True sovereignty discussion

I think I might have found a solution, or at least something worthy of discussion regarding sovereignty. Usually these people are referred to as "sovereign citizens" (although that is an oxymoron) or "freemen." Below I will post a link to a youtube video of a man in Canada who explains how to become "free" or "sovereign." He explains that everyone is inherently free but we choose to give those rights away. For instance, the Declaration of Independence states (bolded my emphasis): We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice it doesn't say citizens? It says "men." These inherent unalienable rights are given to us by our Creator and cannot be taken away. The government is created by men to PROTECT those rights. So the hierarchy of life looks like this: GOD created... MAN who created... GOVERNMENT which creates... LAWS Man is above government because we created it to protect our rights. If someone came and forcefully took your land, the government is there to protect your rights. This isn't a privilege, this is how the founders setup the government. Now for the government to function and exist, they are given the ability to raise revenue through leasing of land to corporations, tariffs, excise taxes, issuing debt on the credit of the American people and things like that. In no way shape or form can the government legally take your income tax (the fruits of your labor) without your consent. Let me say that again, the labor you produce and the byproduct you receive is the fruits of your labor and is protected by your inherent rights as a man. Unless you decide to give a portion of it away to government, it is not legal for them to take it. We've been taught and doing everything wrong for a long time it seems. Most people will say, "Yeah but how will roads be built and schools created?" This is a valid question, but they are going under the assumption that government must provide these things in the first place. This is not the case! Government can and should create roads so commerce can exist, but that money will come from the aforementioned avenues of revenue generation, not income tax or property tax! Why did income tax not exist before 1913? Has something changed? If you are still following me you are probably asking, "Well why must I pay income tax then?" This is where you will need to have a basic understanding of law. I am under the impression that none of this is taught for a reason. It's sort of like generational indoctrination. I always wondered what was going through the minds of the people who were the first to pay income taxes. But that aside, let's look at a real world scenario... Scenario: A man gets pulled over by a police officer for speeding on his way to work at his private company. Example of how we act nowadays: Cop asks for drivers license, registration, and insurance. We provide it to them. Cop says you were speeding but you cannot prove otherwise. You get a ticket and pay a fine. You could also go to court and plead your case to reverse the fine. Example of how a sovereign or freeman acts: Cop pulls you over and asks for drivers license, registration, and insurance. You say that you don't have those items or that you have them but aren't working as an agent of the government at this time. You say that you are simply traveling to your job. Cop is confused of course and asks for your name. You respond that your given name by birth is XXX XXX and you are in your inherent jurisdiction. Depending on how the cop wants to act, he can try and look up your name in the system and try and ticket you. He could ask you to step outside the vehicle. But whatever that happens past this point, the person who was pulled over will explain that anything the police is doing past this point is against his will and unless there is a valid reason for pulling him over, the police can be held liable in common law court. In example one the person provided their license. By having this license means that you are acting through a title in some government capacity. At that point you waived your inherent rights to travel by receiving a privilege to DRIVE. That person waived their inherent rights! At that point the person is operating under a statutory jurisdiction which means that person will have to abide by the government rules (speed limits, stop signs, etc). In example two, the person has not consented to any government capacity and they are operating in their inherent jurisdiction. This jurisdiction means that the police officer should be protecting you, as long as you did nothing wrong or there are no injured parties. Because remember, government was created by man to protect their inalienable rights! The officer wouldn't be acting in good faith if he threw you in jail! The speed limit sign does not apply to this person because he has not acted through a title of a drivers license. Remember when police used to be called "peace officers?" Remember when police cars used to have "to serve and protect" written on the side of their cars? Two things to take from this: Statutory and Inherent jurisdictions. Statutory jurisdictions is anytime you give up your rights for government privileges. Anytime you get a drivers license, plumbing license, submit the form for tax withholdings at work, use your social security number, etc you are accepting privileges. If you didn't accept these things, you maintain your "sovereignty" and operate with FULL LIABILITY. Let's say that the speeder in example one actually hit someone. That person has insurance, right? The insurance is held liable for the acts of the person and will fix any damages. In example two, if the person got in an accident, they are held FULL LIABILITY for any damages. But since it was a speeding ticket, the sovereign person claims there was no damages to any party and was acting in their inherent jurisdiction so there can be no penalties. If the sovereign person does get in an accident, he or she will be sued for damages in common law court. Every piece of equity he has is taken into consideration when recouping damages. That is full liability. I am by no means a lawyer but this is what I understand from what I've researched: Statutory court is the jurisdiction of when matters are settled regarding anything government related. Whether its a company selling products unfairly to the government, speeding tickets, tax evasion, etc. Anything that involves government as a party and utilizing some identification like a license or ID. Common law (or inherent law) is what everyone is granted when they are born. You are a man with unalienable rights. You can travel, eat, sleep, engage in commerce, provide a means to live, work, enjoy the fruits of your labor, own a piece of land as private property, etc. Government cannot take these away unless you allow them. If two people cannot come to an agreement by themselves, they can go to a common law court where the government has provided a judge and jury. The jury should be compromised of "peers," meaning non-government workers. This is why man created government; to protect their rights. This way a band of marauding rebels can't kick you off your land if you are incapable of protecting it yourself.
If you are STILL following me, check out the video below. I've slowly been researching this and its taking me a while, but I believe I understand what is going on. We never lost our freedom, we just forgot how to. And also realize that if enough people "opted" out, government will be forced to shrink. I will be adding some more posts to this thread as I gather more information. I'd like your input as well! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNaylkMe6HQ