Years ago I was in a tourist area, and my rental car was getting expensive, so I decided to buy a car. A guy who had a beach concession stand said he had a car for sale. I asked him if the paper was good, and if I would have any problem putting the car in my name. He said there were no problems and I could put the car in my name. I went the next day to the DMV and the clerk spent a while doing some kind of research then came back in a panicky way and said the paper was not good for whatever reason.
I went back to the guy and told him the car could not be transferred because there was a problem, and I wanted my money back.
He said he had spent the money, so I told him produce the money or I'll go to the police and make a complaint. He said he had spent it all.
So I went to the police station and told them the story and showed them all the paper including the bill of sale.
The police said it's not a big deal, and a lot of tourists and locals don't have proper registration. So the police said there was no problem having a car that there was no way I could put a legitimate license plate on.
In other words the police told me to do what they killed Chase Allan for doing.
Later I went and said something to the guy who sold the car which he interpreted as something illegal to say, possibly a threatening comment.
The police then were willing to spend money on having an undercover cop try to find out if I had made that statement.
What were the police really doing when they attacked Chase Allen? Were they preventing something? Or enforcing something? And if so, what?
~
This page will list articles on the Chase Allen killing, and on sovereign citizen type philosophies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPPJ96QFfX4
Most easily findable information on Google is nonsense.
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Sov%20citizens%20quick%20guide%20Nov%2013.pdf
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliven_Bundy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
~
Youtube video which does not appear in Youtube results, nor in Google results, unless the title of the video is entered in quotes.
If you just search "Chase Allen" the video does not appear in results.
~
Q Why is so much effort put into discrediting 'sovereign citizen' ideology?
Industrialized countries are built on compliance with laws. Most people support most laws, so that isn't usually a problem, but if a person does not support a specific law, and resists it, they can weaken the power of bureaucrats.
Q What law was Chase Allen 'not supporting'?
He was ostensibly stopped for not respecting 'registration' laws for his vehicle, but he knew he would be stopped, he filmed the stop on his camera, so it appears he was challenging a broader issue.
Q What is the broader issue he and most 'sovereign' types support?
The notion that a group of people cannot use force to obligate others to obey the rules of their group.
Q But aren't vehicle registration laws universal, aren't they natural and a part of the country?
Many people would say they are, but there were widespread unwritten laws across north America for thousands of years, up until a few hundred years ago when European laws were imported and used by colonizers to eliminate previous unwritten laws.
So vehicle registration laws are not actually a part of what could be called 'natural laws' or 'the law of the land'.
Q What would be an example of a difference between previous laws which pre date the United States, and current ones?
Tribal societies that existed in the Americas before Europeans arrived had complex ethical practices which were completely different from those of Europeans. One obvious thing about their law was that it was flexible and sensible. It did not have a corporate basis meant to profit one small part of the population.
Q Are there any obvious philosophical problems with Chase Allen's beliefs?
Both sides had severe flaws in their philosophies. The difference was that Chase Allen was willing to discuss those philosophical points, including his belief that attacking a person for a perceived offense which is non violent is wrong. Those who attacked him believed it was okay to attack those who disagree or disobey them.