Examples of U.S. Soverign Citizen (Freeman on the Land) Failures

[Toke]

Whoops, yes. Thank you.

No problem, glad to help.
(It only bothers me that that exhibitionist TSR will use any excuse to display me and him/herself in public )

 

[talkie toaster]

The problem, of course, is that in the real world, those who self-identify as Freemen on the Land do not have and never had the ability to opt out of the laws that they do not happen to like. It matters not how many times they chant what they believe to be magic words; those words do not confer upon them any special status, nor do those words have any legal effect in the real world as the FOTLers imagine (or perhaps wish) them to have.

But...but......but....I'm hiding behind the velvet rope of Latin and a soupcon of French, how in the name of all that's woooooooo can they have no effect....I mean, come on.....it's Latin.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

But...but......but....I'm hiding behind the velvet rope of Latin and a soupcon of French, how in the name of all that's woooooooo can they have no effect....I mean, come on.....it's Latin.

I would have gone with Klingon, more authoritarian.

 

[Bluekush623]

It means that the government is in power by the will of the people within the society it governs. At the moment, in America, that will is expressed by electing officials to go do the actual governing.

It very significantly does not mean that each individual within the society can choose to opt out of being governed (at least, not if they want to stick around within the society's established borders).

No it doesn not mean "very significantly" that each individual within the society can not chose to opt out of being governed because they are apart of the collective.

Our consent to be governed by a government comes before we give consent to representatives to govern us. (if not, we are being forced onto a team and only have the option too pick our coach and this is not how it works.)

---
"Consent of the governed" is a phrase synonymous with a political theory wherein a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. A key question is whether the unanimous consent of the governed is required; if so, this would imply the right of secession for those who do not want to be governed by a particular collective.

Using thinking similar to that of English political scientist John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and legal authority. This was expressed, among other places, The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and in the Virginia Bill of Rights, especially Section 6, quoted below:

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good." - Wiki
---

Just because no one has successfully challenged the courts yet doesn't mean it is not possible. this is like saying we can not produce electricity because we failed X amount of times before succeeding.

The Courts are also not some omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent entity. it is made up of people who also makes mistakes.

Not too mention I have said that the "Freeman" theory has been "forgotten" and "ignored" without claiming the very possibility of gross negligence on the courts part.

 

[Bluekush623]

you consent to the laws of the united states when you consent to live in the united states. if you do not consent you are free to move to another country with different laws and renounce your citizenship

wrong.

 

[volatile]

Just because no one has successfully challenged the courts yet doesn't mean it is not possible. this is like saying we can not produce electricity because we failed X amount of times before succeeding.

Do you really believe that? You really believe that it is appropriate to make an analogy between the laws of physics and the laws of a country?

You're still confusing an IS with an OUGHT. Personally, I think the "ought" is a more interesting discussion. What would the world be like, do you think, if people could really opt out of the laws they disagree with? What would the world be like if the courts really did take your philosophy seriously?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I would have gone with Klingon, more authoritarian.

and if you go into court spouting off klingon you might just get off by way of insanity

wrong.

so in other words you want to have your cake and eat it too

 

[Bluekush623]

Would you mind defining this?

Policy (Mala Prohibitum) = Statute and for a statute too have any legitimacy one must consent too be governed by those rules.

Status = State of being.

You have the option to be governed by Policy or the option to decline.

 

[Bluekush623]

So make your mind up. Is FOTL the way things work now or is it how you would like things to work now? This isn't a trick question. It seems like you don't know.

This is atleast the 3rd time you have asked this question and the 3rd time i will give the same answer.

FOTL is remedy to the current (policy) system.

If you dont understand this then this discussion is over your head and you should bow out.

i will not answer this again.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good." - Wiki
---

or that of their representatives so elected
or that of their representatives so elected
or that of their representatives so elected

Just sayin

 

[volatile]

You have the option to be governed by Policy or the option to decline.

Even though, in your own words, the courts do not recognise people who decline, and lock them up? Even though the courts, in your own words, "ignore" the pleas of "Freemen"?

What you're saying, essentially, is that everyone has the option of disobeying laws, but that they will be punished for doing so. Exactly what makes the FOTL "policy status" special, then?

 

[Bluekush623]

The problem, of course, is that in the real world, those who self-identify as Freemen on the Land do not have and never had the ability to opt out of the laws that they do not happen to like. It matters not how many times they chant what they believe to be magic words; those words do not confer upon them any special status, nor do those words have any legal effect in the real world as the FOTLers imagine (or perhaps wish) them to have.

No the problem is that the court system no longer operates in the real world.

 

[Sledge]

I don't think anyone denies you have the option to decline to be governed. Of course, you'll be arrested, tried and thrown in prison (as so many FOTL proponents have discovered), but the option is nonetheless there.

 

[Toke]

And we still don't have an answer to the is/ought question.

 

[Wildy]

No this is just JREF's false interpretation.

Really? From this thread I would have thought it was an adequate interpretation.

 

[Sledge]

This is atleast the 3rd time you have asked this question and the 3rd time i will give the same answer.

FOTL is remedy to the current (policy) system.

If you dont understand this then this discussion is over your head and you should bow out.

i will not answer this again.

And yet you keep changing your mind. As I said earlier, if your interpretation of FOTL is a hypothetical system as you've just said, then you are in the wrong thread. We are discussing people who claim FOTL is a system in operation now and that there is a conspiracy to prevent people from accessing this true system. If you wish to discuss your hypothetical replacement for the current system, you would be better served starting a new thread in either the Religion and Philosophy section or the US Politics section, depending which you think is more appropriate.

 

[volatile]

And we still don't have an answer to the is/ought question.

When pushed on the is, it's an ought. When pushed on the ought, it's an is.

I don't think even he knows precisely if he's talking in actuals or in hypotheticals. Just look at how many times he's changed his definition on this page alone!

 

[Sledge]

I'm not entirely sure he knows why we keep asking the question. I don't think his reading comprehension skills are up to understanding the difference between is and ought.

 

[kerikiwi]

Policy (Mala Prohibitum) = Statute and for a statute too have any legitimacy one must consent too be governed by those rules.

Status = State of being.

You have the option to be governed by Policy or the option to decline.

This is utter rubbish.
You most emphatically do not have the option to decline.
Are you sure you don't actually mean you would like to have the option to decline?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

No it doesn not mean "very significantly" that each individual within the society can not chose to opt out of being governed because they are apart of the collective.

Our consent to be governed by a government comes before we give consent to representatives to govern us. (if not, we are being forced onto a team and only have the option too pick our coach and this is not how it works.)

Your consent, as has been noted, is your presence. You may continue to be part of the consenting process at the polls, you can ignore it all and go on about your life, or you can emigrate, suicide, or revolt. What you cannot do is remain living within the borders of a society, receiving the benefits of so living, and not be accountable to the laws of that society.