you they deem appropriate.