The Freeman Movement and England

[Nonpareil]

My apologies though. I'm unsure as to how to use the format option. I had other things to do with my time. If you'd care for a quick tip I'll try on the next one. Please still respond and bring your proof of claim or retract.

Thanks for being willing to do it - it'll make your posts much easier to read, as well as easier to quote. As is, we have to go in and copy-paste the parts we want to respond to. The quote software on this site doesn't quote quotes (if you can follow that).

Anyway, here's how I do it (in spoilers to avoid cluttering the thread for those who already know:

Sentence one

Sentence two

When you quote this post, it would appear as

[quote="Person"]Sentence one

Sentence two[/quote]

in the post screen. To break it up, insert more [/quote] and [quote] tags, like so.

[quote="Person"]Sentence one[/quote]

Response

[quote]Sentence two[/quote]

Response

Which would appear as

Sentence one

Response

Sentence two

Response

Hope this helps.

 

[remirol]

A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement. Pleas come outside it's nice here. Leave your chains at the door though please. Offer of contract!

But then he will be compelling me to do something. I do not contract with any of your peace officers. Thus Freeman society has no rules at all.

 

[LightinDarkness]

So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235

What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post.

It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work.

You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said.

 

[Paul]

A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement.

For someone obsessed with common law and the alleged superiority of ancient justice, you don't know much.

penal statute A statute that creates a criminal offence or provides for any penalty (e.g. a forfeiture) enforceable in civil proceedings. It is subject to strict construction

"penal statute" The Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement. Michael Kennedy. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t239.e2288

...Early constables were responsible for delivering warrants, surveying lands, and even regulating weights and measures...

...The office of sheriff, an ancient law-enforcement position first established in Anglo-Saxon England before the Norman Conquest of 1066...

...Sheriffs in colonial America served process papers, maintained law and order, collected taxes, and maintained jails prior to the Revolution...

...The demand for more and better policing resulted from the massive social and political unrest in the colonies, which led to an increase in crime in the second half of the eighteenth century...

Mitchel Roth "Police" The Oxford Companion to American Law. Kermit L. Hall, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t122.e0695>

 

[Rolfe]

Holy crap, is that Hugh Laurie?

If that's what I'm almost sure it is, yes.

If you haven't seen that series, you have a treat in store. Then at the very end, you cry.

Rolfe.

 

[Arthur Asky]

Why don't you look at a dictionary if you honestly don't know the meanings of the word "right", AA?

I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong. I will not cause harm or loss to anyone. Statute from the bog standard, non law dictionary.com is as follows:

1. LawHow can it be as it contradicts itself below. See HERE.. a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document.
b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed.

2. International Law. an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international HEREagreement Hang on did you use the word agreement, Mr.com? Where is the agreement? If I don't agree then I am not boundas a treaty.
3. a permanent rule Ahhh! There we are, it's just a rule. Thank goodness it's not a law.established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.

The law dictionaries can just as easliy be rubbished! See Blacks and it talks about the link between Statute and Person. Person=corporation. Me=human being, a man, not a corporate entity!

If you want to be carry on!

 

[Rogue1stclass]

A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement. Pleas come outside it's nice here. Leave your chains at the door though please. Offer of contract!

I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like.

I get it.

 

[carlitos]

Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world.

 

[carlitos]

right

I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like.


I get it.

Like "smoking a big fatty by a peace officer or drinking in the park. (Or not paying bills)

 

[Arthur Asky]

But then he will be compelling me to do something. I do not contract with any of your peace officers. Thus Freeman society has no rules at all.

What you don't comprehend is the word, society!

The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss.

I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!

 

[Arthur Asky]

I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like.

I get it.

No you don't get it, read my previous post!

 

[Arthur Asky]

Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world.

Yes you can ask!

 

[dudalb]

Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world.

I want to know what he is smoking when he posts. It must be some really strong sh--.

 

[TSR]

In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

.
And how, exactly, does leaving this "new society" differ from leaving the current one?
.

 

[Arthur Asky]

So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235

What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post.

It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work.

You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said.

So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here.

Go!

 

[Nonpareil]

What you don't comprehend is the word, society!

The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss.

I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!

So, in short, you are going to attempt to make a new society in which only the laws you like apply.

 

[332nd]

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Who's telling you you cannot leave?

 

[Arthur Asky]

.
And how, exactly, does leaving this "new society" differ from leaving the current one?
.

Because the one your mind exists in is one I don't agree with! I may find another though that I do and like and choose to go there!

 

[Fiona]

Why did you look up "law" instead of "right"? Are you getting ahead of yourself a bit?

The only relevant part of your response is "I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong.". That is indeed one meaning of the word "right". But it is a little vague. If you are talking about your personal conception of morality then it doesn't matter: since that is internal. But as we normally use the word in this sense there is an implication of some level of action or of refraining from action.

Since you have already referred to some bad consequences which have arisen from what you object to (genocide and that sort of thing) it seems that your personal morality is just like everybody else's: that is, it is prescriptive. I am aware that is an unpopular view with many who are apt to argue that morals are subjective/relative: but that is for another thread. Suffice to say that wherever you stand on that you have judged some actions by other people to be wrong: and so your judgement is not for yourself alone (though your action may be)

But in other posts in this thread (and indeed in this one) you talk about "your rights". What rights would those be? They are clearly not defined by distinguishing them from "wrongs" because "my wrongs" only makes sense in english in the context of a Victoria bodice ripper. What you seem to mean is the kind of right which is enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Such rights are in fact the obverse of duties. You cannot actually have such a right unless other people have a duty to uphold it. It simply does not exist without that.

To get around that you have also traded on the ambiguity of "might is right" but I am not going there because you need to tease out what your argument actually is on this front first.

Can you now please say what you actually mean?

 

[Fiona]

What you don't comprehend is the word, society!

The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss.

I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!

As I pointed out before:you assert you are not free to leave. I disagree. Nobdy is stopping you.