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

[defaultdotxbe]

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.

at least he seems to have learned the difference between to and too

 

[kerikiwi]

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.

If your answers are not understood you ought (there's that word) to consider whether you are posting coherently
I have long experience in deciphering the intended meaning in the writing of young children, and am usually pretty good at it.
Yours, though, is a whole other challenge.

 

[kerikiwi]

at least he seems to have learned the difference between to and too

Don't be to/too sure.
He needs to/too use it correctly consistently.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

what would the world be like if people could opt out of policy?

well for an example lets look at Amsterdam and America and their policy on drugs. Amsterdam has less users, violence etc all because it is more socially acceptable. While America spends countless billions of dollars and literally fights a "war" over their policy.

The information in favor of Amsterdam's policy is too long too list.

Not too mention American had its own war with policy back during Alcohol Prohibition.

So there's two real life, hard evidence examples for you too swallow. That shows some Policies actually make things worse and not better.

Lets not forget JREF all Freeman are still bound by "mala in se". There is no actual anarchy in FOTL, this is only your disillusioned opinion.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Don't be to/too sure.
He needs to/too use it correctly consistently.

I doubt he'll learn two do that soon.

 

[Sledge]

How many posts will convince you he's got the hang of it? Too? Three?
ETA:

The information in favor of Amsterdam's policy is too long too list.

Not too mention American had its own war with policy back during Alcohol Prohibition.

Oh good grief.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Please, let us not carry on to long.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Don't be to/too sure.
He needs to/too use it correctly consistently.

ill have to/too/two/2 be less optimistic in the future

 

[defaultdotxbe]

what would the world be like if people could opt out of policy?

well for an example lets look at Amsterdam and America and their policy on drugs. Amsterdam has less users, violence etc all because it is more socially acceptable. While America spends countless billions of dollars and literally fights a "war" over their policy.

The information in favor of Amsterdam's policy is too long too list.

Not too mention American had its own war with policy back during Alcohol Prohibition.

So there's two real life, hard evidence examples for you too swallow. That shows some Policies actually make things worse and not better.

Lets not forget JREF all Freeman are still bound by "mala in se". There is no actual anarchy in FOTL, this is only your disillusioned opinion.

but amsterdams policy isnt one of being able to opt out of laws you dont like, its one of drugs (or marijuana at least, im not sure) being legal (or at least decriminalized) which has already been pointed out, many people here would be in favor of, myself included

 

[Bluekush623]

---

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

Just sayin

My bold.

Just saying, I like how you skipped the part about giving actual consent too be governed before you give consent to a representative.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

My bold.

Just saying, I like how you skipped the part about giving actual consent too be governed before you give consent to a representative.

Good call, kerikiwi.

 

[kerikiwi]

ill have to/too/two/2 be less optimistic in the future

Tu est tres pessimiste!

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

How am I changing my mind if i answer the question 3 times with the same answer?

My interpretation is not hypothetical and never said it was. I called it REMEDY, like medicine.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

Your understanding of law is complete rubbish.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

wrong.

 

[Sledge]

I've got a five year old goddaughter who could have grasped this by now, but I'll run through it as simply as possible for you. Buckle up, make yourself comfortable and pay attention.

FOTL is either how things work now or it is a hypothetical possible way that people believe things should work. Those are the options. You are attempting to have it both ways. You can't. If people have the right to ignore statutes as you claim, then you are claiming that FOTL is already in operation. If that is the case, FOTL cannot be the remedy to the present situation because the present situation is already FOTL.

Now, think very carefully about what you are trying to argue and tell us whether you think FOTL is the way things work now or if it is a system you think should be adopted in place of what we have now.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Your understanding of law is complete rubbish.

pot, kettle

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

wrong.

By what authority do you think you should be able to remain living in a society, receiving its benefits, but not being accountable to its rules?

 

[volatile]

You're not "answering the same". Sometimes, you seem to be talking about a situation you think currently exists. Other times, you seem to be talking about a situation you would like to exist.

Which is it? Pick one, and stick to it!

 

[Bluekush623]

but amsterdams policy isnt one of being able to opt out of laws you dont like, its one of drugs (or marijuana at least, im not sure) being legal (or at least decriminalized) which has already been pointed out, many people here would be in favor of, myself included

ugh this was not the point of the argument.

it was frankly about whether or not policy is good or bad.