• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

No one is about a true discussion. You guys are living in a illusion of make believe laws and you refuse to see beyond the stage.

Wow, that was coherent.

The ignorant one calling people stupid. :rolleyes:

Ignorance and stupidity aren't the same thing. Ignorance is not knowing something. Stupidity is knowing the wrong thing and thinking you're right.

I surmise that it is possible for a Freeman to plant a farm and live off the food grown. No U.S. taxing body has ever said that taxes are owed on food that is grown for personal use. Such a person could also build his or her own house. As for the medicine, collecting a tax because a citizen trades some carrots for a bottle of aspirin appears to be the height of absurdity from the perspective a of a Freeman.

Hmm, you'd have to grow a whole lot of carrots to barter for your chemo.

As to the 'you can't own the land' business: I agree that philosophically you can't.

However, for as long as there have been animals, they have staked territory out for themselves; from the Bower bird's few square feet to a Wolf pack's hundreds of square miles. It's an entirely instinctive behaviour. The development of rational thought in humans has allowed us to develop more formal and civilised means of marking our territories but it's still the same instinctive behaviour.

The rich and the powerful have always and will always use their wealth and strength to gain advantage over the poor and the weak. That is the 'natural law.'

Everytime I hear an FOTLer complaining about it I hear a teenager in a tantrum stamping his feet and shouting 'But it's not FAIR?!'

Life isn't fair. It was never supposed to be. Get a helmet.
 
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.

No not all ownership is by the gun. Because whatever an individual creates (private property) is theirs, although they may have to defend it with a gun, they dont claim it with a gun.

But yes all contracts, rights, deeds, titles, leases, etc are All Illusions perpetrated/claimed by the gun.

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.

No i have a logical reasonable reason as to why nobody owns land of planet earth, i didn't say anything and everything.

Legality and Philosophy are the same thing, a construct of the brain.

In the Physical realm neither of them exist and thus they are illusions, as both are man made. And why this legal system needs consent to be applied.

And i must say again ownership of land is not "real" it is a illusion claimed by a gun.

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.

Who is also in the position to claim that this society is what everyone wants?

I most ask when did anyone before birth in America ask for the system that is present?
 
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?

Not working has nothing to do with being a freeman.

I was simply stating that you dont have to pay taxes to live america.
 
So income tax and property tax are invalid. I am going to guess that sales tax is invalid, too - please correct me if I am wrong, Bluekush623. In post #185, you imply that even Freeman are subject to laws like murder. In the system you describe, who pays for the police, the local courthouse, the appeals courts, and the prisons?

I not a complete tax buff and its been a while, but sales tax seems as the most "legit" tax system.

Since you consent to the tax by buying the product. Although i don't remember if it is that clear cut.

What i dont understand is when you say the "system i describe", as i have described no system.
 
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.

I own 2,600 square meters of land in Belgium.It's mine,bought and paid for and I do not own a gun.Stop talking nonsense.
 
I surmise that it is possible for a Freeman to plant a farm and live off the food grown. No U.S. taxing body has ever said that taxes are owed on food that is grown for personal use. Such a person could also build his or her own house. As for the medicine, collecting a tax because a citizen trades some carrots for a bottle of aspirin appears to be the height of absurdity from the perspective a of a Freeman.

Who says Medicine cant be grown or found freely?
 
Bush, thanks for coming back

So? They were referring to the British Imperial Government. You will note of course that immediately after the Constitution came into effect their was NOT a FOTL type government in effect.

How do you explain that?

Are you seriously going to say they meant the British Imperial Government when they clearly said "ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT".

"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."

Talk about moving goalposts.
 
I not a complete tax buff and its been a while, but sales tax seems as the most "legit" tax system.

Since you consent to the tax by buying the product. Although i don't remember if it is that clear cut.

What i dont understand is when you say the "system i describe", as i have described no system.

I'm not going to get into a quarrel about whether or not you are describing a system. In the interest of progressing the discussion, I concede the point. But even if my wording was wrong, you still understood the question: if society were to reject the current system 1) would we still need a powerful criminal justice system and 2) how would the salaries of these people be paid?

I not a complete tax buff and its been a while, but sales tax seems as the most "legit" tax system.

Since you consent to the tax by buying the product. Although i don't remember if it is that clear cut.

If society were to reject the current system, what do you expect the sales tax rate to be?
 
Who says Medicine cant be grown or found freely?

I do, but any discussion of that would be ridiculously off topic and take us away from the progress made in the last two pages.. If you do want to go down this path, then a thread in the Science sub-forum might be the best place.
 
There is an entanglement of benefits.

You pay less for things thanks to patrolled roads. (I know I said I'd limit this to security but what follows is much more about security than roads, per se, plus you bring up roads yourself, so I feel no further obligation to avoid them.)

A patrolled road makes banditry riskier and therefore less likely to occur. Therefore, with the exception of extremely valuable commodities (large sums of cash, for example), most things shipped overland in the US have very little in the way of private security protecting them. Typically, a truck will be locked. There's no call for the hiring of armed security guards are escort vehicles in most cases.

As shipping companies do not have to worry as much about private security thanks to the patrolled roads, they save money they would otherwise spend. Since they save money, they can charge less to the manufacturers whose goods they carry, which means those manufacturers spend less.

Which, of course, means you spend less for those goods.

I feel very confident that some, if not most, of what you purchase has been shipped overland on patrolled roads, so I feel very confident in charging that you have materially benefited from the existence of the patrolled roads.

It's a pretty convoluted example, I admit, but that is by design. The purpose is to show the absolute entanglement both you and society are caught in. You can't help but benefit from this situation (without leaving), and society can't help but let you benefit from it (without removing you). There is no way to patrol the roads in such a way that shipments of things that will ultimately be bought by you are less secure than others, and there is no way for you to pay for the private security that would have had to exist had the roads not been patrolled.

Yes, you are stuck, by virtue of having been born and not left, receiving the benefits of society. Society is just as stuck, by virtue of your having been born and not removing you, giving them to you. As such, society is entitled to you helping, along with everyone else, pay for the things you benefit from.

I have already illustrated that there is no way you receive no benefit from society. There may be an interesting philosophical question of whether you have received an overall net benefit from society, but it would also raise the question of whether society has received an overall net benefit from you.

It's ultimately irrelevant, anyway, because whether society has done you more harm than good does not affect your obligation to pay for what you receive. We can argue all day whether mega-corporations are a good thing, but if I want one of Wal-Marts too sweet t-shirts, I still have to give them $8.

There are no "other" people. There are people who pay for the road, and there are people who benefit from the road. These are the same people, and as long as you live among them, you are in the group.

This is utter nonsense and only your assumption.

All the products you are talking about are all from private companies, and none of these products from these "patrolled" roads have to be purchased.

So there is again no entanglement, which you are trying to create.

end of discussion.

Just because some people want their product to be cheaper it has nothing to do with others/ and even if they did benefit from what others have done.

Smaller, and worse. Having a clean and pretty neighborhood is not a natural consequence of living in a neighborhood. Being more secure is a natural consequence of living in a society. There is no entanglement of benefits in your scenario.

Continued presence and acceptance of benefits constitutes consent.

Read what you write..

Being secure is "not" natural just like a clean neighborhood is not natural, if it was there would be no need for security or the need to plant flowers/cut grass/shovel snow.

there is the same amount of entanglement in each scenario, but that doesnt mean anyone owes anyone else anything.

this is not supposed to be a fascist/communist/dictatorship, so stop trying to make it one.
 
I own 2,600 square meters of land in Belgium.It's mine,bought and paid for and I do not own a gun. Stop talking nonsense.

I hope I am not misrepresenting FOTL as presented by Bluekush623, but the gun does not have to be in your possession. If someone tried to build a house on your land without your consent, then you would call the police. If the squatters told the police to ****-off, then more police with guns would show up to protect your property rights.
 
I'm not going to get into a quarrel about whether or not you are describing a system. In the interest of progressing the discussion, I concede the point. But even if my wording was wrong, you still understood the question: if society were to reject the current system 1) would we still need a powerful criminal justice system and 2) how would the salaries of these people be paid?

If society were to reject the current system, what do you expect the sales tax rate to be?

No one is talking about rejecting the current system.

Freeman is about leaving your relationship of policies with the government.
 
I do, but any discussion of that would be ridiculously off topic and take us away from the progress made in the last two pages.. If you do want to go down this path, then a thread in the Science sub-forum might be the best place.

Ingeniousness Medicine Men will disagree.

But both worlds of the Medicine Men and White Coat Industry have things that each other may not have.

so this ends this discussion as it will derail.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom