The Freeman Movement and England

[Dave Rogers]

The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived". If you can show me where a power is greater than from which it is derived is the case then I would like to know.

I know I'll regret this, but: The power of law is derived from the consensus of the citizens of the state, and a large number of people constitute a greater power than a small number. In the end, might is right, and the state has more might than a few people labouring under the delusion that the powers of the state cannot exist. And: The law is infinitely mutable, and if a majority of citizens of a state agree that the law shall be based on FMOTL principles, then de facto the FMOTL principles will become correct. At present this is not the case, so they are de facto incorrect. And that, basically, is all there is to say.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

If a male, middle-aged banker defrauds his clients, should he be tried by a jury composed entirely of male, middle-aged bankers? And do you think this will lead to a good probability of conviction? It sounds to me like you want courts deliberately biased so as to make a conviction impossible. Or is it just people like you who get a biased jury?

Dave

 

[Agatha]

So an accused paedophile is tried by a jury of other paedophiles? There may be a little flaw in your thinking here, as well as in the whole FOTL nonsense.

 

[332nd]

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.

So, If some one who is a FMOTL decides to come onto my Father in law's farm and sets up a house on one of the 20 acres and my FIL complains, the jusy should be composed entirely of FMOTL?

He would NOT take payment for this! Maybe a token only, actual costs only. Travel by normal means, normal food and lodgings.

Normal according to whom?

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.

Old school according to whom?

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

When was this?

It was not about making money! It was about remedy and justice. Neither will a "Person" find in a "Court of Statute" at present.

You've never served on a jury in a long case have you?

 

[PB2007]

So an accused paedophile is tried by a jury of other paedophiles? There may be a little flaw in your thinking here, as well as in the whole FOTL nonsense.

Actually it would result in zero crime. No jury could ever convict anyone as they would in turn effectively accuse and convict themselves of wrong doing. Therefore everyone would be innocent and there would in effect be no crime.

Utopia.....

 

[carlitos]

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.

Ah. Thanks.

 

[remirol]

I know I'll regret this, but: The power of law is derived from the consensus of the citizens of the state, and a large number of people constitute a greater power than a small number. In the end, might is right, and the state has more might than a few people labouring under the delusion that the powers of the state cannot exist.

You're gonna regret this, yep.

However, not on my account. I'm simply noting that there's an ugly truth hidden under a few words there: "might makes right". Most governments are presently sustained by a healthy application of "them what has the guns makes the rules". It isn't as flagrant or obvious as in the fifth-world warlord states, but it's still true. Consider:

-- There is a law about not driving over 55.
-- You drive 85. A police officer sees you.
-- The police officer follows you and turns on his lights ("Pull over.")
-- If you choose not to pull over and keep driving, more police officers will show up. They will attempt to force you to pull over via numerous means.
-- If you keep running, they will wait until you run out of gas.
-- If you pull over and try to run away, they will chase and tackle you. (more force)
-- If you successfully get away, they will put out an arrest warrant for you.
-- The officers who serve that warrant will come to your house carrying guns (force). If you resist being arrested, they will use physical force to compel you. If you resist violently enough, they may shoot you (force).
-- Once you are arrested, if you attempt to escape the guards will physically force you to remain. They, also, may even shoot you (force).

See how many times I've used the word "force"? There are extensive constraints in the US under which police officers (who are sworn to uphold the law) are allowed to use force. But it is permissible in order to enforce the laws, and that is because in the end, laws aren't laws without a means of enforcement (that word again) -- they are only suggestions.

The FMOTL way appears to involve wishing that all laws are suggestions, to be consented to or not at a whim. This simply isn't the case, of course, and this is why FMOTL routinely get arrested, get their cars crushed, their houses repossessed, and all of the above -- because of a simple refusal to acknowledge that in the end, might still DOES make right. It's a lot cleaner and a lot nicer than it has been at any point in time in history, but it hasn't changed one bit, and it isn't going to just because a bunch of kids make some posts on a website.

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

By residing in your area, and by benefiting from the rules which are prevalent there, you have entered into a tacit agreement with the government. If you wish to leave this agreement, you can at any time. However, doing so also removes any debts which society owes to you - for example, your land, which is purchased from the government. They don't have to honor that agreement any more, as you are no longer honoring your agreement with them, and they can use force to retake it.

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.

Then do so. Just expect consequences.

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.

Why not? It's true, except in the cases of areas like Antarctica.

This argument would reside upon one thing only; Who drew these borders

World governments.

and would the people in some of them wish to tear those borders down?

Doesn't matter if they do or not. In attempting to do so, they are forfeiting their agreement with their government, and the government is no longer required to protect them.

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

As long as they benefit from society, they have entered an agreement.

So here we are, fly to and live on the moon (impossible), or be subject to Statute. That is the choice you offer.

No. There is always the option to not accept statute and simply live with the consequences.

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.

Life isn't fair. Grow up.

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!

The people of whom you speak attempted to change the government, not to do away with it. In any case, if you want out, by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect to get away scot-free.

"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!

Yes, he is rather talented, isn't he?

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.

Fortunately, we're the ones that make the rules.

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.

Debt still existed under the barter system.

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.

Not liking it does not change it.

 

[Curnir]

"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!

That is indeed a good bit from an excellent author.

The whole quote however is much better as it manages to mock:
Conspiracy Theorists
UFO schmucks (including cerologists)
Big Foot Believers

quite a beauty really.

Oh and what do you think would happen to a FOTL in Ankh Morpork?

 

[remirol]

Oh and what do you think would happen to a FOTL in Ankh Morpork?

'e'd get drunk and stabbed in the Drum, and have his body thrown out the back by Detritus.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The FMOTL way appears to involve wishing that all laws are suggestions, to be consented to or not at a whim. This simply isn't the case, of course, and this is why FMOTL routinely get arrested, get their cars crushed, their houses repossessed, and all of the above -- because of a simple refusal to acknowledge that in the end, might still DOES make right. It's a lot cleaner and a lot nicer than it has been at any point in time in history, but it hasn't changed one bit, and it isn't going to just because a bunch of kids make some posts on a website.

And, in fact, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I find it preferable, on the whole, that people are not allowed to rob me in the street. However, if someone were determined to do so, it might be necessary to exert some considerable force to prevent them, and I don't necessarily have the means at my disposal. Fortunately, as a citizen of a civilised nation, I have the protection of law enforcement agencies who can exert that force on my behalf. Equally, I would find it undesirable that someone might wish to take possession of my house on the promise of some consideration, then refuse to provide that consideration in return. Again, I can call on the assistance of the machinery of law to prevent anyone doing so. For some reason, the former is acceptable to Freemen on the Land, but the latter is not; yet the material loss to me that is prevented in the first case is typically very much less than the loss prevented in the second.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

'e'd get drunk and stabbed in the Drum, and have his body thrown out the back by Detritus.

Unless Vetinari got to him first, in which case irony might be involved.

Dave

 

[Nonpareil]

That is indeed a good bit from an excellent author.

The whole quote however is much better as it manages to mock:
Conspiracy Theorists
UFO schmucks (including cerologists)
Big Foot Believers

quite a beauty really.

Oh and what do you think would happen to a FOTL in Ankh Morpork?

The same thing that happens to everyone else - he'd be robbed (with receipt, of course), killed (though not by the Assassins - no Freeman would ever be considered important enough), and thrown in the Ankh. Not necessarily in that order, though.

ETA: Also, awesome avatar.

 

[Paul]

...and thrown in the Ankh.

I believe you meant onto the Ankh.

 

[Nonpareil]

I believe you meant onto the Ankh.

My bad.

 

[Arthur Asky]

So an accused paedophile is tried by a jury of other paedophiles? There may be a little flaw in your thinking here, as well as in the whole FOTL nonsense.

Not a clever post. People are tried by their peers. Peers are people of similar ages, professions, cultural backgrounds etc.

And no Dave, a corrput banker would not be tried by a jury of full of bankers. One or two perhaps and then a wider cross section of peers. You're very small minded.

Also might has never been right, proven throughout history. Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin etc put how many people to death because they believed might is right.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob menard was asked on Ickes

rob, could you give an example of any statute that you regularly ignore and thus you conduct yourself in a behaviour that would result in anybody else being arrested?

Robs reply was

If I answer your questions, will you answer mine? You know the BIG elephant in the room?

Controlled Drugs Substance Act. I operate with complete disregard to it. I have walked right past police officers smoking a big fatty. This does not however mean I operate a meth lab, nor claim the right to do so nor claim it would be right to do so.

Income Tax Act. Having abandoned the SIN, I no longer have an account with CRA, and therefore have no obligations to them.

MVA. I have an automobile that I intend to put on the road and use as private conveyance. I have not yet done so, but that is a function of other things that first need be addressed.

Legal Profession Act. I engage in actions that really anger the Law Society and which they have successfully stopped others form doing and they tried to come after me. They failed.

Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Here apparently enjoying a brew in the park is illegal, though not unlawful for a Freeman-on-the-Land.

Now of all the statutory regulations he could have avoided just look at the ones he prioritized

A drunken pot head who doesnt work and drives around uninsured and untaxed and gives out dodgy legal advice.

I think that sums up their glorious leader in a nutshell

JB

 

[Arthur Asky]

By residing in your area, and by benefiting from the rules which are prevalent there, you have entered into a tacit agreement with the government. If you wish to leave this agreement, you can at any time. However, doing so also removes any debts which society owes to you - for example, your land, which is purchased from the government. They don't have to honor that agreement any more, as you are no longer honoring your agreement with them, and they can use force to retake it. You can't use force on anybody if they've committed no crime. Where is you victim?


Then do so. Just expect consequences. What, who by?



Why not? It's true, except in the cases of areas like Antarctica. You are very limited.



World governments. They exist only in the tiniest of minds.



Doesn't matter if they do or not. In attempting to do so, they are forfeiting their agreement with their government, and the government is no longer required to protect them. Please find my signature on the contract.



As long as they benefit from society, they have entered an agreement. And as we established have the opportunity to leave. Thank you for confirming my thoughts.



No. There is always the option to not accept statute and simply live with the consequences.
Consequences. I think you like them. What about not having the issue in the first place.


Life isn't fair. Grow up.
How very adult. This is apparently not a sensible discussion. You grow up then.


The people of whom you speak attempted to change the government, not to do away with it. In any case, if you want out, by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect to get away scot-free. Why, do you want to drag me back? What do you want me when I don't want you?



Yes, he is rather talented, isn't he? No, it's fiction. For children. Are you a child?



Fortunately, we're the ones that make the rules. Not for me. Show me where I signed.



Debt still existed under the barter system. Did it? When were you last using barter?



Not liking it does not change it.

I can change what I want when I want. I can change my clothes when I want. Are you telling me I can't? Do you wear your underpants on you head?

 

[Nonpareil]

Also might has never been right, proven throughout history. Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin etc put how many people to death because they believed might is right.

Really? So were the Allies in the wrong simply because they won the war through military force? Was the Union in the wrong because their army was the stronger?

You can't use force on anybody if they've committed no crime. Where is you victim?

If you declare your debts to society null and void, you have stolen from that society by reaping benefits which you did not pay for.

What, who by?

Those whom you have stolen from, and their governmental representatives. After all, they are members of a society, and societies protect their own.

You are very limited.

You are very deluded.

They exist only in the tiniest of minds.

Very deluded. Governments exist as collectives of humans. Denying their existence is the very height of stupidity.

Please find my signature on the contract.

Again, by residing in the area under this government's jurisdiction, you agree to abide by their rules in exchange for the benefits they provide. If you accept the benefits, you are required to pay. You can't walk into a McDonald's, grab a Big Mac and waltz out because you never signed a contract.

And as we established have the opportunity to leave. Thank you for confirming my thoughts.

I never said that you didn't have the opportunity to leave. But you are not attempting to leave. You are attempting to stay, but without the obligation to pay. You expect for police protection and other societal benefits to extend to you while at the same time keeping yourself exempt from taxation.

Consequences. I think you like them. What about not having the issue in the first place.

The issue is there, whether you want it to be or not. You cannot magically make it disappear.

How very adult. This is apparently not a sensible discussion. You grow up then.

You are the one who appears to be harboring delusions that everything must be fair. In fact, things are very rarely, if ever, fair, and only children believe that they are or will be. There are always discrepancies in favor of one side or another. As part of the adult world, you are expected to accept this.

Why, do you want to drag me back? What do you want me when I don't want you?

What makes you think we would want you back? You are misinterpreting what I said.
If you leave a society without paying your debts, you have committed thievery, and can therefore expect those who were wronged to come after you for collection of what is due them. They may bring you back, yes, but their primary concern is going to be collection of whatever fees you left unpaid.

No, it's fiction. For children. Are you a child?

You very obviously have never read Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. While it is, indeed, fiction (even fantasy), it is very emphatically an adult series. It is philosophy, political commentary, and satire all wrapped up in a fantastic gift for storytelling.
I won't go any further into this, as it's a derail, but I sincerely encourage you to go to your local library and pick up a copy of Night Watch, Thud!, Reaper Man or Hogfather. I guarantee that you will not regret it. They are fantastic reads.

Not for me. Show me where I signed.

I wasn't talking about that. You stated that humans couldn't own anything, as it doesn't "really" belong to us. But we humans are the ones deciding what belongs to whom. There isn't anyone else around that's going to do it for us.

Did it? When were you last using barter?

Debt always exists in any economic system. Thinking otherwise betrays a gross misunderstanding of basic principles.

I can change what I want when I want. I can change my clothes when I want. Are you telling me I can't? Do you wear your underpants on you head?

I'm telling you that there are some things that you can do and some things that you cannot do. Are you telling me that there aren't? Do you wear your underpants on your head?

 

[remirol]

Also might has never been right, proven throughout history.

Actually, that's quite the opposite of the truth. The entire USA exists because of "might is right" -- they had the might to free themselves from the UK. Hitler didn't win solely because of the combined might of the rest of the world.

The simple reality remains: them what has the guns makes the rules.

Do you know of a society that can work without enforcement? If so, please detail it.