Jerry Cobb is a public information officer for the Maricopa County attorney’s office in Phoenix. As I relate in the video, Jerry could not provide any facts to support the argument: if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply. Jerry gave me his word that if I put the question in an email, the county attorney would provide a responsive answer. The county attorney has not answered, but Jerry did. Jerry has stopped responding to my emails and phone messages.
Jerry provided a lengthy email, but it’s not responsive to my question. From my email to Jerry:
This office operates under the presumption that if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply to them. My question is: what facts do you rely on to prove the const. and laws apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona?
This is a question of fact. But, when you don’t have supporting facts, you use logical fallacies to support your argument. Jerry starts off with a straw man:
Legal and Factual Analysis: First, this question suggests a philosophical attack on the very idea. Specifically it is a question of whether humans should exist in civilizations or in a state of nature.
The question does no such thing, it’s not an “attack”, it’s a simple question of evidence to support an argument. Instead of presenting the facts to support the argument, Jerry raises a straw man and proceeds to settle that argument instead. I won’t quote it all here as it is in the video, but Jerry goes on about the Greeks and Hobbes:
Put another way, should humans live in civilizations according to the rule of civil law or in a state of nature without the rule of civil law? These are not new questions, but questions that have been asked and answered for thousands of years by generations of humans. The Greeks and Romans answered them…Thomas Hobbes answered this question in the Leviathan in 1651…
Wow, the Greeks predate the Arizona government by a couple of millennia. Makes be happy to be part Greek, what foresight, but the slavery part not so much. Jerry seems to forget Greek and Roman “civilizations” were built on a foundation of slavery and never ending warfare. So he’s using the word “civilized” kinda loosely. Jerry misstates my question, that’s another reason why I think his email was a copy and paste. Jerry wrote:
Second, the above question constitutes a mixed question of law and fact, it is not simply a factual inquiry as posited, so the answer must include law and facts. Since the question does not distinguish clearly between federal and state law, both will have to be addressed.
The question clearly included only the state constitution and laws, re-read the argument the question is regarding. Jerry again raises his straw man by falsely claiming it’s a mixed question of law and fact. No, it’s a question of fact only. Jerry then gets two things factually correct:
the U.S. Constitution is a document that actually exists and its existence is a fact that is not in dispute. Federal laws are also documents that actually exist.
They are just documents, the flawed (circular logic) argument is that they are applicable to people because the documents say so. That they allegedly apply to me just because I’m in a certain physical area, such as Phoenix or Arizona.
Jerry, instead of providing any facts, claims the constitution is a contract:
The United States Constitution was unanimously ratified by the states on September 17, 1787, and as such is a social contract that is the basis for all laws in the United States.
As Lysander Spooner already pointed out, the constitution is no contract:
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
The people, whether in 1787 or today, have no choice whether there are people called government ruling them, all support is compulsory. You pay or go to jail. Any argument the constitution is a “contract” or the people have “agreed” to have government is fatally flawed as all the evidence is to the contrary. Jerry doesn’t disagree it’s pay-or-go-to-jail.
Jerry writes the following as if it’s evidence and an answer to my question:
Each day when we obey traffic laws or pay taxes, or violate the law in some way, these acts and the consequences are evidence that the social contract remains in effect.
This is Jerry’s first use of the appeal to consequences logical fallacy. What we do after the fact is not evidence the laws apply in the first place. Our compliance is under threat, duress and coercion, such as getting a driver’s license. It’s done out of fear, that doesn’t mean the “documents” magically apply. Jerry continues with the appeal to consequences, a punishment, as proof of his argument:
When a person violates federal laws they can be held accountable either civilly or criminally in a federal court, and may be compelled by court order to pay fines, sentenced to prison, or compelled to perform a certain act, such as execute a contract in accordance with its terms. There is an overwhelming amount of factual evidence that the United States Constitution and federal laws apply throughout the United States. For example, people serve time in federal prison, pay federal taxes, comply with federal regulations, and file lawsuits against the federal government when their constitutional rights are violated.
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies. If Tommy Dorsey ( the unnamed band leader) had “complied” with the “offer”, would that be evidence there was a contract? Sure, if you’re a psychopath:
But that is Jerry’s reasoning. And if Jerry’s argumentum ad baculum is not clear enough here, Jerry makes it even more explicit:
In fact, there are inmates in the Maricopa County Jail and the Arizona Department of Corrections. Each inmate is evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the laws apply to people in Arizona…they constitute a mountain of evidence that laws apply to you and everyone else that is physically present in Arizona.
I see it now; the laws apply to me because you put other people in jail. That’s pretty sound logic there. No wonder they need guns. Stunning logic Jerry:
If one is physically in Arizona, then documents called the constitution and laws apply to them. Supporting this argument is:
Each inmate is evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the laws apply to people in Arizona.
“Mountain of evidence” or just another logical fallacy? Looks clear to me; support for Jerry’s argument is an appeal to consequences. Without evidence proving their laws apply they are just a gang of killers, thieves and liars who deserve no compliance except when they put our lives are in imminent danger.
I encourage everyone, regardless of where they are, to stop complying with these criminals and their pretended “laws”. Start confronting them like I have and demand the proof their “laws” apply and tell them you will not comply until they give you the proof. Tell them any compliance is under threat, duress and coercion. They hate hearing the truth. You can get to it very quickly, just ask them:
If I acted like your organization, and forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?