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

[Bluekush623]

Hi, Bluekush.
I understand your point that if you have no income you are not obliged to pay income tax, would I be correct in thinking that you don't have an income?

Nothing i have wrote pertains to my personal life.

Im just simply stating that there is nothing mandatory about paying taxes or helping support the system.

In America you get what you put in.

America is not my way or the highway, as every poster here has made it be.

 

[dafydd]

It doesn't necessarily end government corruption but if you stop supporting the abusive relationship you will no longer be abused (at your consent).

Your basic premise is wrong.I have a wonderful relationship with the Belgian government.They pay me a pension,and I can do what I like every day.

 

[dafydd]

Nothing i have wrote pertains to my personal life.

Im just simply stating that there is nothing mandatory about paying taxes or helping support the system.

In America you get what you put in.

America is not my way or the highway, as every poster here has made it be.

What would the Freeloaders do if we all stopped paying taxes? No dole money!

 

[Bluekush623]

I want to talk about benefits FOTL derive from being U.S. residents.

Defense against foreign invasion. The FOTL alive in the 1940s benefitted greatly from the U.S. having a sizable standing military to defend against Japanese attacks, yet Freemen believe that they are not required to help support that military in any way. [clarification: I do not want to get side-tracked into possible misuse of military resources - I am talking only about using the military to defend against enemy attack.] This argument assumes that there are forces today that would attack or invade the U.S. if its military were completely disbanded, but I expect all to acknowledge that that assumption is valid.

State prisons. The only way to make sure that murderers, kidnappers, and rapists do not harm communities is to lock them in prison. The fairest way to pay for that prison is to collect a tax from residents of that state. [clarification: I am talking only about violent criminals committing mala in se crimes against innocent victims.]

Even the Libertarians admit that these to expenses are valid enough to levy taxes to pay for their benefits and the libertarians are very much into limiting the oppressive government that impinges on the sovereign rights of the individual (see Libertarian platform approved at most recent political convention)

How would these two benefits be supported if everyone were to adopt FOTL philosophies?

There would be a completely new system in place if everyone adopted a new principle, which makes supporting an old system irrelevant.

 

[Bluekush623]

"Alter or abolish" is not the same as opting out.

Oh please, stop with the semantics.

 

[dafydd]

There would be a completely new system in place if everyone adopted a new principle, which makes supporting an old system irrelevant.

"You say you want a revolution,well you know,we'd all love to see the plans"...John Lennon.

 

[Bluekush623]

Punctuation marks and letters are the way we communicate thoughts and ideas. A letter out of place changes the meaning of a word and a Punctuation mark can change the meaning of a phrase the meaning of a phrase can change the meaning of a paragraph and the meaning of a paragraph changes the meaning of the whole message so for want of a Punctuation mark the idea is lost.

however my grammar has never been so off the mark that it requires something to be re written.

not too mention i am not the only one making mistakes.

so all we have is another post about grammar derailing the thread.

 

[Mojo]

Oh please, stop with the semantics.

You claim that people have the right to "alter or abolish" laws that they don't agree with (although, as has been pointed out, the document that you rely on for this isn't actually a constitutional document). The FOTLers are not attempting to "alter or abolish" laws: their claim is that they have the right to ignore any laws they don't feel like complying with. Your source would not support the FOTLer position even if it was a constitutional document.

 

[dafydd]

There would be a completely new system in place if everyone adopted a new principle, which makes supporting an old system irrelevant.

Please furnish us with some details of your amazing new system.How would the roads be maintained.Who would pay for the schools? If I catch a burglar in my house do I say to him "I contract out of your attempt to rob me?" Will he say "Fair enough mate."' and be on his way?

 

[Mojo]

however my grammar has never been so off the mark that it requires something to be re written.

She probably doesn't believe in the FOTLer stuff then.

 

[Bluekush623]

Do you pay tax in the States when you're on welfare?

I dont know, i never been on welfare.

 

[dafydd]

How about you work on proper spacing before you speak about writing.

I have seen countless grammar errors from people i have had discussions with in this thread. yet i have no need to point out the errors because their ideas contain enough flaws.

the only reason i get flack here is because there is nothing in my argument to critique so you must resort to my grammar errors.

You will have to provide us with an argument first.Tell us how your system would work.How would you address corruption?

 

[Bluekush623]

No, but it DOES mean that you did not show how the laws are unjust and unconstitutional. The prosecution's having done a bad job says nothing at all about the law under which a case was originally prosecuted.

Drugs laws are the same as prohibition, and prohibition was found constitutionally unjust/lawful.

I dont care what liars are in office say now, truth is truth.

the laws are unjust/unconstitutional

I'm not sure what you mean here, due to your pride in your lack of proofreading, but I'm going to assume you mean "don't expect unjust and unconstitutional laws to know..

Then I'm going to point out that, as non-living items, laws cannot know anything. Do you expect your teakettle, pillow and dining table to know anything?

Stop with the semantics please.

The whole point is that laws dont speak for themselves, they cant say or know whether or not they are just/unjust or not. It is only by the word of legislatures in which they find power.

And if unjust laws get passed dont expect the people who passed unjust laws to man up and admit to their mistake (as it was mostly liking done for mischievous purposes and not out of ignorance)

Here's something I wrote in another thread to another poster who said much the same thing as you did:

Now, if you don't care about making a credible case for your philosophy, that's one thing. But in that case, what are you doing here? Why are you bothering to reply to anyone in this thread? Why haven't you taken your little plants and your gro-lite and struck out for the wilderness where a man can live like he wants to? (Oh, sorry, the gro-lite won't work out there without electricity, so you'll have to depend on plain old sunshine.)

Ive said countless times, im not a FOTL.

I just actually know the law. Something is board is oblivious too.

 

[Bluekush623]

He might also want to understand that the DOI is not and never has been part of the constitution. It was political propaganda written to inflame the populace and it worked quite well for that but it was not intended as an instrument of government.

I never said it was.

 

[dafydd]

No word about your new system then?

 

[Stacey Grove]

Nothing i have wrote pertains to my personal life.

So would it be correct to say that the fotl lifestyle you describe here is your desire and is a way you wish to live your life, rather than the way you do live your life?

 

[Bluekush623]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123032

The "Freeman on the land" discussing how to commit government welfare fraud. So interesting that they decline to consent to every possible tax or regulation, but vehemently defend their right to take cash benefits from the government through every illegal means they can think of. The explanation, of course, is that obviously theres a massive conspiracy to keep down the unemployed, and so what better way to stick it to THE SYSTEM than to commit fraud and claim benefits that you are no longer entitled to?

Freeman on the Dole

I only read the first 5 posts in that thread, but i most ask LID why do you not acknowledge the fact that atleast the first 3 responses told him that what he was doing was not right and equal to fraud?

I'm guessing (aka know) it just does not fit into your propaganda of FOTL.

 

[dafydd]

There would be a completely new system in place if everyone adopted a new principle, which makes supporting an old system irrelevant.

Tell us about the new system.

 

[Bluekush623]

Please furnish us with some details of your amazing new system.How would the roads be maintained.Who would pay for the schools? If I catch a burglar in my house do I say to him "I contract out of your attempt to rob me?" Will he say "Fair enough mate."' and be on his way?

Please actually read what i write instead of jumping to conclusions.

I said if people adopted a new principle, keeping the old system would be irrelevant.

I said nothing about "my new amazing system". As "a new principle" is completely hypothetical.

 

[Bluekush623]

You claim that people have the right to "alter or abolish" laws that they don't agree with (although, as has been pointed out, the document that you rely on for this isn't actually a constitutional document). The FOTLers are not attempting to "alter or abolish" laws: their claim is that they have the right to ignore any laws they don't feel like complying with. Your source would not support the FOTLer position even if it was a constitutional document.

It may not be constitutional but it is the founding idea to this current system.

If one wants to disregard the DOI you mine as well disregard the Constitution with it.