Natural Person vs. Artificial Person, is this for real?

A natural person is a human being whereas an artificial person is a corporation. This distinction has a long history in law.

Oh yeah! The devil is busy (nuff said)

I saw the part where he said “living-soul, human-being, created by God”, decided he is a fool and read no further. Whether he thinks I am real or artificial (working in his own definitions, I presume), I am coping with society perfectly well and I cannot see how this could impact my day to day life.

I’m with @FireMadeFlesh – once I saw that, I went ‘meh’

OK, I wanted to read a little further than @FireMadeFlesh (even thought I agreed with his logic that suggested given the opening, what I would find would be belief in all sorts of fictions) and I got as far as “After a while, Governments became corrupt and now we have to ask: How could Governments and other “regulatory bodies” possibly make you follow their rules…”

So with 800,000 gallons of oil puking into the Gulf of Mexico every day now, I am supposed to believe that we’d all be much better off if the Government regulated nothing at all, and let private individuals and corporations do anything they please. This is Ayn Rand on steroids. It’s the rantings of a conspiracy theorist run amok.

There seems to be a strong urge among the anti-rationalists today to see who can wear the thickest tinfoil hat. Everything must be brought under one Grand Unification Conspiracy Theory. Nothing at all is what it actually seems, and observation is pointelss, because the conspirators control everything you observe making it seem what it isn’t and not look like what it really is. You can only know what it really is by listening to the conspiracy theorist, who sees the “truth” through divine revelation or a secret, untestable, undetectable inner sense that operates entirely outside the physical realm.

There is plenty wrong with our government today, but our being turned from natural people into artificial people through the use of ID cards is fortunately not one of them.

@trailsillustrated & @FireMadeFlesh just because someone believes in god (I don’t, but to each their own) doesn’t mean that anything they put forth is foolish or wrong. You can end up disregarding many interesting things and possibly true things by sticking your fingers in your ears. And I am not referencing the content of my question.

I’m am more interested in whether the information he has put forth in his site has a basis in law.

@ETpro I agree with much of what you have written as I believe in regulation. I was fascinated by the history he puts forth as to how we got from being relatively free, as people, to having many laws and regulations that limit and restrict us. And the idea that by not getting a social security number, driver’s license, health care card…we are detaching legally from society.

@tranquilsea Our Founding Fathers didn’t put a Nuclear Regulatory Agency into the Constitution because they knew nothing of nuclear energy. Had they seen what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, and known that those cities were hit with bombs only ½500 of the power of the most powerful hydrogen bombs; do you think they would have insisted Nuclear Power remain unregulated? Would they have resisted food inspection had they understood what we now know about ood borne illness? Would they oppose regulating pollution of any kind even after they witnessed Love Canal, the Cuyahoga River catching on fire not once but twice, acid rain killing forests, the Bhopal, India chemical plant poisonings, the Exxon Valdez and now the Deepwater Horizon.

We don’t have a government that resembles that of President George Washington’s fine administration because we don’t live in the 1700s. That seems so profoundly obvious to me that it mystifies me how extreme libertarians like the one you linked to can miss it. And while you are right that we shouldn’t dismiss all views held by someone simply because they believe in some things that defy proof, it’s a hint they may believe in many things that defy proof or even fly in the face of available facts.

Belief in superstition instead of reason is why Medieval Europe killed off all its cats to “fix” the problem or bubonic plague approaching, and in doing so gave free reign to the rat infestation that was a major part of what really spread the disease. Instead of admitting the truth that they had no clue what caused the plague, they jumped to the conclusion that it “obviously” was a curse and witches “obviously” cast curses, and witches “obviously” use cats in their dark rituals.

When you set aside reason in favor of superstition and magic, you end up believing in many things that are patently false. The least harm this does is keep you from seeking the truth. Often, as in the case of the great plague, actions taken based on superstition make the problem they are designed to cure far worse.

@tranquilsea I only made the decision I did because it appeared that his idea of a natural person was based on religious mythology. Whatever the legal issues surrounding a person’s identity are, our current system seems to be working well enough, and I do not consider myself to have lost out in any way. Therefore it is an irrelevant issue.

of course this is stupid I mean is obviously that this guy is a religious fanatic or something which is obsessed with the ID etc.Actually one of my relatives thinks that the new chips their going to put in european ID are some devices to control our mind and body and to make us some kind of Devil’s dolls.
It’s a total stupid thing.I can’t even pay much attention to this.

@Christian95 Do you think it is related to fundamentalist interpretations of Revelation 13:16–17?

I really dont have an answer to this question. I would be very interested to hear a response by an educated person who actually read what the site has to say.
To read,“living-soul, human-being, created by God”, and completely dismiss what the rest of the site has to say is extremely ignorant. Nowhere in the site does it get religious. God is simply his interpretation of our creator, which is written in the Decleration of Independence.

I think the question of natural vs artificial person is a very important question to ask, especially considering the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people. What exactly does the Supreme Court define people as?
If you guys take just a few minutes to read through the site, maybe the Supreme Court ruling would make more sense and we could get a real conversation going about what a person means in the eyes of the government.

After reading through the site, my biggest question is, is the US a country based on Constitutional Law, or is it a corporation based on Contractual Law?

@chris6137 Thank you for taking time to read through the site and not dismiss it just as religious quackery.

I did read through the site in its entirety a couple of years ago and at the time I had no one to discuss it with. It sounds like this guy is a lawyer and from what I’ve heard he spends a lot of time advising the government and individuals on what their rights, as human beings, are.

I am not a lawyer and so I don’t have any education on the legalities of what he has put forth.