The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
carlitos said:
Really? No response to my response to your post? You are sad.
Click to expand...

This is a typical Freeman tactic, they do it all the time in the DI forum. Even when every single one of their "questions" has been meticulously answered, they ignore it and insult you while claiming no response was received.

In one thread I actually started providing law review articles to back up my points and was completely ignored, but a Freemen using Wiki was congratulated on backing up his "information."

You have to remember you are dealing with people who have been HEAVILY propagandized and brainwashed. Their gut reaction to logic or reason is simply to ignore it.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Because you are part of a society, ..........

And these benefits don't come for free. You are as much a subject to the rules whose benefits you reap as the next man. If you were not subject to the rules, you would not be entitled to profit from them. By residing in your country, state, principality or other area of governmental jurisdiction, you have entered into a tacit agreement to abide by the rules enforced there in exchange for the benefits which these rules offer.
Click to expand...

I disagree with everything you have stated but like you Woo Woo's I shall pick and choose which parts I shall respond to. So here goes:

The society you say I belong to....... When did you see my contractual agreement on the paper? My signature. If by any means you see this please let me know. If I now wished to remove myself from society and then by not wanting any benefits from the society could I then not have absolute disregard for the Statutes imposed by said society. I could leave all of you ass kissers to carry on sucking up to the system.

Now, please don't start saying that as all countries have borders and to leave the system it needs me to leave the planet as all lands are owned and I could not reside anywhere without being subject to one Statute or another.

This argument would reside upon one thing only; Who drew these borders and would the people in some of them wish to tear those borders down?

Some Etheopians would yes. Some very poor Americans would yes. An afluent Singaporean might not.

Where is there signature of those who would say yes to the above, agreeing to starve to death, agreeing to these imposed national boundaries.

So here we are, fly to and live on the moon (impossible), or be subject to Statute. That is the choice you offer. So there is no choice as one is currently impossible. By having only one option you now choose to use force.

So we can concur that you and your like are trying to force people into having to do what they may not wish to do. Fair, in any sentient life forms mind, NO, NOT AT ALL.

But still, you persist! You like your benefits, GREAT. What about those who never signed up and want out.

You wish to force them! Carry on. See what you get. Ghandi, Martin Luther-King, Malcolm X, Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks..... Carry on as the list goes on..... These people are born again in the many. You sit back in your governement sponsored chair and wait. Just wait until knock at your door. Carry on with force... We'll see. Time has a great habit of telling THE TRUTH! :jaw-dropp

I'll leave you and your friends with this.....

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
(Martin Niemoller)

Enjoy it while it lasts!
 
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head."
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Superb stuff, a fictional writer for a fictional argument. Excellent!
 
Arthur Asky said:
The society you say I belong to....... When did you see my contractual agreement on the paper? My signature. If by any means you see this please let me know. If I now wished to remove myself from society and then by not wanting any benefits from the society could I then not have absolute disregard for the Statutes imposed by said society. I could leave all of you ass kissers to carry on sucking up to the system.

Now, please don't start saying that as all countries have borders and to leave the system it needs me to leave the planet as all lands are owned and I could not reside anywhere without being subject to one Statute or another.

This argument would reside upon one thing only; Who drew these borders and would the people in some of them wish to tear those borders down?

Some Etheopians would yes. Some very poor Americans would yes. An afluent Singaporean might not.

Where is there signature of those who would say yes to the above, agreeing to starve to death, agreeing to these imposed national boundaries.

So here we are, fly to and live on the moon (impossible), or be subject to Statute. That is the choice you offer. So there is no choice as one is currently impossible. By having only one option you now choose to use force.

So we can concur that you and your like are trying to force people into having to do what they may not wish to do. Fair, in any sentient life forms mind, NO, NOT AT ALL.

But still, you persist! You like your benefits, GREAT. What about those who never signed up and want out.

You wish to force them! Carry on. See what you get. Ghandi, Martin Luther-King, Malcolm X, Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks..... Carry on as the list goes on..... These people are born again in the many. You sit back in your governement sponsored chair and wait. Just wait until knock at your door. Carry on with force... We'll see. Time has a great habit of telling THE TRUTH! :jaw-dropp

I'll leave you and your friends with this.....

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
(Martin Niemoller)

Enjoy it while it lasts!
Click to expand...

Hmm. It seems to me that if you wish to opt out of society you are perfectly at liberty to do so. Wilderness is harder to find than it once was but it has not vanished. There is a fine tradition of hermits and the like and I see nothing at all to stop you becoming one

If you take yourself off to a wilderness area and live free who is going to interfere? It is probable that you can do so for a long time in many places without anyone knowing you are even there.

You say all the land is owned. I do not know if that is true (it probably is) but it doesn't matter for any practical purpose. I can think of places not 100 miles from here where you could pitch your tent or build your bothy and no-one would care.

Why don't you just get on with it?
 
Fiona said:
Hmm. It seems to me that if you wish to opt out of society you are perfectly at liberty to do so. Wilderness is harder to find than it once was but it has not vanished. There is a fine tradition of hermits and the like and I see nothing at all to stop you becoming one

If you take yourself off to a wilderness area and live free who is going to interfere? It is probable that you can do so for a long time in many places without anyone knowing you are even there.

You say all the land is owned. I do not know if that is true (it probably is) but it doesn't matter for any practical purpose. I can think of places not 100 miles from here where you could pitch your tent or build your bothy and no-one would care.

Why don't you just get on with it?
Click to expand...

So can you own land? No. Unless you can trace the original receipt back to the originator of the sale either God or the cosmic accident, land cannot be bought or sold. People do it only because they think they can and do. They know no better, this is why and how the Third World has been "SOLD" into slavery through debt that was conjured up. No-one had a problem before coins and notes were introduced into their society. So based on the fact that most people think all land is owned and at the furthest extent by fictional governments, all land is governed across the face of the globe. All land therefore is under Statute until you now withdraw consent.

Having withdrawn consent, where do you go? You can't go anywhere because the governments still believe they can force you to comply, as there is no choice as there is no alternative. Here you go again Ghandi.........
 
You believe you cannot own land: ok. There is much wilderness where you can act on your belief. Others will not share it but that is no different from the position you are in now: and in practical terms it is not likely that they will make anything of this fundamental difference in conception.

I think you are making excuses, really. Do it :)
 
Fiona said:
You believe you cannot own land: ok. There is much wilderness where you can act on your belief. Others will not share it but that is no different from the position you are in now: and in practical terms it is not likely that they will make anything of this fundamental difference in conception.

I think you are making excuses, really. Do it :)
Click to expand...

Hi Fiona, on first impressions you seem quite a nice person (being a ficticous virtual internet poster). So thank you for that. The wilderness you speak of is still "thought" to be under Statute control around the globe. Wherever you go armed officers can and have popped in to see you believing they have the "right" to do so. So wherever you go you are still deemed to be controllable.

As the human race comes to terms with the huge deception played out on it's part, there could well be a massive turn upon those that have been knowingly complicit in it's playing out upon the people.

Let's just wait and see.
 
Makes no sense to me, Arthur Asky. If what you want is to live free I think you can go ahead. Yes those who disagree will still believe that they have the right to interfere: but I doubt very much they will bother to do so if you just live the hermit life. I see nothing stopping you at all. At any rate I think you need to demonstrate it is impossible, rather than just asserting it: for there is a history of people doing just that and they do not seem to have many problems.

But your second paragraph hints at a different agenda. If what you want is not freedom for yourself, nor acceptance of your point of view from the rest of us, but agreement with it and the dismantling of those structures you oppose you have moved into other territory

I do not want what you want. I want to live in a social group with all the benefits of cooperation. I freely cede some autonomy because I think that autonomy is illusory. I have no freedom at all if I do not have the rule of law: I have no freedom if I do not have the support of my community if I am threatened with violence; or sick and out of food; or any number of other, less stark things. To get those things I must give as well as take. I do so gladly.

You want to neither give nor take and that is a choice I am perfectly happy to see you make. But it must be complete. You cannot cherry pick, because it is not possible to take only the good as you perceive it.

So I suppose I am saying that all this blather is pointless. Practice what you preach, by all means. But do not try to impose your distopian vision on me. It may be that if you do what you deem to be right then the model you show me will change my mind. But talking impractical stuff on the internet is not persuading me. The vision you seem to propound is not attractive to me: I find it horrific actually. But each to his own
 
Last edited:
Several posts moved to Abandon All Hope.

To all participants: keep to your Membership Agreements, any further breaches will most likely result in suspension.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Arthur Asky said:
I disagree with everything you have stated but like you Woo Woo's I shall pick and choose which parts I shall respond to. So here goes:

The society you say I belong to....... When did you see my contractual agreement on the paper? ............
Click to expand...
Arthur, Stop wasting time. You think you are right and you ignore any contrary opinion but your opinion is worthless if the FTOL arguments don't work in practice.

So please provide details for one single case where FTOL arguments have worked.
 
Now, please don't start saying that as all countries have borders and to leave the system it needs me to leave the planet as all lands are owned and I could not reside anywhere without being subject to one Statute or another.
Click to expand...

You might want to do a little research on what countries without a functioning governmnt and legal system are like.

They tend to be blighted by bloodthirsty warlords.

You might want to consider that this is not a coincidence.
 
RHolmes said:
You might want to do a little research on what countries without a functioning governmnt and legal system are like.

They tend to be blighted by bloodthirsty warlords.

You might want to consider that this is not a coincidence.
Click to expand...

But still they operate under Statute which essentially means making it up as you go along. The Warlord in Somalia will still kill a human being as will an American State Governer using the death penalty. The Somalian will use a machete, the American an injection administered by some else. How gutless. A flash of a pen and he's all yours. "Right.......... coffee anyone!!!!!!!!"
 
Last edited:
In a FOTL State / Country / Commune what would become of those that murder, steal and harm?
 
PB2007 said:
In a FOTL State / Country / Commune what would become of those that murder, steal and harm?
Click to expand...

They would be tried by a jury. The jury would consist of those that knew them, of the same age, profession, gender and so on. Based upon some of these traits the jury would have a greater understanding of what happened to the accused and his or her actions and why they did what they did for whatever reason. The would decide guilty or not guilty. The common law Melchisadeckial judge would then seek remedy for the aggrieved / injured party. He would NOT take payment for this! Maybe a token only, actual costs only. Travel by normal means, normal food and lodgings. Not inflated by pretentious people who demand more for the same or less in terms of food and lodgings. We are talking about old school here.

The way it was before some people thought they could control others.

It was not about making money! It was about remedy and justice. Neither will a "Person" find in a "Court of Statute" at present.
 
Arthur Asky said:
But still they operate under Statute which essentially means making it up as you go along. The Warlord in Somalia will still kill a human being as will an American State Governer using the death penalty. The Somalian will use a machete, the American an injection administered by some else. How gutless. A flash of a pen and he's all yours. "Right.......... coffee anyone!!!!!!!!"
Click to expand...

That's the only difference?
 
Can you not see an issue with having a jury that knows the defendant?

If the judge is only rewarded for costs, in the case of a lengthy trial what happens about any lost earnings? Who pays the costs?

What happens in the case of cold blooded murder where someone is found guilty?

If the person is mentally deranged and a clear danger to other members of the society what happens to that person?
 
The way it was before some people thought they could control others.
Click to expand...

Isn't the court you describe still a way of "controlling others"?

It was not about making money! It was about remedy and justice.
Click to expand...

Would it be fair to say that it's the financial profit judges make that you object to?

Neither will a "Person" find in a "Court of Statute" at present.
Click to expand...

What will they find instead?
 
But still they [warlords] operate under Statute which essentially means making it up as you go along.
Click to expand...

This statement simply shows how profoundly you misunderstand statute law. Really, it's mind-bogglingly incorrect.

When you began posting, you talked about learning. Are you willing to learn yourself? Or, like all other FOTLers I've encountered, are you unwaveringly convinced that you know more about law than people who have dedicated years to studying, researching, practising and debating it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom