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

[Bluekush623]

So Bluekush623, do you have a problem with a jurisdiction using a sales tax to fund

1) a fire department
2) a police department that arrests people accused of mala in se crimes
3) a judicial system that determines the innocence or guilt of mala in se criminals
4) a system of public roads
5) a army used to defend the borders of the country
6) a voluntary system of vaccination

this discussion is for a different thread/day.

 

[Bluekush623]

Bluekush623, how widely accepted among freemen is the concept that no one can own land?

I dont know what other people think. I just know that no one lawfully owns any land.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Oh wait, i could do all of that. So um, where is this oppression?

Haven't you ever seen a stop sign?!

 

[sadhatter]

Haven't you ever seen a stop sign?!

No i was too busy engaging in a protest , listening to anti government music, while my female friends walked around topless ( legal where i live), on my way to a sex club, then to go see a film banned in a few other countries.

Yeah i can see how the man is keeping us down.

 

[carlitos]

Of course states dont need your consent to exist. However they need your consent to claim jurisdiction over a you.

I hate to bring up the Constitution again, but that document appears to disagree with you.

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Additionally, US Code clarifies who is a 'natural born citizen' of the US. Are you suggesting that states don't have jurisdiction over citizens of that state?

 

[Bluekush623]

Bluekush623, please indicate which of the following, if any, are mala in se

1) drunk driving (mala pro)
2) driving without insurance or the financial resources to pay for damage arising from an accident that you caused (mala pro)
3) lying about the medical benefits of a product being advertised (mala in se)
4) legalizing prostitution but requiring prostitutes to get monthly medical checkups (mala pro)
5) lying on an application for a loan (mala in se)
6) not paying a toll on a private toll road (or on a public toll road) (mala pro)
7) stealing from a public agency (mala in se)

 

[Bluekush623]

Yes, they do.

No, they aren't.

You don't need to "fight to physically alter and abolish" laws to get them altered or abolished. You have this thing called democracy. You can start a campaign and get someone voted in who will alter or abolish the laws you don't like. But until you accomplish that, they apply to you whether you like it or not.

The document you cited purported (in your interpretation) to give a right to alter or abolish laws, not to ignore them if you don't feel like complying.

Did Americans alter/abolish the British Monarch? No, So freeman dont have to alter/abolish the American government.

Not to mention Americans HAD to physically fight for the right to ignore then Crown. So we are past this point now.

 

[kerikiwi]

this discussion is for a different thread/day.

Why?

 

[Bluekush623]

What if the puncher refuses to consent with the authorities?

It doesnt matter, he is breaking common law and consenting to it breaking the law by punching the unconsented.

This has been a failed attempt to discredit consent for ever now and it holds no weight.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Did Americans alter/abolish the British Monarch? No, So freeman dont have to alter/abolish the American government.

They redefined the jurisdiction of the British Monarch. By force.

Likewise, you will have to redefine the jurisdiction of the United States government by force. Good luck. I'm not wearing a tie for your funeral.

 

[sadhatter]

Did Americans alter/abolish the British Monarch? No, So freeman dont have to alter/abolish the American government.

Not to mention Americans HAD to physically fight for the right to ignore then Crown. So we are past this point now.

So , the freemen just need to organize a military force, find a country that they think they can take over, and take it over. I , for one , would love to see this. Above and beyond making my point that enforceability is the crux of the law, it would be kinda entertaining to watch.

So, um whatcha waiting for?

 

[Bluekush623]

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

That was actually 4.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Above and beyond making my point that enforceability is the crux of the law...

Aye. "Covenants without the sword..." and all that.

Seriously, can we just assign a book report on Hobbes and call it a day?

 

[kerikiwi]

Did Americans alter/abolish the British Monarch? No, So freeman dont have to alter/abolish the American government.

The second does not logically follow from the first. (I have a slight feeling of deja vu...) There is no if/then relationship.
And the answer to the first is, yes, Americans did alter the British Monarch. The British Monarch was monarch of the Americans, and then was not. A definite alteration there. So according to your reasoning (and yes, this one does logically follow) freemen (plural) do have to alter or abolish the American government.

 

[Bluekush623]

My sister-in-law was granted freeman of York status or similar, it entitled her to graze sheep on the Knavesmire, not avoid taxes or speeding tickets.

Although Freeman of York is not a Freeman on the Land.

 

[sadhatter]

Aye. "Covenants without the sword..." and all that.

Seriously, can we just assign a book report on Hobbes and call it a day?

If you can somehow post a book to youtube while crappy techno plays. That is the only way your going to get one of these guys to read it.

 

[kerikiwi]

It doesnt matter, he is breaking common law and consenting to it breaking the law by punching the unconsented.

This sentence needs rephrasing. As it stands it is incomprehensible.

 

[sadhatter]

Although Freeman of York is not a Freeman on the Land.

And holy cow folks he knocks another lobbed softball right out of the park. How does he do it? A perfect 100% success rate at every half hearted, half joke, half serious thing on here, and the crowd goes..........

Yawn.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Oh Please, I understand you child arguments however I dont agree with them as they are childish.

Just because a freeman house may burn down and he is ok with accepting the damage as he did not pay for protection it does not mean the whole city will burn down unless if everyone wants the city to burn. If other people pay for fire protection they will receive the service.

 

[jargon buster]

Although Freeman of York is not a Freeman on the Land.

But one of them is real and one of them is not.
Guess which bluecush?

JB