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

[Bluekush623]

The fact that you live in society confers certain benefits on you, whether the society likes it or not and whether you like it or not. It is an entanglement that cannot be undone (unless you actually leave the society entirely, but in all likelihood, you'll just end up in another one).

We do not live in a indentured servitude society, we got rid of slavery 150+ years ago. There is no "entanglement" of benefits. This sounds uber fascist.

I could easily make arguments to where "current society" has done nothing to benefit me, as the rapid deforestation of the land has made everything worse.

Since you are benefiting in ways that cannot be withheld, it is perfectly reasonable for society to expect some recompense from you (or for you to leave).

No its not perfectly reasonable.

Just because some people want to build a road does not mean anyone else owes anything to them, period. They built the road for their own benefit, big deal that some "other" people get to use it. This is supposed to be America, remember?

Smaller example, Just because i shovel my sidewalk, plant flowers, clean the neighborhood does not mean people owe me anything. As i did it for my benefit and others also just happen to reap my benefits.

Why do you think you should be exempt from the recompense?

Because they did not consent or ask for it. It is not their duty to recompense.

That is where I am going.

and why you are wrong

 

[Sledge]

Have we ever received a proper answer to the question of why, if FOTLers don't want to live by a society's rules, they don't just leave that society?

 

[Ladewig]

Dude, stop looking for websites.

I have stated numerous terminologies of freeman theories/practices.

Remember Consent of Governed? Mala in Se/ Malium Prohibitium?

This is all discussion of said topic.

I was looking for a website because I had a number of questions and I did not want to clutter this thread. But if you prefer this approach, that's fine. I have gone back and read all your posts and these are my questions.

1) When you say "consent must be given for mala prohibitium" does that mean consent from every single individual or does that mean if the majority of a town votes (by direct referendum) to outlaw an activity like prostitution, then everyone in the town must follow that law?

2) Are local property taxes a violation of either natural rights or the Constitution?

3) When you say, "its not illegal to not work, which means its not illegal to not pay taxes." Do you mean it is legal to work and not pay federal or state income tax? If so, why is the 16th amendment not a product of consent?

4) In post #185, you make an allusion to consent and driver's licenses. Would you elaborate on that relationship (whether or not it is a legal or valid relationship)?

5) Do you have examples of people tried for victimless crimes who were released by showing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional?

6) Do you believe that in the foreseeable future, people tried for victimless crimes will be released by showing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional?

7) How does sovereignty relate to domestic laws?

 

[Ladewig]

Just because some people want to build a road does not mean anyone else owes anything to them, period. They built the road for their own benefit, big deal that some "other" people get to use it. This is supposed to be America, remember?

I think it is a hugh deal that "some 'other' people get to use it." If I build a house, then I do not want other people using the tangible product of my labor. If a group of citizens decides to use their money to build a road, why should local people who refused to contribute have any right at all to use it?

 

[Bluekush623]

Have we ever received a proper answer to the question of why, if FOTLers don't want to live by a society's rules, they don't just leave that society?

Because this society you speak of is not some Fascist/Monarch/Dictatorship, it is a open and free society.

 

[Sledge]

Because this society you speak of is not some Fascist/Monarch/Dictatorship, it is a open and free society.

No, it isn't. You are free to be part of the society or not. But the society is not a free one. It has rules that we all have to abide by. If you don't like those rules, your options are to attempt to change them through the systems in place or to leave that society. So, why do you not leave the society whose rules you find so intolerable or do something to change them?

 

[Bluekush623]

I was looking for a website because I had a number of questions and I did not want to clutter this thread. But if you prefer this approach, that's fine. I have gone back and read all your posts and these are my questions.

1) When you say "consent must be given for mala prohibitium" does that mean consent from every single individual or does that mean if the majority of a town votes (by direct referendum) to outlaw an activity like prostitution, then everyone in the town must follow that law?

Everything should be individual, however in today's age of instant satisfaction and the need for speed everything has been clumped into one which is a major flaw.

If one wants it to be illegal for them to become a prostitute, let them consent. However if one doesn't consent let them be a prostitute.

2) Are local property taxes a violation of either natural rights or the Constitution?

In short yes. The government, including regular people do not really own the land. The pretend they do with a gun.

3) When you say, "its not illegal to not work, which means its not illegal to not pay taxes." Do you mean it is legal to work and not pay federal or state income tax? If so, why is the 16th amendment not a product of consent?

No I'm saying if you don't have a job through SSN/IRS, they legally have nothing to take from you. So you can live in America without paying taxes and they can do nothing about it.

Although they will come take your illegal money anyways (Example. Al Capone). Which shows the game is rigged.

4) In post #185, you make an allusion to consent and driver's licenses. Would you elaborate on that relationship (whether or not it is a legal or valid relationship)?

Any "Application" you "Submit" with your signature is something you consented to.

So signing up for a driver's license you agree/consent to follow the rules of the DMV/State.

5) Do you have examples of people tried for victimless crimes who were released by showing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional?

Yes, Thousands of people have been released due to lack of evidence, illegal searches, etc.

However in today's age when the system is rigged the only way to wiggle out is when they make the mistake.

Because they have to keep the illusion that nothing is wrong about the system.

6) Do you believe that in the foreseeable future, people tried for victimless crimes will be released by showing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional?

Hopefully. Doesn't look good though.

7) How does sovereignty relate to domestic laws?

This is to broad of a question. Same way it applies to all other laws.

 

[Bluekush623]

I think it is a hugh deal that "some 'other' people get to use it." If I build a house, then I do not want other people using the tangible product of my labor. If a group of citizens decides to use their money to build a road, why should local people who refused to contribute have any right at all to use it?

A house is something "private", totally different then something that is "public".

If one group wishes to build a "private" road and block it for personal use, you can't deny them the right.

But don't make something "public" and treat it as it is "private".

 

[Ladewig]

In short yes. The government, including regular people do not really own the land. The pretend they do with a gun.

I do not follow. Would you explain?

 

[Bluekush623]

No, it isn't. You are free to be part of the society or not. But the society is not a free one. It has rules that we all have to abide by. If you don't like those rules, your options are to attempt to change them through the systems in place or to leave that society. So, why do you not leave the society whose rules you find so intolerable or do something to change them?

Yawn, your wrong, again.

I will quote the Declaration Of Independence again.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[Bluekush623]

I do not follow. Would you explain?

Very simple, No One owns any land on the Planet earth.

Some people may claim they do with a gun, but that's only a make believe illusion.

 

[Sledge]

Yawn, your wrong, again.

My what is wrong again?

I will quote the Declaration Of Independence again.

Why? I'm British. I frankly couldn't care less how the United States is run.

 

[Bluekush623]

My what is wrong again?

Your assumption is wrong again.

Why? I'm British. I frankly couldn't care less how the United States is run.

Then why bother with debating and discussing Freeman theories/practices of the US nature (Read thread title).

Removed inappropriate content.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Sledge]

Your assumption is wrong again.

Then why didn't you say that? I'm not psychic, I can't reach into your mind to find out what word you left out of your sentence.

Then why bother with debating and discussing Freeman theories/practices of the US nature (Read thread title).

In that case, it is you who has steered us off topic. This thread is to discuss instances where the FOTL approach has failed. You are not doing so. Whilst I agree that my posting is off topic, I find it ironic that you are criticising others for being off topic when they are responding to your derail.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Hold on. I brought up a sincere, serious point of discussion and was ignored by you.

I am ready to shed my ignorance. Let me know where to find the true FOTL websites.

I must join Ladewig in protest of this sentence. You and I were engaged in a serious, civil discourse before your disappearance. Here's where we left off...

Well, roads and water are other benefits, true, but I was not trying to bait you. I am perfectly happy to restrict the discussion to just security, if you like. The fact that you benefit at all from living among society is all I wish to demonstrate; I have no particular wish to elucidate all the myriad ways in which you so benefit.

So, I would prefer if you would do one of the two following things:

• Explain to me how you do not benefit from society
• Explain to me why, if you do benefit from society, you should not have to give anything back, as it were

Of course, I cannot make you do either of those things. You can always ignore me, but you will ignore me, at least, only after I have made as great an effort as I can to show you that my intentions have nothing to do with "baiting" you.

Cut him some slack, guys. It can be hard to track a conversation when there's a lot of...um...smoke in the air.

5) Do you have examples of people tried for victimless crimes who were released by showing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional?

Yes, Thousands of people have been released due to lack of evidence, illegal searches, etc.

ROFL. Being "released due to lack of evidence, illegal searches, etc." means that either (a) the prosecution failed to make its case ("lack of evidence"); or (b) did not make its case in approved fashion ("illegal searches"). Neither shows that the laws were unjust and unconstitutional.

 

[Mojo]

I will quote the Declaration Of Independence again.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I think you'll find that that means "the People" as a whole rather than individual people who happen to not want to obey particular laws.

And, whatever it was meant to mean when written, the way the system works now is that individuals are not free to opt out of laws by "not consenting" to them on an individual basis.

 

[Sledge]

Even if we hold the discussion purely to the American FOTL movement, the question still stands as to why these people aren't trying to change the system if it is so abhorrent to them.

Actually, did we ever determine if FOTL is supposed to be how the legal system works now, or if it's a hypothetical system that FOTLers want to see adopted?

 

[theprestige]

In short yes. The government, including regular people do not really own the land. The pretend they do with a gun.

I'm pretty sure that's what ownership is. All the rest of it--contracts, rights, deeds, titles, leases, etc.--that's all just proxies for the gun. Mostly because having to bring the gun out every time ownership is discussed gets a little awkward. And also because most people find ownership to be such a practical and useful concept that they're willing to stipulate the gun and do business peacefully and profitably without the extra hassle.

You might have a philosophical point that nobody really "owns" anything, but that's all it is: a philosophical point. The legal point is, ownership is very real, and you can't go to court and claim free use of someone else's land by asserting that nobody really owns anything. People really do own things, and when it comes right down to it, there's always a gun somewhere upholding that ownership.

You don't have it, which would be too bad for you, except that you benefit from all the guns society keeps on your behalf, to secure ownership of all the other nice things you benefit from.

 

[theprestige]

Look its not illegal to not work...

Alright, you don't work. So you don't get any food, right?

You don't work. So you don't get any shelter, right?

You don't work. So you don't get any medicine, right?

You don't work. So you don't get any clohtes or gas or television or Internet service, right?

I mean, other people work for these things. Other people work, if only to just survive. Why should you survive, if you don't work? Why should you survive off the benefit of other people's work, without doing any work of your own?

Please answer my serious questions: How does the concept of the Freeman on the Land address these points?

 

[BobHaulk]

Alright, you don't work. So you don't get any food, right?

You don't work. So you don't get any shelter, right?

You don't work. So you don't get any medicine, right?

You don't work. So you don't get any clohtes or gas or television or Internet service, right?

I mean, other people work for these things. Other people work, if only to just survive. Why should you survive, if you don't work? Why should you survive off the benefit of other people's work, without doing any work of your own?

Please answer my serious questions: How does the concept of the Freeman on the Land address these points?

I've asked this question b4 and it turns out that the taxes you pay on the work you do doesn't pay for these things, it goes straight to the imf or the world bank or whatever evil banking system the freeman likes. No, the money to pay for society comes from the dividend on your bond. I don't really know what that means but the freemen will tell you that's what's happening. I think that's why menard don't claim his bond because he thinks he's helping pay for things and as such doing his bit.