Merged Freeman on the Land in America/lawful rebellion/sovereign citizens

billydkid said:
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded.
Click to expand...

Independence from the British Crown, all men (but no women) of a certain colour created equal under god, and grab as much land from the natives as you can? :confused:
 
billydkid said:
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded.
Click to expand...

That's not incompatible with the fact that they are delusional wackos.

I think it's fair to say that anyone who wears a tinfoil hat to keep the orbital mind-control satellites from reading their mind is a person of deeply held principles who is actually seeking to protect the principle of personal privacy.

But such a person is still absolutely bonkers. Good intentions are neither proof, nor evidence, nor necessarily even correlated with sanity.

The tinfoil-hat losers are actually doing more damage to the principle of personal privacy than the more level-headed (and reality-influenced) people who are aware of what the government can and will do to violate your privacy and who try to take effective action (such as the people who have filed FOIA requests and lawsuits against the NSA for illegal wiretapping). Indeed, one of the most effective ways to neutralize these people is to lump them together with the tinfoil-hat brigade.

The Freeman/Lawful Rebellion movement are the tinfoil-hat brigade of tax protesters.
 
billydkid said:
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded.
Click to expand...

This country was founded as a democratic republic. I don't think the founding fathers started a system of government just so others could ignore it when they feel like it.
 
billydkid said:
Couldn't possibly be that. They could only possibly be delusional whackos. I think the best approach in general toward people with whom we might disagree is to stick our fingers in our ears and say over and over "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." and to be dismissive and condescending.
Click to expand...

You do realize that we are talking about people who claim that when faced with a collection agency, debtors can simply giving the debt holders a number from one's birth certificate and the debt will be immediately and completely dismissed. We are talking about people who believe that if one is being sued in civil court, all one has to do is utter the phrase "admiralty flag" while pointing at the U.S. flag displayed in the courtroom and the judge will immediately stop the proceeding and dismiss the case. We are talking about people who believe there is legal difference of the greatest import between one's name spelled in lower case letters and one's name spelled in capital letters.

Delusional whackos may no be the precise description of these folks but it is close enough.
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
Independence from the British Crown, all men (but no women) of a certain colour created equal under god, and grab as much land from the natives as you can? :confused:
Click to expand...

Oh yes. The greatest, most free and most democratic principles anybody ever founded a nation with. Everyone we don´t like doesn´t count, and everything we want belongs to us. That´s really something to be proud of.
 
(sigh)

The "Oh look how evil the founding fathers were" meme is apparently well-established.
 
KingMerv00 said:
We got better.
Click to expand...

By diverging from the views of the founding fathers. That was my point.

I mean, we got better, too, compared... no, I´m not going to mention the obvious example, but let´s just say we outgrew the "let´s grab our piece of Africa while there´s still any left to take" phase some time ago.

However, we do not, in general, take this as a reason to idolize Kaiser Wilhelm II and his megalomania. Or ignore what it meant for those on the short end of the stick.
 
my ill will said:
As for the declaring sovereignty

Originally, the Constitution limited the jurisdiction of the federal government by making citizens of the state in which they were born or resided. According to the Constitution, the federal government could only have jurisdiction on a person if they lived in Washington DC or a US territory.

The Federalists who took control of our government after the Civil War, instituted the 14th Amendment to "protect" the former slaves. This amendment allowed the former slaves to come under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government in order that the Federal Government could protect their Constitutional rights. Many blacks were being abused by people and the local or state governments would not come to their aid. The 14th Amendment may have freed the slaves from oppression of their neighbors, but it gave them and us a new master, the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment makes us citizens of the United States AND of the several states. This allows the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over us that it never had before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment also states (the last section) that the debt of the Federal government cannot even be questioned.

Most people have received their United States citizenship when they received their Social Security Card. With the Social Security Card came income taxes. I am not going to go into how we have been put under Statutory (Admiralty) Law; I will simply state that we are under it. We all know this because we need a license (permission to break the law) or permit to do things. A free citizen doesn't require a license or a permit. Why would a free person require permission from the government to get married, drive a car, start a business, to add onto his/her home or improve his/her property?

Please show me in the US Constitution or your state constitution where a government has the right to demand such obedience? If anyone is arrogant enough to try to use the US Constitution to show such things, please align your argument with the 10th Amendment. How did we get in such a mess, but more importantly, how do we get out of such a mess?

The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the scuffle between 1861-65 settled that matter, no you can't leave the Union.
 
Skeptic said:
(sigh)

The "Oh look how evil the founding fathers were" meme is apparently well-established.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is the "taking the piss out of niaive souls who attribute god-like piety to the Founding Fathers" meme here. You want the next door down.
 
Oh, give me a break. It's not about the founding fathers. It's about making the impression that "look at me! I'm too sophisticated to buy those silly myths about the founding fathers!" -- as if anybody who considers them to be great men doesn't know they were creatures of their time as well.
 
Personally, I love moral relativism coming from a conservative. It's so refreshingly dissonant.

It's obnoxious for 21st century observers to try to judge 18th century statesmen by 21st century standards of morality (never mind of course that there were, for example, abolitionists in the 18th century), but it's perfectly cool for 21st century scolds to judge 21st century homosexuals by 1st century standards of morality.

It's like - metarelativism!
 
Just read through this thread. There is some truly awful stuff here. my ill will, not a single thing you posted in this thread makes sense.
 
linusrichard said:
Personally, I love moral relativism coming from a conservative. It's so refreshingly dissonant.

It's obnoxious for 21st century observers to try to judge 18th century statesmen by 21st century standards of morality (never mind of course that there were, for example, abolitionists in the 18th century), but it's perfectly cool for 21st century scolds to judge 21st century homosexuals by 1st century standards of morality.

It's like - metarelativism!
Click to expand...

I know, I just realized this recently! I've been missing out on so much irony.
 
Ingoa said:
Is your location an Amsterdam coffee shop? Just curious. I listened to comparable stories there.
Click to expand...

You too?
Brown bars, old gin, other...stuff and politics. Amsterdam.
 
Last edited:
linusrichard said:
Personally, I love moral relativism coming from a conservative. It's so refreshingly dissonant.

It's obnoxious for 21st century observers to try to judge 18th century statesmen by 21st century standards of morality (never mind of course that there were, for example, abolitionists in the 18th century), but it's perfectly cool for 21st century scolds to judge 21st century homosexuals by 1st century standards of morality.

It's like - metarelativism!
Click to expand...
(bolding by PA)


Which shouldn't be confused with metrorelativism*



* derived from the (relatively) modern term ‘metrosexual’, metrorelativism posits that regardless of the context of the standards used to judge a particular group of people's morals, their sexuality, or their political leanings, we can all agree that to be proper, they should be well groomed, stylish, and hyper-aware of the latest pop-cultural and countercultural accoutrements​
 
billydkid said:
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that any of these are people of deeply held principles who actually seek to live by the principles on which the country was founded. Couldn't possibly be that. They could only possibly be delusional whackos. I think the best approach in general toward people with whom we might disagree is to stick our fingers in our ears and say over and over "I can't hear you. I can't hear you." and to be dismissive and condescending.
Click to expand...

Gee, the founding fathers were de facto anarchists. You learn something every day.
When somebody denies tha government has the power to regulate things like driving, where incompetence behind the wheel is a clear and present danger to others, that is pure wackiness.
BUt I also find the snickering about people like Washington, Jefferson, and Adams that is going on here to be pretty childish,and a good example of High School/College age "KNow It All Disease".
Of course I note that most of those who are doing this have radical political agendas which have the chance of a snowball in hell of suceeding under the current Constitution, so naturally they want to junk it under the guise of "revising" it. I find the longing for a overwhelming powerful central government to be partiuclarly dangerous.
 
Last edited:
I tend to think of politics and economics as sliding scales with freemen/anarcists vs dictatorship, and laisefaire capitalism vs pure socialism.
In real life, economics and politics are hard to seperate, so some of the combinations are impossible.

I find the longing for a overwhelming powerful central government to be partiuclarly dangerous.
Click to expand...
Overwhelming?
I have a problem with a goverment so weak it can be brought up by commercial interrests.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom