Conversations with Normal People: Part One by Chris Dates

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws….”

~ John Adams

As I have mentioned before, I am an Auto Mechanic. As part of my job I test drive customer vehicles to verify a complaint, and to recheck my work when it’s completed. The other Technicians I work with do the same thing, so when Law Enforcement has set up a speed trap, or are actively running radar in the area where most of us test drive, word spreads like wildfire.

But this time was different….

My buddy walked down to me and explained to me that he had just got stopped by the cops. I thought to myself that he must have been speeding, or committed the heinous crime of rolling through a stop sign, or some other arbitrary traffic infraction so I asked him what he had done. He told me that he had done nothing wrong, but a roadblock had been set up, and he went through it. He told me that the road was blocked off in either direction, and they were stopping both sides of the road. He explained the roadblock was rather large, and it was a collaboration between Local and State Law Enforcement. I asked if any Military was present, he said no, but said they sure did look and act like the Military.

He was not in his personal vehicle when they stopped him, and he was also wearing gloves.  Technicians wear gloves to protect themselves from chemicals, and other substances that could cause harm. He was asked to produce his license and registration. He pulled out his license, and held up the work order explaining to this Jackboot that this was not his vehicle.  He pointed to the Honda emblem on his shirt, and also pointed out the rest of his uniform.  The Officer then asked if there was anything in the van that he should know about. My buddy responded, again, that this was not his vehicle, and he has no idea what’s in the van. The Officer then noticed that he was wearing gloves, and for some odd reason became very alarmed. The officer asked him why he was wearing gloves. He said it’s for protection from oil, brake clean, and other harmful fluids in the shop. The officer then asked him if he was sure that was the reason he was wearing gloves. My friend, at this point puzzled, responded with yes. The Officer then took his license and work order and walked away. He came back in about two minutes and told him he was “cleared to leave”. It’s important to note that the armed State Employee who was busy interrupting the daily commerce of everyone who happened to drive down that road was concerned by my friend’s uniform. How bizarre, an armed man standing in the middle of the road with the rest of his armed gang was alarmed my a man trying to fix this person’s vehicle.

I asked him why they were stopping people, and he said they were looking for suspended licenses, expired registrations and vehicle inspections. I asked him if that was the official reason, if that was the story he had gotten from the cops.  He said no, but many of the numerous cars that were pulled over on the side of the road had expired vehicle inspections, and registrations(he is a State Inspector, it’s part of his job to notice these things). I asked him what he thought of the roadblock, and he told me he didn’t mind it, because he wasn’t doing anything wrong.  At this point the Activist in me wanted to grab my Best Friend (who I work with), and my camera to go and film this Tyranny, but the Father in me told me it was a bad idea, and that I was sure to end the day in a cage. Besides, we had started to build quite the audience of people anxious to hear about the roadblock. I thought to myself what a great opportunity to inject some freedom principles into the conversation.

After the story was retold we all sat around discussing what happened. The usual grumbling ensued, you know, the kind that usually follows any cop story. I asked the group if the cops have the right to do this, and EVERYONE responded with a yes. They said basically, yeah, it sucks, but they believe it has to be done for protection against drunk drivers and “illegals”.  I asked about the Bill of Rights, specifically the fourth amendment, and everyone gave me a blank stare like they were waiting for me to tell them what their rights were as human beings, so I did….

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I then explained how this roadblock was a violation of individual rights, and completely illegal. I then heard a voice say, “Oh, no it’s not, it’s completely legal”, it was a co-worker of mine who is a former Sheriffs Deputy, he was walking up with three other men. At this point the conversation had swelled to more than ten individuals. I was anxious to hear this man’s explanation on exactly how this sort of thing is “legal”.  He said as long as there is a pattern, and not random, it’s legal. He said as long as Law Enforcement was stopping every third car, or every red car, or every truck, it was legal. He said this is how it was legal to set up DUI checkpoints and still be Constitutional. He explained to the group that driving was a privilege, and that you give “implied consent” the moment you enter your vehicle and motor onto public roadways. Anyone who has read my articles knows I hate the phrase “implied consent”, and I was itching to question him on his logic. I asked him if it was legal for Law Enforcement to search every red house or every third house. He said that was different, because driving requires a license, owning a house does not. I asked him if I could opt-out of the mandatory tax that goes to fund the roads I am privileged to drive on, and he told me no. I wanted to clarify for the group, so I repeated, “so, let me get this straight, I am forced to pay for these roads under penalty of law, but it’s a privilege that I get to use them?”  I then asked, “tell me, how can an Officer force me to produce my license when I have done nothing wrong? Isn’t that unreasonable?” He said the reason this is legal is because the State issued that license and it’s really not mine, it’s State property. I then questioned the need for drivers licenses, since I can be made to hand over State property at any given time, do I really need to have it?

When I questioned the need for licenses the crowd kind of mumbled, and some started to question where I was going with this, I mean, licenses make us safer, right? I posed a question to the former Sheriffs Deputy, “if the State licenses me to drive a vehicle, and I prove myself unfit to operate that vehicle,  I crash and severely injure a person and destroy property, can the State be sued?”  He said no, that’s a job for the insurance companies to handle. I then asked, “OK, so what’s the purpose of the license?” He said, “Well, it’s just needed.” I pressed on, “No, why do we need them? If a private company is the entity that takes care of rectifying the loss of life or property, why do we need the damn license?”  He said, “well, insurance companies won’t insure you without a valid license.” I then asked, “isn’t that called Fascism?” I then addressed the group, “can anyone give me one good reason for the licensing of drivers?” I also reminded them that they were all Auto Mechanics, and that they needed no licensing when spinning wrenches, even though what we do, or fail to do could kill people. I could see the light bulbs starting to turn on at this point.

I returned to the point I was trying to make about the searching of houses. I asked the group what would happen if they stopped paying their property tax. Most of the group responded that if the failure to pay went far enough, the property would be seized by the county. I then asked, “well isn’t this a privilege then? Isn’t owning a house a privilege?” All that’s needed now was the license, and bang, the State could randomly search your house, and it would be completely legal. The former Deputy chimed in and said, “all these Officers were doing was following orders.” I was waiting for that old line to come out. I reminded this man that he once took an oath to defend the Constitution, and not to enforce the laws that dance around the Bill of Rights. I am an anarchist, and I see the Constitution as nothing more than a blueprint for a perpetual slave machine, but when it comes to freedom, I’ll take what I can get. I asked one more question of the former Deputy, “there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books even though 2A clearly states–shall not be infringed– if a law was passed where you were made to turn in your guns, would you?” He reluctantly said, “yes….if it’s the law, I must respect it.” I said, “no you don’t have to respect it, the Bill of Rights does not grant you rights, it merely protects the rights you naturally have.” He said he was “impressed”‘with my knowledge of the Constitution and we both agreed to finish the conversation over a couple of beers.

I told the group that we are losing our rights one by one. One man spoke up and said, “we are not losing our rights, they are just trying to protect us so that we have more rights.” I asked him to enumerate just one right that he thought we were not losing, he couldn’t name one.

How can we say we are losing our rights if the majority of Americans don’t even know what rights they have? How can we say we are losing America if the majority of of Americans don’t even know what the idea of America was?

“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.” ~ Thomas Paine


29 thoughts on “Conversations with Normal People: Part One by Chris Dates”

  1. People have been born into perpetual slavery as you stated. They have been conditioned by their master to believe it is a form of freedom. Restrictions,licensing,permission slips equals freedom in their minds. These people have never known a day of freedom in their lives.

    This is what we are facing. Trying to undo the states conditioning of these poor people. They were taught what freedom is by the very people who hold the end of their leashes.

    They cannot comprehend that freedom is not obeying the dictates of their master. freedom is not having to ask permission or obtain licenses from their over-seers. freedom is living and acting as we choose without violating the equal rights of others.

    These people cannot understand what true freedom means.Anarchists can envision what freedom might be like even if they have never lived it. its hard to describe it, hard to garner support for it when millions don’t want it, don’t understand it and are programmed to reject it.

  2. Pingback: Conversations With Normal People – Part I | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  3. “the majority of of Americans don’t even know what the idea of America was”

    it only lives in the heads of a few old people. and then we die.

  4. Great post, Chris…funny and sad at the same time. How scary is it that EVERYONE thought they had a “right” to do this? How backwards is that?

    You must’ve missed your copy of the Newspeak Dictionary. “Implied consent” means “implied submission.”

  5. I was pulled over a few miles outside of NYC; my crime – as per the local cop – was “looking down while driving”. Fortunately my cell phone was still holstered as he told me about the new “cause” to pull presumably texting drivers over. Granted my GPS unit was low on the console which was the cause of me ‘looking down’. I’m not why I didn’t get a ticket for looking down, perhaps it was a good thing to have worked in my previous service in the sandbox to the ex-Marine cop.

    Did I feel safer? No. But the same of “Father” prevented a rant about the 4th forgotten amendment.

    Thankfully I am moving out of NY to a much freer State this month.

    1. Much freer states are a matter of perspective. I live in AZ and the place is saturated with cops from FLEAs to local constabulary and revenue is a huge enterprise.

  6. Pingback: Articles for Thursday Reading »

  7. Jim,
    To think that another human has the right to search you because he puts on a State costume, and claims it’s “legal” is LIGHT YEARS away from where our minds need to be if we are ever going to be physically free.

    Some days I’m filled with hope, other days, not so much. I am learning to accept that I, and humanity, will never be as free as I would like. There is only freer. I spend so much time saturated with the Liberty Community that I forget how brainwashed the masses are. That’s why I gave my story the title of, “conversations with normal people”. At this point, I don’t think we are “normal”, maybe the children of liberty are born with some kind of abnormality, some kind of defect.

    The Thomas Paine quote at the bottom of my story says it all.

  8. Jim,

    i think you’re wrong on that point. there is only FREEDOM not FREER. Freer implies we must accept our chains and hope only to lighten them a little. I for one will not stop trying to throw off my chains. i will not stop trying to make people see things for how they are rather then how they want them to be.

    Slavery will end one day soon and i hope to keep people from starting it up again. That is my goal. I don’t believe i will be free in my lifetime but perhaps in future generations our children and grand children will end it once and for all and be willing to do it based on the knowledge we leave them today. Telling them to accept it and hope only to be a little Freer will ensure the divine right of some people to rule other people will continue for all eternity.

    The people you talk to are not ‘normal people’. They are handicapped. They have been lobotomized by the state and are a lost cause. They have no mind to change. My hope is to continue trying to find the remnant. Those who still have a bit of mind left that might be deprogrammed.

    Reaching the majority should never be the goal. They cannot be reached. They are lemmings that follow the herd wherever it goes, the goal, the target should be to encourage a small minority to believe in and try freedom!! Once that is achieved the lemming majority will follow as it always does.

    That is my personal hope. my goal. my dream. i will not give it up and i will not accept ‘limited’ freedom. there are only two choices. slavery or freedom. There is nothing in between.

    Your article was a brilliant one and your comments to the handicapped was well thought out and very patient. i look forward to the next set.

  9. Darna,
    I think your last comment was addressed to me, and not Jim. So, in the chance that it was, I’ll answer it. But first, +1 to your comments, I have enjoyed them so far!

    I am also a believer in the law of the excluded middle; either you are a slave or you are not. I completely understand this.

    My disagreement with you is this: the masses MUST be reached for us to be free. The freedom that you and I want will not come otherwise. A massive revolution has to take place first, and that revolution has to be between the ears of every individual on this planet. If not, freedom will suffer the same fate of the Revolutionary Generation, it will wither and die.

    There is one principle that has to be fully understood by all in order for liberty to bloom and take hold…


    That’s it, but it must be fully understood, and it’s not even that hard. I own myself, so do you. You live your life, and I will live mine. If this is not realized, liberty will die again, and again, and again. We were so close last time.

    If self-ownership is not realized, and other people retain the idea that they can help themselves to your life, liberty, and property then we will never fully be liberated, and will always remain slaves. There will always be a group of people who will take your stuff with a vote(at the barrel of a gun), and they will think it the moral thing to do if this principle is not realized.

    This is why the masses must be reached, and this is also the reason I lose hope sometimes, but believe me, my friend, I will not give up!

  10. America was SUPPOSED to be the “land of liberties” NOT a “nation of laws” used by “authorities” to steal the people’s money, property, liberties and freedom!

    It also used to be the “land of the free” and “home of the brave.” But that was a long time ago during a different age.

  11. Oh yea, AND we (Americans) cannot understand why the people of Afghanistan and Iraq would not stand up and fight for their own freedom. Because THEY do not know what freedom is! They don’t understand it! Sound familiar? Just sayin’

  12. “How can we say we are losing our rights if the majority of Americans don’t even know what rights they have? How can we say we are losing America if the majority of of Americans don’t even know what the idea of America was?”

    This is why the Domestics first focused on subverting our educational system.. you can’t lose something you didn’t know you had in the first place.
    They are no longer our employees or our servants when they see themselves as rulers.. Domestic Enemies.

    Yank lll

  13. Hi Chris;
    You are correct. I did address the wrong person and for that i apologize.

    I understand what you believe there. That liberty has been tried and died each and every time. Your right. It has died. It died precisely because people restarted the state. They replaced a king with a president, ect.

    I don’t believe the majority will ever adopt freedom. There will always be people who take the path of least resistance by stealing your stuff rather then working for it. That will never change regardless of how they manage to effect the theft. Those same people will always be willing to give power to a small group that promises to do it for them. It saves them the trouble of dirtying them hands. The only way to stop that from happening is to stop the state from every gaining a hold again. Abolish it once and for all. Let anarchy have its day. Without the power of the state those who would take what you have won’t succeed. They would have no domestic military to do it for them.

    Waiting for the majority to accept freedom is an impossible task. It won’t happen, people will never agree to the exact same thing at the same time.

    I Do believe that a minority can achieve it on their own. As they have done in other revolutions so they can do once again. only this time they replace it without rulers and masters. That is my hope. The one i cling to.

    How to protect it and stop the state from reforming and slavery taking place again? That i do not know. It is a challenging question. Waiting for majority approval for it will ensure it never happens. just my opinion.

  14. Pingback: Links 141 | Cindy's Zone 2

  15. “My disagreement with you is this: the masses MUST be reached for us to be free. The freedom that you and I want will not come otherwise.”

    Lately, I’ve preferred to look at it entirely factually. In that manner, we already have the freedom we want. We are as we are, after all, and that’s the reason we argue for political freedom in the first place. Not having political freedom doesn’t change who we are.

    The cages are comin’, no doubt. But till we’re in one, we’re as free as we could be in any society, just dealing with everything as it is. That’s not really any less true just because the majority can’t accept that they’re free too, and so choose to live like idiots. It just makes things that much tougher, but so do hurricanes and tornadoes.

    Personally, I’ve decided that it doesn’t make sense to sacrifice one’s life to that. It’s been a founding error of the “freedom movement” IMO…I say let destroyers destroy; builders should build.

    Admittedly, that’s a ton easier to say than do.

    “A massive revolution has to take place first, and that revolution has to be between the ears of every individual on this planet. If not, freedom will suffer the same fate of the Revolutionary Generation, it will wither and die.”

    That’s the scary part…it ain’t freedom that dies!

  16. The former deputy once took an oath, the very definition of oath means it is still binding. That is if the person has any integrity.

  17. “implied consent”

    To some extent, perhaps, but to the degree that you must unilaterally waive your constitutionally innumerated protections and other rights “endowed by your creator” as a submission to coercion imposed upon your eligibility to lawfully drive a vehicle on the commons?

    And what does such imposed coercion have to do with demonstrating minimum fitness of competency to be set loose upon the commons driving a vehicle.

    Further, as a citizen, there is the overarching principle there shall be no taxation without representation. Implicit in the principle of representation is the principle of participation.

    So, let is look at the rest of the equation the legalistas have concocted to subjectify any citizen who dares drive on the commons. Let us look at subjectified citizens reduced by fiat of police militarism to the status of “civilians” subordinated to miltarized police state authority to subjugate free commerce and passage at will.

    I think was alarms any reasonable person is two fold:

    1) these acts of civilian subjectification by militarized police-state methods are both promiscuous and based in a fundamental presumption of supplication. So severe is the cultural imposition of supplication upon the citizen that their citizenship is, in the immediacy, rendered worthless by fiat of unsupervised and rogue authority on site. The key here is not the act of stopping, or interviewing, but the coercion that demands absolute supplication; the key meaning is of a request by the lesser person in an acknowledged unequal relationship. Per WIKI, “supplication is the final stage of thesis submission at Oxford University. Supplication is also closely associated with the secular notion of appeasement.”

    On its face, the use of militarized tactical police actions and other subjectification of citizens by organized groups of state employees is premised in its operational entirety upon the right to impose supplication and to officially demand supplication from said citizen.

    Whether the fiat of militarized or subjectifying supplication is imposed upon citizens by a use of predetermined filtration metrics or strict frequency of process is not relevant to the offense of imposing supplication upon the citizen. It is the imposition of SUPPLICATION that is RANDOM. This is about the organized and systematic imposition of supplication being itself an act of lawlessness.

    (2) Taxation without representation posits another question. We pay taxes to build and maintain these roads; in most cases to freely use these roads by fiat of common rules which apply to all.
    I question how the coercing “implied consent” can survive the greater legal principles involved. To be coerced of funds confiscated and used under the guise of taxation is one thing, as we are free to use the roads that our funds construct and maintain.

    But can the government legalists have it both ways? Can they coerce our funding and then turn around and deny us the right to drive on these highways… unless, of course, you agree to waive your constitutional protections against promiscuous detainment, interrogation and search of your person and property that would otherwise be illegal without the fiat of such extorted waiver.

    Which raises another question. How can such be lawful when implied consent does not meet the standard of informed consent?

    My layman’s thoughts may be readily proven incorrect. But I do wonder.

    Too often, the abuses of law and pathologies of government authority are not a product of wrongful policy and rogue interpretations — too often they are a product of sloth, in that the opposition to rogue legalism do not or will not crawl out of their limited world view and champion completion of the pendulum’s path to return the interim policies that are concocted by agencies to a sanity that conforms with our founding constitutional principles.

    Don’t think for a minute that there are not many employed by government and employed by law enforcement that are deeply alarmed by what they see becoming normalized.

    Just as much so, there are many devoted and responsible military veterans who are deeply alarmed at the growing frequency of black-costumed police playing dress-up soldier, utterly lacking the sophistication of mission, training and command and control infrastructure necessary to properly operate such tactics.

    Our government is not our enemy. But it seems to have been infested with parasites who see the rest of us as second class citizens, and the government employees who disagree with them as being unworthy of influence or authority.

    We are in an era where dangerous personalities are in positions of government authority and are making changes to police and law enforcement policy.

    These personalities are at the problem. If we don’t push back and help the loving, conscientious and caring professionals working in our respective governments, the most predatory and parasitic personalities will take control of the government and throw us civilians into the street, or prison, or an early grave if such is more convenient.

    They are not “Our Government Family”. We are not members. We are not allowed to be. We are not welcome inside. We are all supposed to be “The American Family”.

    Why is that no longer enough?

  18. To demand supplication is to demand the admission of the supplicant that it is they who are the lesser person.

    When one citizen stops another in an instance where there is no evidence whatsoever of violation of any law, how did we ever get to the place where the citizen employed by the government has the unsupervised and spontaneous right to demand by force the immediate supplication of a fellow citizen who has broken no law.

    And so we have it.

    The refusal to comply with an arbitrary or capricious demand for your immediate supplication will be construed to be an illegal act, from which you will either be immediately beaten, shot or otherwise arrested for resisting police authority.

    Here we find is the heart of the boundary problem. It is entirely structural.

    It needs to be fixed so the best souls in government service can throttle back the coworkers who are imbalanced, predatory or otherwise suffer from malignancies of narcissism.

    Not joking. We need new law, good law, to fix this boundary or things will get much much worse. The courts cannot save us from a legislature that is complicit in feeding the productive and faithful citizenry to the voracious syndicates that have come to dominate our politics. These syndicates are the same forces militarizing our police and increasingly conditioning our citizens to accept their fate as subjects of the new ruling class. Supplication is the key concept here. This is hammer that is beating the people to a malleable pulp.

  19. Our constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed no if the citizens it’s associated with don’t enforce it. Balance of powers has failed. The Supreme Court is a puppet of the executive branch, and levies no power in protection of the people. Our congressional elections are nothing more than popularity contests, and we’re not even going to touch the executive branch. The decline started somewhere around Andrew Jackson’s presidency, one of the more highly regarded presidents, and has gone down hill since. The momentum has picked up since FDR, and the new deal, and since the election of our current POTUS.

    Now, what are we going to do about it? There is one branch of the federal government sworn to uphold the constitution, the final check and balance, but they’re paid for by congress. As a member of that organization however, I know which side of the line I’ll be standing on, if the people decide that they’ve had enough.

  20. Late to post but excellent story. As I’ve said time and again if I haven’t the “freedom” to say NO then I’m not free at all. Just free to shut up and do as I’m told. So what kind of “freedom” do cops and soldiers pretend to defend?

  21. brian forsyth bailey


    9/11: New! Overwhelming EXPLOSIVE Evidence-1500 EXPERTS SPEAK OUT!

    Basically it’s proof the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition and is an impeachable offense by congress of the united states that said government conspired to commit treason against the american public. Conclusion? US is a criminal operation and is perceived so by everyone that isn’t complicit in said evil & thereby, EVIL.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top