The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, in short, you are going to attempt to make a new society in which only the laws you like apply.
Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own.;)

Have a great day eh!
 
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?
I think it was quoted for someone else.

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

Go!:p

Yozhik, what have you said here that has not been debunked by numerous people? JREF members have been doing a fine job debunking you, but I'll join in if I catch something not covered else where. I will begin citing logical fallacies that you use in every post so you can see the difference between real fallacies and you googling the subject and copying and pasting it to try to refute evidence that has debunked you.
 
Arthur Asky, what is your age and education level and / or profession? I am only asking out of curiosity; I have held a few jobs where your belief system would have gotten me fired. Thanks much!

Late teens or early twenties, and either lives with parents or is on public welfare. He spends ALL DAY on here and the David Icke sites, he can't possibly have a job...any job good enough to require use of a computer all day wouldn't let you get away with posting that much.
 
Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own.;)

Have a great day eh!

Uh, you kind of didn't answer the question, but your delightful parry was entertaining enough; carry on.
 
Last edited:
Arthur Asky, I never got a response to this post. As it contains a lot of rather important points, would you mind giving me your thoughts on it?

"Might makes right" equals "the death of innocents"... really? Is that what you think? Does might not also equal the strength to defend yourself from the totalitarian aggressor? To free the slaves? To break the chains, to defend those who cannot defend themselves? You have a very simplistic view of might.

You may assert that you have not stolen anything, Arthur, and I can't prove that you have, for the simple fact that I don't know how far into the whole Freeman nonsense you have gone. If you are merely contemplating it on forums such as this one, then you have stolen nothing; however, the entire Freeman system is one based upon theft.
You dwell in your home, purchased from the government, being watched over by a police force, employed by the government, and brought electricity, heat and water, which are regulated by the government. Your food is purified to standards which the government enforces. You are not run down in the streets because of rules, enforced by the government, on the operation of motor vehicles. Virtually every single positive thing about your society - even things so small that you never noticed them, such as having your trash taken away every week - comes from the government. Unless you are living on your own in a completely self-sustaining home, you benefit from the rules which the government enforces. And Freeman principles declare that you can continue this without having to put something back in. By simply declaring yourself a "sovereign", you believe that you can eliminate everything that you owe to your society and yet continue to benefit.
If you have truly become a Freeman and progressed to the point where you are no longer paying taxes or other bills, then you are stealing. Your taxes pay for the maintenance of roads, and you have ceased paying them - yet you continue to benefit from well-maintained roads. Your taxes pay for the salaries of the police force, and you have ceased paying them - yet you expect someone to do something if someone wrongs you. Your taxes pay for the maintenance of medical facilities, and you have ceased paying them - yet if you get into a car accident and are taken to the hospital, you expect treatment.
Simply declaring yourself to be debt-free is not enough. As long as you live in your area, you benefit from these rules, and you are expected to pay for these benefits. If you do not wish to have to pay, then remove yourself from society in its entirety. Go out into the Nevada deserts somewhere and live off of cactus juice and lizards. Until such time as you do this, if you are not paying for the benefits which you enjoy, you are stealing. The people around you continue to grant you the benefits in faith that you have paid for them. Police will attempt to save you if you are ever taken hostage. Medics will attempt to save your life if you are ever in a car accident. Your food remains purified, your roads paved - all of it in good faith that you are upholding your end of the bargain. If you are not, then you have not only stolen from society, you have committed fraud against those around you.
 
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.

I liked this post:

"Given that Freeman on the Land ideology is based on law, it is therefore illogical to demand evidence of the 'legal basis' of the ideology." :jaw-dropp
 
I liked this post:

"Given that Freeman on the Land ideology is based on law, it is therefore illogical to demand evidence of the 'legal basis' of the ideology." :jaw-dropp

Actually, under misguided Freeman beliefs, that post actually makes sense. They make a distinction between "lawful" - supported by divine law - and "legal" - created by humans. What they fail to realize is that there actually is no such distinction.
 
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!

Are you quoting yourself or are you engaged in some sort of personal dialogue?
 
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!

And when all the laws are down will you call on your creator to protect you when a stronger one comes?
 
So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here.

Go!:p

LiD never contracted with you so how can you presume to give him orders? If FOTL's can't live their own doctrine how can you expect anyone else to believe it?
 
Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own.;)

Have a great day eh!

As soon as there is more than one then we have to have rules.
 
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!

Does anyone else notice that he's comparing three different definitions of the word "law" in order to try and disprove it?
 
Does anyone else notice that he's comparing three different definitions of the word "law" in order to try and disprove it?

It's more than that. FMOTL redefine the Common Law, every time they need to defend a point, and do not even realise or understand that Common Law was (and actually still is) continually upheld or redefined every time some form of Statute Law does not cover particular circumstances.

They have absolutely no idea what Common Law actually is, or what it means in the context of Judicial history, and simply make stuff up when it suits them.

And then they turn around and start quoting Statute Law when the need to. Sorry for the shouting - AND THEY STILL LOSE EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I think it comes down to one very simple thing, and if Arthur Asky can cite one simple example of where a member of the FMOTL movement has won ONE case in court based on FMOTL principles and the law they "believe in", the topic deserves further examination. (BTW Arthur, is this your real name or your strawman name, and please explain the difference.)

If not, it is all bluster and wind. The ball is in your court Arthur. One example of a FMOTL'er winning a Court Case. Because anything else you say is simply the stuff I use to make my roses grow.

Norm
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else notice that he's comparing three different definitions of the word "law" in order to try and disprove it?

No, no! Just the word law is all! Statute makes no law and only has the force of law by the consensual agreement of those who wish to be governed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom