I am still curious about the tangent to anarchism, but it is not important.

I cannot say that I am any more or less insane I do my best to be consistent; you are of course welcome to point out my inconsistencies.

It seems to me that people doing what they may rightfully do ought not be afraid of going to prison, but sadly I have witnessed the courts deny people their rights, and fabricate reasons to imprison people unlawfully. It is impossible to know what one should do; I hope sooner than later people aren’t too afraid to stand up for themselves.

One of the points of having this (relatively) new law, 28-735, was that it provided for “enhanced” penalities — $1,000 in the case of death. Did the magistrate (? or whatever?) even know about this? Or is he/she just being recalcitrant?
$140 sounds like it’s just the standard fine for a traffic infraction… or is the $27 extra (the amount above the fine for driving in a bike path) considered adequate for a fatality?

1. Challenge every assumption made by your interlocutor. (“Why do you say gang warfare is dangerous? Please explain.”)

2. Immediately abandon or change all your positions as soon as they are shown to have been untenable, without acknowledging you have done so. (Glenn Beck: “Obama hates white people.” Then five seconds later: “I never said that Obama hates white people.”

3. Make up your own definitions of words or refuse to recognize the common ones. (“You are mistaken to say that positive law is any different from natural law.” “A sovereign is not an individual.”)

A fourth way is to just be generally insane. Six plus five is nine, do you catch my drift?

Anyway just so my basic point here does not get lost: if you get injured on your bike and you set up your own court, as Tony urges you to do, and then you try to exact whatever penalty that “court” has “ordered” from the victim, you are very likely to find yourself in prison, so I advise against it.

I asked if there is an opposite to ‘natural’, not if ‘positive law’ is the opposite of ‘natural law’.

The sovereign is not an individual; sovereign is not a name for an entity of special quality. All life is sovereign, if you say it is any other way you are selling a scam.

You mentioned ‘gang warfare’, and I asked to whom and how ‘gang warfare’ is dangerous. War (by the way) is designed to result in death, and is not any more or less dangerous for resulting in the death of non-combatants.

Explain the tangent about anarchism.

DLS: newspaper editors tend to project.

Whether that is a desireable trait is open to debate, as you suggest…