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

[Toke]

Dudalb,
I recall you as american, is there any chance you could scrug off that cultural phobia of goverment and come over to the red side?

 

[Skeptic]

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!

The mistake here is the usual mistake progressives make -- namely, that because some things people believed in the past were wrong and were changed to the better, then everything believed in the past was wrong and should be changed.

But for every change for the better there was a change for the worse. Progressives supported women's votes as the inevitable way of the future... but they also supported communism and eugenics for the same reason. The mere fact that (a) something was believed in the past and (b) progressives today disagree with it hardly means it is wrong.

One of the reason progressivism looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (abolition, women's liberation) and ignore its past "misses" (eugenics, communism).

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just wondering if anyone in here has heard about it. I'll try to provide some insight.


Lawful Rebellion is basically a peaceful uprising of men and women in commonwealth nations who deny their consent to be governed, using notices and Claims of Right. In all representative governments, representation requires mutual consent and the government is bound by their own rules. If enough research on the relationship between common law and admiralty law is done, it is visible that we may exist completely free of all statutory obligations, restrictions, and restraints. "Free-man-on-the-Land"

A large section of this movement is dedicated to the commercial "Accepted for Value" remedy. There was a trust created in your person's name when you were registered as a child, and there is an actual bond tracking number on your birth certificate. This bond can be used for the purposes of setting-off debt, and actually aids your country in reducing the national debt. This method has been used by quite a few people, and obviously does not have much mainstream coverage as it has been hidden for a long time. But make no mistake, it is there and it works.

If anyone is interested, here is a video that will help you understand what I'm talking about. http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/articles/john-harris-its-illusion

By the way, I didn't see a "law" section so I posted it here. Feel free to move it!

edit: Yes, I see the recommended films at the bottom. Ignore them. I don't like conspiracy theories either.

You're asking if we've heard about nuts? Yep, sure have.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

All law is derived from the principles of common law. It is enforced by the people appointed to enforce the law!

Please provide a list of all my rights under common law.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The mistake here is the usual mistake progressives make -- namely, that because some things people believed in the past were wrong and were changed to the better, then everything believed in the past was wrong and should be changed.

But for every change for the better there was a change for the worse. Progressives supported women's votes as the inevitable way of the future... but they also supported communism and eugenics for the same reason. The mere fact that (a) something was believed in the past and (b) progressives today disagree with it hardly means it is wrong.

One of the reason progressivism looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (abolition, women's liberation) and ignore its past "misses" (eugenics, communism).

This would be more impressive if you provided any reasonable evidence this applied to what they said, rather than just throwing something out there to dismiss the argument without debating it first.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It creates a bond in your name. Well, not your name, but your legal person's. You see, when your birth was registered, a legal entity was created, called your strawman. It is your name in all-caps. The governments are all corporations, listed on the market AS CORPORATIONS. Their policy is corporate. This is why they require the people to have driver's licenses, SSN for nearly everything... because these identify you as employees of their corporation, meaning you must follow their regulations or you are punished. All of the courts and agencies follow the UCC, not the constitution. There is a grand deception that they are actually a government. They are a for profit corporation and all citizens are employees that must follow their rules. The BC registration is a contract. For a valid contract to exist, there must be consent, and equal consideration on both sides. The consideration the United States provides to the citizen are the benefits of citizenship. The consideration the person provides is their pledge to the US statutes, and their future tax money. The bond is related to the national debt. Money is no longer backed by physical substance, it is all debt. It is created based on someone's promise to pay (their signature). Money is created in people's future labor. If you direct someone to transfer this "money" all they are doing, basically, is reducing numbers from the national debt.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sorry if that's what I'm conveying. It's hard for me to explain a lot of this in simpler terms. Perhaps this will help you understand?

The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933. The government has no gold or silver as required by the Constitution. The only asset left is the people. So how does the U.S. finance its daily operations?

Solution, collateralize the people for credit. How? By registering them in international commerce, and selling bonds on them. The people become the surety on the bonds, or the "pledge". The asset bonded (surety) is the labor of the people which is payable as some undetermined future date. Thus, the people become the "utility" for the "transmission" of energy. Result, a very sophisticated form of peonage or slavery and the Constitution does not apply because the government, on all levels, is thrown into international commerce, the law merchant, now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. [See Public Law 88-244 in which the U.S. Subscribed to private international law. See definition of "goods" under the Uniform Commercial Code; Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become "goods" sellable in commerce!

Just out of curiosity, do "they" use us to make Soylent Green after we die?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The mistake here is the usual mistake progressives make -- namely, that because some things people believed in the past were wrong and were changed to the better, then everything believed in the past was wrong and should be changed.

But for every change for the better there was a change for the worse. Progressives supported women's votes as the inevitable way of the future... but they also supported communism and eugenics for the same reason. The mere fact that (a) something was believed in the past and (b) progressives today disagree with it hardly means it is wrong.

And yet as progressives are against slavery, the subjugation of women, eugenics, and Communism, you have provided no actual counter-examples to such a proposition.

One of the reason progressivism looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (abolition, women's liberation) and ignore its past "misses" (eugenics, communism).

One reason that science looks impressive is that we are constantly given its past "hits" (the Periodic Table, X-rays) and ignore its past "misses" (phlogiston, N-rays).

 

[Skeptic]

This would be more impressive if you provided any reasonable evidence this applied to what they said, rather than just throwing something out there to dismiss the argument without debating it first.

His claim is that it is wrong to judge 18th century people by 18th century standards because I refuse to judge gays "by 21st century standards" (that is, I oppose gay marriage). But the whole point is that declaring support of gay marriage to be the new "standard" doesn't make it so, and even if it were, it doesn't mean it's correct.

But in any case the whose claim on his part is a non sequitor. The claim of moral relativism would make sense if I claimed that in the 18th century slavery was not wrong, and magically became wrong when most people opposed it. That would indeed be moral relativism. But I am not saying that -- I agree 100% that slavery was wrong in the 18th century.

What I disagree with is merely how much moral culpability was there to support of slavery at that time. It is one thing to support an evil when it is not clearly recognized as an evil in your time. Quite another to support it when it is clear how evil it is.

 

[linusrichard]

Let me make sure I understand the claim:

Slavery is immoral today, it was immoral 200 years ago, and it was immoral 1000 years ago. It always has been and always will be.

People who engage in slavery today are committing immorality, but people who engaged in it 200 years ago were not (pretending of course that slavery was not recognized as an evil 200 years ago).

So, doing something immoral isn't necessarily immoral.

(I'm not trying to jump to conclusions or put words in your mouth; I'm just trying to understand the claim, because it seems like a strange one and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.)

 

[Skeptic]

Solution, collateralize the people for credit.

The one thing I don't understand about this is who would accept them as payment.

"Look, I'm a few bucks short here..." (searches pockets) "...will you accept Johnny?"

"Sorry, I'm all out of change for large bills. Don't you have anyone skinnier on you?"

 

[Skeptic]

Also, it's amusing that these guys think that "they", at the same time, cares so much about the constitution it just had to turn everybody into slaves in 1933 just so that some sub-section in the constitution will not be violated (not that it was, but I digress) and care so little about the constitution they are running a secret police state despite everything the constitition says.

 

[Skeptic]

So, doing something immoral isn't necessarily immoral.

Absolutely.

If I suffer from a delusion that Mr. X is a secret government agent out to kill me and I shoot him, I have done something immoral (murder), but I am not necessarily morally culpable for it (due to my diminished mental capacity). Or take headhunting. If a headhunter were dropped from the sky into modern Boston, kills someone and puts his shrunken head over his door, he did the exact same thing that John Smith, born and raised in Boston, did last week. Both of them must be stopped, but the headhunter is in a very different moral category than the psychopath. Similarly with slavery. Slavery is an evil that must be stopped, but someone who owned slaves in the 18th century is in a totally different moral category than someone who trades slaves in the 20th.

It is dishonest to confuse the two. But it serves very well the purpose, in certain "progressive" sorts of colleges, of making the students despise and belittle the founding fathers (and more generally America and the West). I say it's dishonest, and not a real confusion, because the very same "progressive educators" are all for "unerstanding the context" and "not being judgemental" about all other cultures except the western one.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The one thing I don't understand about this is who would accept them as payment.

"Look, I'm a few bucks short here..." (searches pockets) "...will you accept Johnny?"

"Sorry, I'm all out of change for large bills. Don't you have anyone skinnier on you?"

That would have been even funnier if you'd written: "... will you accept William?"

 

[Dr Adequate]

It is dishonest to confuse the two. But it serves very well the purpose, in certain "progressive" sorts of colleges, of making the students despise and belittle the founding fathers (and more generally America and the West). I say it's dishonest, and not a real confusion, because the very same "progressive educators" are all for "unerstanding the context" and "not being judgemental" about all other cultures except the western one.

Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

 

[Chaos]

Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

Actually, I sort of wonder if anyone inhabits the same world as our esteemed fellow poster.

 

[Architect]

Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

I think that you'll find that "the founding fathers" don't even flag up on the radar in the European universities. I can guarantee, however, that applying some sort of god-like status and claiming absolute piety on their behalf is guaranteed to cause considerable mirth.

 

[linusrichard]

That would have been even funnier if you'd written: "... will you accept William?"

And if he'd written "... I'm a few Bucks short here..."

Anyone round here go to that certain progressive sort of college?

Yes! I mean, sort of. I mean, I went to a large, liberal, liberal arts university, where my professors included ex-hippies and fruitcakes and socialists and ivory tower types and at least one (and I'm pretty sure more) Actual Marxist.

But as far as any of the stuff described?

making the students despise and belittle the founding fathers (and more generally America and the West).... "unerstanding the context" and "not being judgemental" about all other cultures except the western one.

Not at all. As far as America, the West, and the founding fathers, there was no "despising" taught. Obviously American leadership comes in for criticism at some points (But I hope nobody has a problem with that! Anyone who thinks American leadership throughout history is beyond criticism is either ignorant of history or shockingly im-/amoral - neither of which I ascribe to Skeptic.), but no, it's very much about "understanding the context." As far as all other cultures, "understanding the context," sure! What's wrong with that? But there was not some command of reverence of all things not Pale, Male, and Stale. How would you even teach, let's say, Japanese history in the 1930s and 1940s, under such a command?

My black Marxist professor who taught African American Political Thought was far, far less critical of anybody white than he was of black intellectuals whom he considered too radical or not radical enough or in the wrong way, and, if I recall correctly, he particularly disliked Maoists. I also had professors who were political conservatives and Republicans.

 

[TjW]

The one thing I don't understand about this is who would accept them as payment.

"Look, I'm a few bucks short here..." (searches pockets) "...will you accept Fat William here?"

"Sorry, I'm all out of change for large bills. Don't you have anyone skinnier on you?"

Fixed it for you.

 

[Puppycow]

Guess who was a member of this "Freeman Movement"

Just three hours after Tiller was gunned down in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, where he had been ushering, law enforcement apprehended Scott P. Roeder, 51, of Merriam, Kansas, traveling the speed limit on the I-35 back to his home. He was officially charged with the murder today.

Tiller's murderer had shot the abortionist once and threatened two other men in the church, before departing the scene of the crime in a powder-blue 1993 Ford Taurus, which deputies checked out as belonging to Roeder. After Sherriff’s deputies intercepted Roeder, he surrendered to them without incident and was taken back to Wichita for questioning.
. . .
The Anarchist Origins of Scott P. Roeder

Roeder’s first links with violence and terrorism began with his association with the anti-government “Freemen” movement. The Freemen claim that the individual has sovereignty above the government, making them largely exempt from laws, regulations and taxes. Among other things, they began operating their own legal system, and printing their own paper currency independent of state and federal governments.