The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
55 page in, and still none of the FOTL'ers can provide a simple answer to a simple question.

Especially and tobjal can come in and preach about moral authority and consent of the governed. I don't even disagree with many of their points in that regard.

The problem is this: Governments do exist and they do have the power to send you to jail. The unforunate followers of FOTL woo believe that they have found loopholes that allow them to live under the moral authority of god (or whatever source they DO feel has authority), and not have to answer to the government. Fantastic.

So, when those that have been drawn into this theory end up in prison because the loopholes they believe in do not exist, to what authority do they appeal? If you are wrongly imprisoned by the government for violating a statute you feel does not apply, what do you do? Who do you call with your one phone call that is going to make things right?

I don't mind FOTLers preaching their theories on moral authority, consent and governance. What I DO have a problem with is their types providing advice to people who end up in jail because of it.
 
So, when those that have been drawn into this theory end up in prison because the loopholes they believe in do not exist, to what authority do they appeal? If you are wrongly imprisoned by the government for violating a statute you feel does not apply, what do you do? Who do you call?
Ghostbusters!
 
I don't mind FOTLers preaching their theories on moral authority, consent and governance. What I DO have a problem with is their types providing advice to people who end up in jail because of it.
Exactly. Not only that, but the peddlers of "advice" at the top of the pyramid are selling it for profit to the unfortunates at the bottom who end up in jail. Despicable.
 
I still can't get my head around how this is supposed to work. So there's supposedly a conspiracy of NWO/Jews/gnomes/whatever who have created this legal system that only applies if you let it. "They" don't tell people about this, or what the real laws are, so "they" can keep "us" down. Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?

I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."
 
I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."


This is what drew me in so deeply to this mess of a theory. I've spent more time than I care to admit studying it, and the conclusion I have come to is: Yes, lots and lots of people can most definitely be this stupid.
 
I still can't get my head around how this is supposed to work. So there's supposedly a conspiracy of NWO/Jews/gnomes/whatever who have created this legal system that only applies if you let it. "They" don't tell people about this, or what the real laws are, so "they" can keep "us" down. Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?

I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."

The mind boggles, doesn't it. The evil slave-masters (govt) have created this huge legal edifice designed to enslave us while tricking us into believing we are free and have rights. This is de facto law based on "statutes" and is actually illegitimate. Yet there's this other parallell but hidden de jure legal system based on "common law" that, when invoked, completely nullifies the de facto system and is supposed to bind the evil slave-masters to its rules. This is the true and legitimate law.

It really is like casting a magic spell or something. They even have their own complex chants and rituals that they use to bind the de facto devils.
 
I still can't get my head around how this is supposed to work. So there's supposedly a conspiracy of NWO/Jews/gnomes/whatever who have created this legal system that only applies if you let it. "They" don't tell people about this, or what the real laws are, so "they" can keep "us" down. Even if this were true, why would "they" admit it when some nerk rocks up with a sheaf of internet printouts and refuses to contract with the court?

I know, I know, I'm looking for logic in lunacy, but I can't get past how fundamentally stupid the whole thing is. Some part of me keeps saying "You MUST have misunderstood, no one could be this stupid."

I have the same problem.
The claim is that there are real/natural/common/whatever laws that are kept secret except for the freemen in the know.
What does not follow is why our "evil overlords" should respect them just because some freeman want them to.

What do you call it when the conclusion does not follow from the premises?


(Actually I did once see an Elvis movie about a squater under a bridge where ancient law (homesteading) worked)
 
It really is like casting a magic spell or something. They even have their own complex chants and rituals that they use to bind the de facto devils.
It really is. They're like children trying to recreate a magic trick: they think the magic words and hand gestures are how it works, whilst missing completely the actual mechanism of pulling endless scarves from your sleeve. The difference being that a child can be taught how the trick really works. I remain staggered at the stupidity required to watch the same technique fail again and again, but still proclaim other people are in denial.
 
The mind boggles, doesn't it. The evil slave-masters (govt) have created this huge legal edifice designed to enslave us while tricking us into believing we are free and have rights. This is de facto law based on "statutes" and is actually illegitimate. Yet there's this other parallell but hidden de jure legal system based on "common law" that, when invoked, completely nullifies the de facto system and is supposed to bind the evil slave-masters to its rules. This is the true and legitimate law.

It really is like casting a magic spell or something. They even have their own complex chants and rituals that they use to bind the de facto devils.

There are large areas of law that tend to look indistinguishable from magic. Those strange chants of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company" and the like and the rituals of the court and the weird clothing.

Even ignoring that, on the suface much of it will appear no stranger than say Ashford v Thornton.

One of the reasons why "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is forever becoming a sicker joke.
 
There are large areas of law that tend to look indistinguishable from magic. Those strange chants of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company" and the like and the rituals of the court and the weird clothing.

Even ignoring that, on the suface much of it will appear no stranger than say Ashford v Thornton.

One of the reasons why "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is forever becoming a sicker joke.

What's magical about Carbolic? Besides the effect it has on 1st year Contract Law students. It was the right decision and is good law.

I'll give you the fancy dress and court rituals. Although, we don't do wigs here in the colonies.
 
What's magical about Carbolic? Besides the effect it has on 1st year Contract Law students.

It was the first english law case to come to mind. The point is that bringing up some random 19th century case has significant elements of ritual and magic. Sure the law students and lawyers will know what is going on behind the scenes as it were but the general public less so.

Heh there is also the minority critism that it has become exactly that with it's heavy use in teaching law has resulted in it becoming ritualised to the point where it is hard to form an objective judgement on it's validity. I doubt there is a practicing english lawyer today who wasn't taught that it was extremely valid.
 
As I noted before the fotl'ers are like 'natives' who have come to believe they can use 'magic' to make them immune to bullets.
 
There are large areas of law that tend to look indistinguishable from magic. Those strange chants of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company" and the like and the rituals of the court and the weird clothing.

Ooh, that caused a memory twitch - one of the two cases I remember from the short law course I did 30-odd years ago. The other being Rylands v FletcherWP.

I may never forgive you! ;)
 
K, D'rok and cwalner. This is the last time I'll bother. My time is too precious... may you guys become marry and happy slaves of the state.
Edited by Gaspode: 
Corrected username as per rule 0.


You can guarantee, can you?
Call the London Police for confirmation: +1 519-661-5670

Pray tell, what were the documents that were returned - were they driver's license and registration? No. Of course not. They were his worthless FOTL fantasy documents.
You call a notarized affidavit of truth a "worthless fantasy document"? Dude, what are you on? What do you think "propper ID" is?

Goalposts moved. That didn't take long. Your first post here was addressing my request for evidence that FOTL works. You failed spectacularly.
That is the biased claim of someone who under no circumstances would allow "authority" to fail, when it is us humans who form authority, which makes it everything but perfect. Even if the camera would have stayed on till the end. You wouldn't allow it as prove. The answer would have been like: "This cop must have been new" or "he'll probably get a ticket in the mail".

You know it doesn't work, I know it doesn't work, now we all know it doesn't work.
It is only ever the things we push ahead that will work. Us humans constitute our own environment, which is only ever as perfect as the scope of granted individual freedom. Again: Right and wrong cannot be distinguished based on which side has the force of weapons. And the more the force is abused, the more people will stand up for the right (thats a historical fact).

You're asking a sceptic site to agree with you that "god" exists and has revealed to you a list of rights? Or that "nature" is hard-wired with social constructions like rights and ethics? C'mon. You can do better than that.
I'm sorry to have gone over you head. All I said is that there is natura/god-given/call it whatever state of things, that constitutes natural law: That every human is equal and has to mutually respect others the way they are. That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian). Simple reasoning. Or do you claim that you as a human have no capacity for that?

And being "above it all" for FOTLers only means that FOTLers don't want any of the duties or responsiblities of citizenship - they only want the benefits.
How do you figure? Being truly free IS being truly responsible! No (State-defined) duties, and definitely no benefits!

They want to use public resources without contributing to them.
I assume you're pertaining to public roads. Are they not paying taxes on gas? Not to mention the hidden tax of inflation. Show me how that can be avoided. It would be interesting to see.

They want to be free of statutory law, but apply it when it suits them. They are socipathic freeeloaders.
They apply it only to remind "persons" they deal with to abide by it. For example they may use whatever statute grants a fair hearing.

By using the term "freeloader" you have confirmed the feelings of your kind, that I attempted to describe before. You feel that you are working hard and "paying in for them", when in fact they aint getting nothing. Or you feel that "we all need to pay in". Do we? Who are the people to decide that? Are they better in any way than the people who are against this idea?

I sincerely hope you fools manage to grab some land and set up your own society. I will watch with interest as you develop a body of law that restricts some individudal rights for the sake of the common good, at the same time as you continue to call these rights "god-given" and "natural".
Maybe some day you will understand that "the sake of the common good" flourishes best where there is individual freedom, not coercion. Truly free people and self-responsible people recognize that solidarity and love is a necessity of human live. Of course, some will never learn. These people are definitely better of staying where they are, being nannied and taken care of by some supervising state.

...And when you succumb to the need to codify your laws, I will laugh as you create a new generation of malcontents that cry "I do not consent to be bound by your statutes!".
Oh, so you recognize that things are the way they are, but still stand for deceiving codification? Wow.

Be glad you live in a country where minority group rights are written in to the constitution. Not even the USA has that.
You don't need "minority group rights" when you have natural individual rights (which in the case of the US have been constitutionalized).

Be glad you live in a society where everyone has the ability to affect, to some degree or another, the content of the rights that we democratically grant ourselves. You have a voice. Use it.
Do you honestly believe that in a world of party-dictatorship, the left-right-paradigm, backroom deals, and massive lobbyism my voice or anyone elses really matters? Wake up! Look at Ireland who clearly said NO to the Lisbon treaty. Well, lets make them vote again, till we have what we want... meanwhile we bombard them a bit more with propaganda material. Then there's the German government elected by not even 30% of the people who entitled to vote, who gave a **** about their constitution (the "basic law") and simply ratified the Lisbon-decision over their people's heads. This is how "democracy" works.
Edited by Gaspode: 
Edited for rule 10.


And when you establish freetopia, what will be the mechanism for establishing consent? How about for the 2nd generation of freepers? The 20th? The 100th? Will there be a mechanism for them to consent when they come of age? What will it look like? Will it look something like a constitutional democracy?
Purely natural right and necessity driven... that simple. What you live is what we teach. The same applies to our "society", or shall I call it ideocracy?

What will they use to enforce contracts?
There can only ever be one thing at stake. And that's the grant of being part of the community. Nobody is forced to stay and those who don't respect natural law or are unsolidary can go and try elsewhere. Mind you, that wouldn't mean they'd have to move.

cwalner said:
You object to the rule of law in its entirety. Whether laws are in the form of common law or statutes is irrelevant. society needs the rule of law to function. You make claims to natural law or God's law, but that is a smokescreen. What FOTL is pushing is anarchy and lawlessness.

Learn the difference between lawful and legal. Once you understand it, you will also understand the difference between statutes and actual law.
Actual law isn't man made but is merely based on the natural state of life and the capacity of human reason. Personally I'm not into the common law. Although it does interpret natural law fairly well, it is none the less a man-written version. I repeat: UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (that is un-saleable un-negotiable, and un-modifiable nature given rights!) cannot be defined by man. They are divine and the very opposite of lawlessness. Sorry for taking your conventional reasoning to capacity.

Not all humans but the vast amount of today's "society" needs the rule of law - that I agree with you. This however must not be an eternal state and is only the case, because they have (intentionally) been raised to be un-response-able (irresponsible), conform and fearful.

The following could be from me, but unfortunately isn't:

"
A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won!

Edited by Gaspode: 
Edited for rule 4.


Edited for rule 0, rule 4 and rule 10. Would suggest re-reading the Membership Agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In much the way one can come to newly appreciate a flavour that was always present, I'm very much enjoying the assertion that rights are "God/nature-given," as if a forest one day wrote down some laws for us all to live by after consulting with the squirrels.
 
And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.
 
Or maybe these laws were carried across the ocean by a herring, written on paper from sustainably harvested trees.
 
And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.


You mean those 'natural' laws are defined by.....men?
Where'd they get the authority from?

And so on, down the chain......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom