The Freeman Movement and England

[Hawk one]

The right in question is the right to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway, for which the law requires proper registration, insurance and licensing. You are of course welcome to travel on any public highway whenever you see fit, but it may take a long time if you're walking.

Dave

Personally - though I will admit that we may be in a bit of a nitpicking area here, and even then, I may still be wrong - I don't really consider it a right to drive cars outside your personally owned land. I consider it a priviledge.

Now, everyone has the right to apply for this priviledge, but then the government - you know, the ones who made it possible for the roads to be built so cars could actually go anywhere faster than 10 KPH - have directives on which they can deny your application. Failing the theory test, failing the practical test, very bad eyesight, certain diseases, etc. are such reasons to be denied this priviledge.

And even when you've taken your classes and earned your driver's licence and have legally acquired a car to drive around (bought or rented or borrowed), it is still a priviledge that you'll only maintain for as long as you keep following the rules that you (hopefully) studied back in class. Speed too much or too often, drive on red lights, etc. and etc, and your priviledge is revoked, for a shorter or longer period of time.

And sure, it may not really be important to consider it a priviledge rather than a right, I admit. However, if more things in life were to be considered the priviledges that I think they often arguably are, then perhaps not so many people would take them for granted, and start making up their own laws on what it means to have a "right" to this and that.

 

[dudalb]

I am sure there is some freeman bull about how it is only your business if it goes wrong.

I have actually seen Libertarians argue that Drunk Driving laws are oppresive because you do no wrong driving drunk until you somebody......

 

[KingMerv00]

I have actually seen Libertarians argue that Drunk Driving laws are oppresive because you do no wrong driving drunk until you somebody......

That's interesting.

What if I set a bomb on public property in front of their house? I assume they have no right to interfere with my bomb until the shockwave crosses onto their land.

 

[elbe]

That's interesting.

What if I set a bomb on public property in front of their house? I assume they have no right to interfere with my bomb until the shockwave crosses onto their land.

From my understanding of libertarianism (well, at least the an-cap breed), yes. You can't take proactive measures to stop someone, just reactively punish them, assuming they violated your property rights - the only rights that matter.

 

[jargon buster]

I fear we may have to put up with especiallys imbicility for a while.
He hasnt posted on TPUC since yesterday so I guess he is banned
An accomplishment in itself, at least when I got banned I was against the cause, hes all for it and still manages a ban

JB/asky

 

[Toke]

I have actually seen Libertarians argue that Drunk Driving laws are oppresive because you do no wrong driving drunk until you somebody......

Yes, I may confuse FMOTL with An-Caps, or maybe there is a large overlap.

What if I set a bomb on public property in front of their house? I assume they have no right to interfere with my bomb until the shockwave crosses onto their land.

Yes, that is it.
I once read a novel from the ships library about an alternate Libertopia world, it involved the import of a nuke from this world and all the ideological problems that caused.
"By what right do you stop them before detonation instead of punishing them afterwards"

 

[Especially]

I enclose my cheque for $393939939673473 dollars. Please will you permit me to do things that are already lawful. I am applying to you for that freedom since I am not able to think for myself. Will you 'grant' these to me ? Grant me a 'licence' to do these already lawful activities. LOL !!! Consider my 'application' for this. Please. Here is my check. I am such a sucker.


Your obedient slave.

LOL !

 

[jargon buster]

Thats twice you have posted that now especially

Can you just for once try and debate in a reasoned and orderly mann... wait a minute its wat tyler Im talking too ...forget it it doesnt matter


JB/asky

 

[KingMerv00]

I enclose my cheque for $393939939673473 dollars. Please will you permit me to do things that are already lawful. I am applying to you for that freedom since I am not able to think for myself. Will you 'grant' these to me ? Grant me a 'licence' to do these already lawful activities. LOL !!! Consider my 'application' for this. Please. Here is my check. I am such a sucker.


Your obedient slave.

LOL !

To what law do you refer?

 

[BobHaulk]

I am such a sucker.

Manard thinks so

 

[D'rok]

I enclose my cheque for $393939939673473 dollars. Please will you permit me to do things that are already lawful. I am applying to you for that freedom since I am not able to think for myself. Will you 'grant' these to me ? Grant me a 'licence' to do these already lawful activities. LOL !!! Consider my 'application' for this. Please. Here is my check. I am such a sucker.


Your obedient slave.

LOL !

(mods: hotlink tos here)

 

[Lallante]

Hi

I am breaking a very very long silence just to say that pretty much everything "Especially" has claimed about English Law (not UK law.... sigh) is wrong.

I have a first in Jurisprudence (the study of the philosophy and internal logic of law) from the University of Oxford, with specialisation in the history and development of English law AND constitutional law, and so if I were so inclined I could debunk him accurately, with sources, point by point.

However this is unnecessary as his base assumption, that common law can bind Parliament and Parliament cannot override common law contradicts possibly the most fundamental legal principle of English Law (which, amusingly, is also a cornerstone principle of the unwritten common law English constitution), namely the principle of Parliament Sovereignty (literally, that nothing, including Parliament, can bind Parliament).

Thus his argument, that Parliament is bound by (and therefore now regularly breaks) the unwritten common law is internally contradictory, as the key most important rights provided by the common law are those of the unwritten constitution and it is universally accepted that it is a key constitutional principle is that Parliament cannot be bound.

I apologise if this has been said before many many times in the depths of this thread!


I would go to the effort of citing sources for these assertions, but they are entirely uncontroversial and googling "parliamentary sovereignty" or "English Constitution" provides adequate authority several times on the first page of results for each. If pushed I will do so though.

 

[D'rok]

Hi

I am breaking a very very long silence just to say that pretty much everything "Especially" has claimed about English Law (not UK law.... sigh) is wrong.

I have a first in Jurisprudence (the study of the philosophy and internal logic of law) from the University of Oxford, with specialisation in the history and development of English law AND constitutional law, and so if I were so inclined I could debunk him accurately, with sources, point by point.

However this is unnecessary as his base assumption, that common law can bind Parliament and Parliament cannot override common law contradicts possibly the most fundamental legal principle of English Law (which, amusingly, is also a cornerstone principle of the Common Law English Constitution, namely, namely the principle of Parliament Sovereignty (literally, that nothing, including Parliament, can bind Parliament).

Thus his argument, that Parliament is bound by (and therefore now regularly breaks) the unwritten common law constitution is internally contradictory, as the key constitutional principle is that Parliament cannot be bound.

I apologise if this has been said before many many times in the depths of this thread!


I would go to the effort of citing sources for these assertions, but they are entirely uncontroversial and googling "parliamentary sovereignty" or "English Constitution" provides adequate authority several times on the first page of results for each. If pushed I will do so though.

Parliamentary sovereignty is many, many pages back and was dismissed by Especially in the usual clownish manner.

But welcome! And please stick around.


ETA: Back on page 2 and many months ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5162709#post5162709

 

[Toke]

Welcome to the forum.

 

[jargon buster]

Welcome lallante
I wouldnt waste your time with "Especially" he has been debunked so many times its not funny anymore.
His usual response is to keep "parroting" the same nonsense over and over again.
I exposed him as a liar on TPUC after playing to his ego and luring him down a blind alley.
He posted a link and quoted a block of text from it that didnt even appear in the link???
After several attempts to convince him he was mistaken/lying his response was "well it was a well known fact at the time"

JB/asky
PS heres the link
http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5580&start=10

 

[gtm]

Hi

I am breaking a very very long silence just to say that pretty much everything "Especially" has claimed about English Law (not UK law.... sigh) is wrong.

I have a first in Jurisprudence (the study of the philosophy and internal logic of law) from the University of Oxford, with specialisation in the history and development of English law AND constitutional law, and so if I were so inclined I could debunk him accurately, with sources, point by point.

However this is unnecessary as his base assumption, that common law can bind Parliament and Parliament cannot override common law contradicts possibly the most fundamental legal principle of English Law (which, amusingly, is also a cornerstone principle of the unwritten common law English constitution), namely the principle of Parliament Sovereignty (literally, that nothing, including Parliament, can bind Parliament).

Thus his argument, that Parliament is bound by (and therefore now regularly breaks) the unwritten common law is internally contradictory, as the key most important rights provided by the common law are those of the unwritten constitution and it is universally accepted that it is a key constitutional principle is that Parliament cannot be bound.

I apologise if this has been said before many many times in the depths of this thread!


I would go to the effort of citing sources for these assertions, but they are entirely uncontroversial and googling "parliamentary sovereignty" or "English Constitution" provides adequate authority several times on the first page of results for each. If pushed I will do so though.

I've repeatedly raised the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty with Freeman. I've patiently explained the intricacies of Contract Law. I've tried to educate them into the highways and byways of Equity.

You know what? I may have well have thrown pebbles at the rock of Gibraltar for all the good it did.

 

[Stacey Grove]

After several attempts to convince him he was mistaken/lying his response was "well it was a well known fact at the time"

I think I might adopt that response.
Just think of the possibilities.

 

[tsig]

My post has frills so we are technically under military law. Your notice is therefore void.
(Plus you have submit your request while holding a shrunken head in one hand and dealing cards with the other. Sorry, that's common law for you.)

if i laugh is that a contract? Will i be obliged to pay a fee schedule or is the humour given free and without consideration.

You guys really know how to take the fun out of a situation. I didn't contract for the buzz kill.

 

[tsig]

Actually... those had quite a few rules you & I (and propably especially too) would deem rather intrusive
(Often mentioned for example are plans for sexual intercourse to avoid the rise of family like structures)

There's one of the first hints they're doing something wrong.

 

[tsig]

Actually I think you'll find that's called TWOC. Not only will the police and courts punish you for "choosing" someone else's car, in some parts of the land (i.e. Salford, where I work) the owners will also render your body parts into parts when they lay hands upon you. Just a word to the wise hilariously entertaining.

I'm going to try this at my local dealership. When i take the car for a test drive I won't take it back and when they contact me I'll tell them that we didn't contract for how long the test drive was to be so I made it for a year with an option for me to renew it. Can't see any flaw here.