• 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

Well, I tried. As expected, Bluekush failed to understand even the most elementary of arguments about what public goods are and why we need them. He thinks is perfectly OK to allow him to "decline" fire protection and let the city burn.

All is not lost though. Every year I give the same metaphor to my freshman students and 99% of them get it. If freshmen college students can understand it, I know its not a complicated concept.
 
How is denying PERSONAL fire protecton endangering anyone else?

Seriously your and LID stance sounds like a childish/immature argument:

"You (freeman) didnt pay for fire protection, so we (american citizen) wont put the fire out because you may save money by us doing so"

EVEN THOUGH it will damage our own property, that is some sick mentality where you damage yourself to try and prove a point.

However if the situation was turned with your (american citizen) house burning down and that catches your neighbors (freeman) house on fire, it wouldn't matter because hey he didn't pay for fire protection. So he gets what he deserves.

I am satisfied that you've been thoroughly debunked, so now I'm just replying to this in the hope (all we've got is hope) that you will embrace reason:

You should look up the term free riders in its context to public policy, because that "childish and immature argument" is exactly what has happened and destroyed entire cities. If private corporations put out fires even on people who don't pay for protection (since we'd have no government service in Freeman Utopia), then no one would pay for it.Your astonishing ignorance concerning history and even the most basic political science further discredits you.

Your further lack of understanding about such a simple metaphor is..well...astounding to say the least. Just like your decisions don't influence only you in some sort of Freeman vacuum, the decision to let your hose burn damages other people and harms them because FIRE SPREADS. If I have to let your house burn down because your a idiot Sovereign Citizen and wait until it spreads to my house next door to put it out, then your stupidity has caused me harm.
 
But they don't have jurisdiction over the freeman so it really doesnt matter if they are still alive they are abolished from his life.
Try not complying with one of those "abolished" laws and see if it stays "abolished" from your life.

I'd like to lay out the following scenario re: private fire protection and see if I can get a reasonable answer :roll: from any resident footlers:

Imagine a city block with eight houses on it, in a community with private, rather than governmental, fire protection.

A fire breaks out in House No. 1. Householder No. 1 has contracted with Fire Company A for fire protection; he calls them, they respond and begin extinguishing the fire. So far so good.

The fire at House No. 1 appears to be almost out when the wind suddenly changes and the fire jumps to House No. 2. Householder No. 2 objects to the oppression and injustice of being protected against destruction of all his personal possessions by fire, so has not contracted with any fire company. His house is soon engulfed in flames, despite Householder No. 2's attempts to put the fire out with his garden hose.

The wind continues to blow and the fire jumps from House No. 2 to House No. 3. Householder No. 3 has contracted with Fire Company B; they arrive and begin fighting the fire.

The wind gets worse and the fire jumps to House No. 4. Householder No. 4 has contracted with Fire Company A, same as Householder No. 1. Because the fire is almost out at House No. 1, the incident commander (that's what the person in charge at a specific fire is called where I live) starts to pull personnel from House No. 1 to send to House No. 4 to assist the second Fire Company A unit called out to fight the fire at House No. 4. Householder No. 1 vigorously objects to this, insisting that the fire personnel at his house stay there, impeding the efforts of the incident commander to coordinate fighting the fire at two different locations covered by his company.

Moreover, by this time the equipment and personnel from Fire Company B working at House No. 3 are blocking the street; they refuse to get out of the way for Fire Company A to move from House No. 1 to House No. 4, so the Fire Company A personnel have to go around the block to try to assist at House No. 4. Additionally, the fire has jumped across the alley and is starting to burn buildings on the block behind our original block; other fire companies are there fighting the blaze, and that street is also blocked, preventing the unit from Fire Company A from using it to reach House No. 4 on the original block.

As a further complication, Householder No. 4 learns that he purchased only the "basic" fire coverage, not the "premium," so the incident commander will allow his staff only to stand outside the house and pour water on the fire, not to go inside and up the stairs to rescue Householder No. 4's three-year-old daughter.

The fire continues to spread up the block. Householders 5, 6, and 7 have contracted with Fire Company C for fire protection because Good Ole Bob is the salesman for that company. However, the commander for Fire Company C is a drunk and a scam artist so Fire Company C is not well-equipped nor are the personnel trained. The fire therefore skips from House No. 5 to No. 6 to No. 7 to No. 8, and continues until the town is burned down.​

You may say that people shouldn't act like that, and you're probably right - they shouldn't, and in a perfect world, they wouldn't. However, this world is far from perfect and scared people tend to concentrate only on their own safety. It takes a certain amount of perspective to consider the public good when your house is on fire, and most people lack that ability to step back and take the long view. Fortunately even for the footlers, most societies understand the benefit of public fire protection and specially trained and equipped personnel show up when a fire alarm is turned in and risk their lives to protect our lives and our property.

ETA: and, as LID so aptly points out, if a fire company puts out any fire, regardless of whether or not the building is protected by their company, no one will contract or pay for the service, since they know that the fire companies will protect them regardless. Therefore soon there are no funds to pay for equipment or personnel or training.

***​

Everything i write is off the top of my head and why there are no references.
Priceless!
 
Last edited:
So current fire departments are underfunded/equipped?



Why not? Did you choose not to purchase fire protection?

Quarantining people has nothing to do with buying insurance.



what is your point? do the systems bend to the crybabies or do they tell the kids to grow up and take responsibility?

I just cut to the chase and refuse to contract with fire.
 
Ignoring a immaterial mental construct is essentially Altering or Abolishing it.

You cant take a law out to the backyard and physically mend it into something new.

And for the infinite time, Freeman do not pick and choose what laws to abide by.

All Freeman do is distinguish what is LAW (mala in se) and what is LEGAL (mala prohibitium) and in distinguishing the Law and Legality they understand that Legality needs your consent for it to have any jurisdiction, just living in a area of land is not consent of the governed.

Legality does not need consent. There was this invention, fairly recently, maybe you have heard of it maybe you have not.

Gunpowder.

Legality whether good or evil requires only people who enforce it. And when they have the guns ( or rather more guns. ) they have the power.

Laws are not magic words that a skilled caster can manipulate, they are guidelines a society sets, and enforces with the use of force or detainment. Consent has zero to do with it.

If consent effected law in any real way, there would be no evil laws, because people effected negatively would not follow them. The reason people follow evil laws is because of the use of force ( think nazi germany. ) not because they do not know any better than to not follow them.

Whether the system is corrupt as in Nazi Germany, or flawed but fairly well done like in north america. It is enforcement, not consent that gives laws their power.
 
To be fair, he acknowledged this.

"
Originally Posted by Bluekush623 View Post
Everything i write is off the top of my head and why there are no references."




I suspect his posts come from another part of his body.
 
Seriously. "Consent" at the point of a .357 Magnum is not really Consent.

And that is the beauty of enforcement.

The law is neither good nor evil, it is a way of codifying your good or evil practices , and telling others " if you do not do this you will be detained or harmed." To say that consent has anything to do with law is laughable.
 
LOL, true but he was trying to support his made up stuff by saying it was in the Constitution or that the founding fathers were in favour of this idea.

They were not.

Therre appear to be a wide spectrum of what we call FOTL, roughly I can divide it) provisionally into three

'High' FOTL this is philosophical position that 'everyone should be free', they recognize its not feasible.

'Blue' FOTL this is what Bluekill is espousing, nearer to 'High' with the difference that he thinks it is feasible.

'Common' FOTL these are the guys who feel they can use FOTL to get out of legitmate debts and penalties for violating laws

'Low' FOTL is basically embracing a type of complete anarchy with 'POL POT' elements.

Comments would be appreciated

There's the BS FOTL's who don't believe a word of it but are more than happy to fleece the gullible.
 
But hey when its not illegal to not work its not illegal to not pay taxes if you don't have an income. its just truth and not some crackpot theory.

I have also never stated my income or tax status. So dont assume.
The highlighted portion above is a bit of a non-sequitur, but I'll give you that for federal income tax. So let's say that you don't work, so you don't pay taxes via withholding. How would you avoid property tax? Sales tax? Excise tax on things like cigarettes and alcohol and gasoline? Local taxes on entertainment, hotels, restaurants? Federal taxes on communications like phone lines?

I guess what I'm getting at is how could anyone be a "Freeman on the Land" any place other than in the wilderness? If you are in any kind of metro area, you are a part of society, whether you like it or not.

Key word: Legally not lawfully

The laws are still unconstitutional whether or not they are upheld in some areas, as the laws do not promote the general welfare of the people.
The 21st Amendment specifically mandates the states to control the importation and sale of alcoholic beverages in their respective jurisdictions. How can the Constitution be unconstitutional? :confused:
 
Well, I tried. As expected, Bluekush failed to understand even the most elementary of arguments about what public goods are and why we need them. He thinks is perfectly OK to allow him to "decline" fire protection and let the city burn.

All is not lost though. Every year I give the same metaphor to my freshman students and 99% of them get it. If freshmen college students can understand it, I know its not a complicated concept.

See the problem he refuses to acknowledge is not the burning of the other houses, ( in my opinion. ) though he does refuse to acknowledge this. It is the following.

Bluekush knows that if the hypothetical was real, that the firemen would put out his house fire, regardless of if he pays or not, because decent people care about others. Whether the other in question is Blue himself, or the neighbors who don't want their house on fire.

Freemen, don't. They rely on the fact that the rest of us have a sense of decency and will take a monetary hit in order to save a life. Almost no cop would let a person get shot, tax paying or not. Almost no paramedic would let someone die tax paying or not. And the freeloaders know this.

What they hope for is the ability to not pay taxes but still get the benefits because they know, only the most hard hearted people would let someone die in a burning building because they didn't pay a tax.

This is the inherent flaw in the freeman system. ( assuming we lived in freemanland.) those of us willing to pay taxes would be taking the hit while freemen would still get the benefits.

It is despicable, plain and simple. But we have plenty of prisons to send them too if they do not comply with our laws, and plenty of guns to stop them assuming they try something violent. So i don't worry about living in freemanland any time soon.
 
You may say that people shouldn't act like that, and you're probably right - they shouldn't, and in a perfect world, they wouldn't. However, this world is far from perfect and scared people tend to concentrate only on their own safety. It takes a certain amount of perspective to consider the public good when your house is on fire, and most people lack that ability to step back and take the long view. Fortunately even for the footlers, most societies understand the benefit of public fire protection and specially trained and equipped personnel show up when a fire alarm is turned in and risk their lives to protect our lives and our property.

I believe what you have just described - in a far more detailed manner than I tried - is the classic tragedy of the commons problem. (I'm sure you know all this, but its just for the FOTLers.) Tragedy of the commons - what occurs when individual actors all share the same problem that requires cooperation to solve, but in a policy context (Freeman Utopia) where such cooperation cannot be enforced. And the tragedy of the commons sort of problem is exactly why we need things like blanket fire protection which do not require consent. I actually posted something like this scenario on the DI forum, and not one Freeman could figure out a solution - they started nitpicking the details of the scenario in order to obfuscate and the thread got buried under an avalanche of it.

They instinctively know scenarios like this - as with all tragedy of the commons issues (another good one is international fishing rights, but its probably to complex for them) - shows the inherent, critical flaw in their ideology. Which is why your post will be dismissed by our resident Sovereign very, very quickly.
 
See the problem he refuses to acknowledge is not the burning of the other houses, ( in my opinion. ) though he does refuse to acknowledge this. It is the following.

This is an excellent analysis - and I agree with you. Freeman ideology requires them to be free riders because they know that most people won't act like them. They advocate for their propaganda as being some sort of universal truth, yet they know the only reason why they can "decline" to pay taxes and still have their house under common fire protection paid for by taxes is that most people are decent people. Its only if we were all Freeman on the Land that their house would burn - (and ours would too, since the fire would spread).

Freeman on the Land relies on someone to pay - as long as it isn't them.
 
During the Roman Republic fire services were provided by private companies. How did it work? Badly! Not only were they not very good at putting out fires they were also corrupt. The kind of people who owned fire control companies were also very often property developers. A massive conflict of interest (especially in a society without any concept of insurance). Augustus took fire fighting into state control & instituted the 'vigiles' & things got better. (excepting Nero :eek:)

The FMOTL obsession with Roman Maxims as though they are legal 'magic spells' is pregnant with irony. The Romans passed mountains of legislation & had a vibrant culture of litigation. They also owned lots of slaves (I mean real slaves & not the freeman type) who by law had to be tortured befote their evidence was admissable in Court.

How can they have their cake & eat it? They take to heart as irrevocable legal truths these maxims & disregard the very 'unfreeman' society that created them.
 
This is an excellent analysis - and I agree with you. Freeman ideology requires them to be free riders because they know that most people won't act like them. They advocate for their propaganda as being some sort of universal truth, yet they know the only reason why they can "decline" to pay taxes and still have their house under common fire protection paid for by taxes is that most people are decent people. Its only if we were all Freeman on the Land that their house would burn - (and ours would too, since the fire would spread).

Freeman on the Land relies on someone to pay - as long as it isn't them.

And i mean this doesn't even scratch the surface of a bunch of other issues. Like, for example.

I am a freeman, i do not consent to pay for fire taxes. I have a house fire, a small one( similar to a real house fire i had earlier this year, little damage even after 8 hours of smoldering , but if we didn't have firemen spraying water the entire time it would have eaten the house. In case your wondering blown insulation and knob and tube wiring were the cause.), and the fire department comes in.

" No, you cannot put out this fire." The freeman says.

And now, he gets to have all of his property replaced by his insurance company when there is no real reason, because if he would have done the decent thing, a good portion of said property could have been saved.

The Fotl garbage seems to just spawn ways to screw people over. Except, of course, the freemen.
 
Posted on Ickes
Not technically a failure just yet but I suspect its not too far off.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124084
The following is a transcript of what transpired this morning in court, I wrote this 30 minutes after it took place while the events were still fresh.
To the best of my knowledge this is what transpired:

The charges involved are traffic tickets, driving on a revoked license (on my bicycle!!) granted its a low speed motorized bicycle it has a 48cc gas motor
but its perfectly legal to have and my states laws (illinois) show that I do not need a license they just require you to be 16. I was also charged with an obstruction of justice charge for not giving ID to the officer and only stating that I was called Matt or Matthew when asked for my last name I stated I did not have one which lead to the charge. At the jail I gave my family name, but made sure they made the distinction that it was a family name and not my last name. I then used my right to remain silent and did not answer any more questions. Also I have charges that alledge that I was driving a scooter (not registered, licensed, or titled to me) I ran from the cops and ditched the scooter. Which they said they found parked in a parking lot. In their sworn affidavit they say they saw me retrieve papers from the scooter and run off. They say a witness who did not wish to be involved pointed to my house and said a white man ran in there. They said they found my tax form in the seat compartment of the scooter (this is a friend of mines scooter, I forgot the tax paper at his house where I filled it out and he put it in his seat compartment so he wouldnt lose it and to give back to me) On the day I supposedly was in this police chase, I was in key west florida. I have pictures, receipts, and witnesses to verify this. I have a gas motor on my bicycle which I can legally drive without a license, why would I use someone else's scooter which does require a license. Makes no sense on top of my being away in florida (I reside in Illinois) I currently have a claim to right, and notice of intent which was not responded to when sent to the various legal departments and public officials. I also have a default judgement notarized. Now its been almost 2 months since my bicycle was taken, not to mention my friends scooter is impounded because supposedly I was driving it. I dont know if it was involved in a police chase or not, I just know it was not me who was in it and apparently nobody was ever caught so its just the paperwork and a supposed witness who isnt involved.


(I went to court today, under a special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.
When the judge entered the chambers I did not rise
The bailiff immedieatly came to me and told me when the judge entered I had to stand, quite aggressively in demeanor
I informed him I was there on a special appearance
He said he didnt care, then walked off.
He returned and asked my name
I said I am commonly called Matthew
He said Matthew what
I said I am here on behalf of Matthew Wollin
He told me to leave the court room, I said I would go sit in the hall and when he calls me
to refer to me as Matthew
2 Hours later he called Matthew Wollin
I said I am here for that matter and followed him to the door.
I stopped at the door.
Before I entered into the court room I asked from the doorway if the record was on.
I was told there was no court recorder.
So no there was no record.
I said I was here on a special appearance to dispute the jurisdiction of the court, and that I would only
enter into the proceedings on the record.
I again asked if we were on the record,
The judge said the clerk was keeping a record and that if I did not enter into the room he would have a warrant issued for not appearing in court
Then I informed the judge that I was entering into this room and engaging in the proceedings with a full reservation of my inalienable rights.
Again the judge said if I did not enter into the room, he would have a warrant issued and that he would take a 2 minute recess for me to decide.
I did not require 2 minutes to decide so I again stated since there was no objection from the courts I was entering into the proceedings with a full reservation of my inalienable rights.
I entered the room.
I asked the judge if he had a oath of office, he said he wasn't going to answer that.
I asked politely if he doesnt have an oath of office how am I to know if he was a judge or not? I said I wanted him to qualify his oath of office.
He said he doesnt have to answer that.
He then asked the clerk if they had the criminal complaint to which she did, and handed it over to him.
He asked if I had the criminal complaint
I told him I had nothing but the tickets
He ordered copies made of the prosecutions discovery, and had them handed to me.
I signed my natural name Matthew of the Wollin to aknowledge receipt of the prosecutions discovery.
He asked if I understand the charges
I said I did not stand under those charges.
He read me the charges, I said I understood what the charges themselves were I just did not understand the nature and cause of the proceedings.
Again he asked if I understood the charges
I said again I do not stand under those charges.
He said I needed to enter a guilty plea, or not guilty.
I said I had some questions to the nature of the charges.
The judge told me I am not allowed to talk, and if I talk again he will have me held in contempt of court.
I asked if that was criminal or civil contempt.
He did not answer.
He said he was entering a not guilty plea on my behalf, and advising me to retain counsel.
I told him I was perfectly capable of speaking for myself, and did not need counsel.

He again told me Im not allowed to talk anymore, and that he was entering a not guilty plea on my behalf.
I said I did not enter that plea
He told me to be quiet or he will hold me in contempt
He also added that it was noted that I did not voluntarily enter that plea.

I asked him if this was a Private court, I informed him that I was guaranteed rights and guaranteed to be heard in this court.
He did not answer,
Again he said he was entering a not guilty plea and setting it for hearing in 10 days
I told him I also had a motion to vacate the bench warrants that were currently on me.
Motion was granted, bench warrants vacated.
Bond forfeiture was cancelled.
He also stated if I try any of that stuff again, dishounoring his court, disrespecting him, speaking out of turn
he will have me thrown in jail. He asked if I understood?
I did not answer I was thinking about what he said
the Judge was getting mad and the bailiff was starting to aggresively approach me again
Again the judge asked if I understood
I said nothing and turned to leave
The bailiff positioned himself between me and the door.
Again the judge asked if I understood, sensing imminent threat to my freedom I said Yes, the bailiff stepped aside and I walked out)


I still plan on doing the exact same thing when i return to court, I am also filing a motion for substition of judge. I have been attempting to file a complaint against the judge for impersonating a public official by refusal to qualify his oath. Any advice or opinions on the matter are welcome and appreciated. Im still new to the freeman philosophy but I have kids, a family and cant afford to lose or just comp the plea like they would enjoy. I need every penny I have to feed, clothe, and house my family not to mention get around since my bicycle is in impound I have 2k in bond money on file with the courts, im tapped. Sold my plasma screen tv just to help hold me over, lost my job because with my bicycle gone I could not make it to work anymore much to far for me to walk. I attempted to have the officer who arrested me served with a notice for the commercial lien process but he has refused to sign it. Im debating paying the sheriff to hand deliver my notice.

-Matt

I like the bit I highlighted.
 
Last edited:
Again, it will be the family that suffers; his stupidity seems to be making things pretty bad right now.

Yeah, that rigamarole was much easier than just pleading not guilty and bringing the evidence that you were in Florida. What a waste.
 
It would appear he is looking at jail time, and for what, stumbling across the likes of Menard and getting dumb advice no doubt.

JB
 

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