A Journey of a Thousand Miles

Column by Paul Hein.
Exclusive to STR
Yes, it starts with a single step. That’s so obvious that it’s easily overlooked, but it’s worth considering when confronted with the realities of life today--especially if what you’re confronted with are the growing challenges to your life, liberty, and property.
In shaking off the rule of George III, the colonists pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their honor, and those weren’t just noble-sounding words. Many of them lost some or all of those things. They took a giant step.
Are Americans today, facing rulers far more odious and oppressive than poor demented George III, willing to make a similar pledge? I hope it is not necessary. George, after all, and his minions, were thousands of miles away; our enemy surrounds us. A frontal attack would seem unlikely to succeed. A few virulent bacteria, however, can bring down an elephant--or a donkey. So my idea is to start small, with skirmishes not likely to cause us serious harm if unsuccessful, while teaching us valuable lessons in tactics. State, rather than federal government, is more vulnerable.
These thoughts occurred to me as I waited at the local automobile licensing office to get new plates for my car. In my state, and probably yours also, you cannot buy the rulers’ permission to operate your (?) car without providing proof that you’ve paid the tribute demanded yearly in order for you to pretend that you actually own the vehicle. It’s the personal property tax, and you must have the receipt in order to buy the plates without which, no doubt, your car would refuse to start or run. I had been unable to find my receipt and told the clerk I must have lost it, until she reminded me (her computer knew all!) that I had been leasing a car before buying this one, and so had no tax receipt, since the leasing company had paid the tax. She graciously waived the penalty I could have been charged for not notifying the rulers when I bought the car. I was so grateful!
The state has, I suppose, a valid reason for putting an identifying plate on an automobile. A criminal, fleeing justice, or what passes for it, might be driving a car resembling hundreds of others. It is the license plate that enables his car, and thus him, to be readily identified. Well and good, at least in theory. But if my license plate--ABC-123--identifies my car now, won’t it identify it just as well next year, and the year after, and forever, as long as I own the car? Do I make the car more identifiable by buying a new sticker for my license plate every year, especially when the sticker is so small it can’t be seen beyond a few feet? Why can’t a license plate be affixed to the car when it’s sold, and remain there forever, without any expensive annual “renewal”? When the car changes hands, the new owner can then register the car under his name. Wouldn’t this greatly simplify record keeping and accounting, while leaving the car as identifiable as under the present system?
The state is charging a fee for these useless stickers/license plates that does little or nothing for the people who pay the bill. The benefit is all to the state, both financially (each sticker costs about $35.00 every year) and in terms of identifying the automobile so decorated. There can be little public enthusiasm for this tax, unlike some other taxes, which provide obvious benefits for the selected group of beneficiaries. Taxes that help pay for housing, or food, or child care, or education, for example, would be vigorously defended by those benefiting from them. Is there such support for the license plate/sticker tax? As best as I can determine from the Internet, there are about 2.613 million automobiles in Missouri. Since each one must be licensed, and each license costs, on average, about $35.00 (the stickers, or license plates, range from $12.25 to $51.25 yearly, depending upon the vehicle’s “taxable” horsepower), the grand total is about $91.5 million every year that the state collects for doing nothing of value to the hapless motorist.
So perhaps the first small step toward the goal of freedom might be to attack something as simple as automobile license plates. Indeed, the public could go on the offensive, demanding that the state pay a fee to the automobile’s owner, in return for the owner allowing the state to put its ID on the vehicle! (I assume that the state will be reluctant to point out that IT is the true owner!) The best defense, it’s said, is a good offense, so why not? As the state attempted to defend its pointless license plate plunder, more and more people would come to see it for what it is: a gang of thieves writ large. That’s a pretty good first step. You have nothing to lose but a license plate sticker.

Your rating: None Average: 8 (2 votes)
Paul Hein's picture
Columns on STR: 78


Suverans2's picture

"In my state, and probably yours also, you cannot buy the rulers’ permission to operate your (?) car without providing proof that you’ve paid the tribute demanded yearly in order for you to pretend that you actually own the vehicle." ~ Paul Hein


(noun) position
(noun) condition

state (generic term)

Therein lies the problem, you may be in the wrong "state". In my "state" you can, "Create your own custom license plates at BuildASign.com! Using our online design tool you can create custom license plates..." like THIS for a one-time-fee of about 15 doll-hairs.

DISCLAIMER: Do not do this unless you are in the right "state" (legal condition).

Samarami's picture

I like the "State of Nature" plate. Think I'll build one if I ever decide to rescind my "car free" status.

I refer to myself as "A Sovereign State". My President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis. A good State in which to be, I is, I is.


Suverans2's picture

G'day Sam,

Thanks. There are a few neighbors around me who have gotten a "kick out of it", too. The last man, with lights on top of his car, who spied it, "invited" me to pull over so he could talk to me. The first question out of his mouth was, "Where's your tag?" To which I answered, "On the back of my car." After politely explaining that I was not a U.S. CITIZEN, nor was I a CITIZEN or RESIDENT of the STATE he worked for, he bid me good day and left. Our last several encounters with agents of the STATE and COUNTIES have been similar, but, so I don't misrepresent, they haven't all been that pleasant. When you give men of low self-esteem a little delegated authority, an assortment of weapons, and a license to use them, it can sometimes turn ugly.

Speaking of "President", Sam, did you know that the Aramaic[1] word for god, in the so-called "Old Testament", (singular) is 'el (pronounced ale), which is the short form of the word 'ayil (pronounced eye-eel), which, according to Dr. James Strong's studies means, "specifically a chief (politically)". (See H410 and H352 in any of the older versions of Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.)

And, that the number one meaning of 'elohiym (plural of 'el), also translated God, gods and goddesses is, "1a) rulers, judges" (See H430 in Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon.)

    Exo 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant[2] with them, nor with their gods [rulers, judges].

Sound advice!

I thought that this information might be of use to you, (and perhaps even one or two others), in some small way.

[1] Aramaic n. a Northwest Semitic language that was the lingua franca throughout the Near East from c. 300 B.C. to c. A.D. 650; it replaced Hebrew [Ibriy] as the language of the Jews [sic][a] and one of its dialects was spoken by Jesus and his disciples ~ Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 70 [Emphasis and bracketed information added]

    [a] It was the language of the house (ten tribes) of Yisra'el, as well, not just the "Jews", i.e. members of the house (two tribes) of Judah.

[2] H1285 Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon definition:
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
1a) between men
1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)

Suverans2's picture

G'day once more Sam,

You are most certainly "in" a "Sovereign State", as regards other men, if your "President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis"; in that "state" you are, in my opinion, subject only to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

What the so-called Christians of today don't appear to realize is that "no man can serve two masters (supreme magistrates)". If one is a U.S. citizen who is his "first", i.e. "supreme", magistrate?

Oh, by the way, Sam, Yisra'el, literally translated, means, "prince (sar)/princess (sarah) of God ('el)", or "prince and princess of the Supreme Magistrate", if you prefer. And what is a prince? "1. In a general sense, a sovereign". And what is a princess? You probably already guessed it. "A female sovereign".

"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire

May I call you "fellow citizen"? ;)


Paul's picture

"Is there such support for the license plate/sticker tax?"

There is. It is needed to pay the salaries of the bureaucrats who take your money for the sticker. Makes sense, huh?

I always thought the state should simply issue randomly, generic plates, with numbers in the range from 0 to 99, black on white, no "art" plates. Then all they would have to do is call for the "red car with license 67" and have a better chance of catching the bad guy, since people would actually be able to read and remember the plates from a much greater distance. This would be so even though multiple cars would have number 67. Or maybe use 3 digits instead of two.

Of course this assumes the whole point is to make it possible to catch criminals. Of course, since the government IS criminal, this can't possibly be the real reason for license plates. They are there to enslave us, plain and simple. They are something like the tattoos on the arms of inmates at Bergen-Belsen.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Paul, (A cordial greeting takes very little effort, plus it lets everyone know to whom we are responding.)

I think you know the "support" that Paul Hein was asking about was "public enthusiasm for this tax", i.e. member enthusiasm. And, I believe that member "enthusiasm for this tax" would be about equal to the sheep's excitement about being loaded onto the truck headed for the slaughter house -- they don't like it at all, they may even raise a ruckus about it, but they'll stick with the herd until the bitter end, they'll almost never "withdraw from membership in the group".

It may help for members of the STATE (STATE citizens) to think of this "tax" as the "rental-fee" for using the car that the original purchaser voluntarily gave to the STATE when he voluntarily, (albeit ignorantly), signed the back of the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin.

I know, I know, someone here is bound to say that there was a gun held to their head as they signed it. The good news is that if that is true, and they can prove it, their signature will be null and void, from the beginning.

Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

Good luck on that one.

What most of us do not realize is that it is the following Maxim of Law we are really contending with. And, it only holds true for voluntary servants, by the way.

Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327.

″The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.″ ~ Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra)

Again, this only holds true for voluntary servants, the Government does not write laws for non-members, i.e. free men. Free men are controlled by the natural law.

Suverans2's picture

"That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to [coming after] the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, [in the natural state] every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." ~ CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. [Bracketed information added]