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

[Ladewig]

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)

I asked these questions because I thought that the posters accusing you of selectively choosing which laws to follow were being unfair. You had clearly stated that crimes that have victims are mala in se so there was a bright line defining your distinction.

Now I have to agree with your critics. Using a toll road and not paying the toll is stealing from the road's owner. There is clear harm and a clear victim. Theft of services is still theft.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Psst, if you quoted what was referenced , instead of a post three or four posts later, you might understand things a bit better. Pass it on.

Seriously, is quoting a reference to a point, in hopes people didn't read the point intellectually honest where you come from?

And btw, what is a child argument? Is that like a little argument that doesn't want to eat its vegetables? Do the adult arguments have to put it in the corner?

 

[kerikiwi]

If other people pay for fire protection they will receive the service.

And because of the freeman, their risk is higher. See if you can figure out why.

 

[talkie toaster]

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

True but at least she can rightfully graze any sheep she may acquire on the Knavesmire, without the need to use spurious latin phrases to do so.

 

[Ladewig]

this discussion is for a different thread/day.

How can questions related to a government's jurisdiction be off-topic or inappropriate in a thread in which the last three pages have been devoted to government having or not having a right to pass laws and levy taxes. The whole thread hinges on this issue? Why won't you answer?


ETA: thanks for answering all the other questions

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

Well, as has been pointed out the 14th Amendment to your Constitution says they have jurisdiction. To back it up the US Govt has some very big sticks.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

I have not been "Debunked".

AHHH. I see what you are doing. Instead of answering my questions YOU have assumed and created what you dub a "Freeman Utopia", which is utterly dishonest and an erroneous claim too make to this discussion.

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THERE WILL EVER ONLY BE FREEMAN, this is YOUR ASSUMPTION. I have abundantly said over and over that Freeman and the current Government can exist together. There is NOT one or the other.

Also the claim that if everyone is Freeman there wouldn't be a adequate fire service is another false assumption and erroneous claim. The US is essentially a freeman society and they have everything you want and deem public good including fire service.

Also not to mention claiming that the fire will spread is another false assumption to only solidify your argument. What if the Freeman had zeo neighbors to begin with or if they lived 200 yards from any neighbor and the surrounding area was all concrete so the fire had nothing to spread too?

Your arguments hold ZERO water. Everything you state as fact is only your deluded opinion.

LID your argument is this:

"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, this is some seriously sick mentality ill stance 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.

Your a hypocrite who is crying life is not fair as you claim the freeman to be.

Since you basically dodged all my questions and the whole post i will reask the main questions:

"Who says fireman cant put the fire out? Especially if it begins to spread beyond the non serviced (payed for) area? Don't the firemen have a duty to protect a paying customers property?"

Dont forget this is not under your assumed "freeman utopia" this is under current real life.

 

[Mojo]

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

If they try the approach apparently being suggested here, I think they are likely to come up against the doctrine of vos quod cuius exercitus?

 

[Bluekush623]

Try not complying with one of those "abolished" laws and see if it stays "abolished" from your life.

Americans do it everyday concerning the British Government.

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

Oh jeez, talk about grasping at air. Im not even going to reply to that scenario.

FOTL deniers do nothing but speculate.

 

[talkie toaster]

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

If i remember, she also has the right to drive cattle through the Walmgate on the second Sunday after lent or some such worthless benefit.
It is, however, worth more than any of this FOTL rubbish I would hazard.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Ok that you, finally someone admitting the fact that it is all by power or enforcement.

And just so you know by gun point is not a lawful and therefore legal practice. It is highly ILLEGAL.

If you want to say by gun point is legitimate when then you are saying criminals are free to do whatever they want as long as they have a gun.

(I will also contend that Nazi Germany was fooled at the beginning and then forced to follow their foolish intentions)

 

[LightinDarkness]

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)

I love it when he does this to himself.

You just agreed that everyone should be paying their taxes, since failing to do so would make you in violation of a mala in se, which you said everyone should follow. By not paying your taxes and taking advantage of government benefits - like roads and fire protection - you are stealing from a public agency.

Thanks for playing, come again!

 

[LightinDarkness]

Oh jeez, talk about grasping at air. Im not even going to reply to that scenario.

FOTL deniers do nothing but speculate.

He won't reply because he just realized that this scenario demonstrates the fatal flaws of his propaganda, exactly as I predicted.

 

[Bluekush623]

Seriously. "Consent" at the point of a .357 Magnum is not really Consent.

If i said that it would be hogwash.

 

[LightinDarkness]

I have not been "Debunked".

AHHH. I see what you are doing. Instead of answering my questions YOU have assumed and created what you dub a "Freeman Utopia", which is utterly dishonest and an erroneous claim too make to this discussion.

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THERE WILL EVER ONLY BE FREEMAN, this is YOUR ASSUMPTION. I have abundantly said over and over that Freeman and the current Government can exist together. There is NOT one or the other.

Also the claim that if everyone is Freeman there wouldn't be a adequate fire service is another false assumption and erroneous claim. The US is essentially a freeman society and they have everything you want and deem public good including fire service.

Also not to mention claiming that the fire will spread is another false assumption to only solidify your argument. What if the Freeman had zeo neighbors to begin with or if they lived 200 yards from any neighbor and the surrounding area was all concrete so the fire had nothing to spread too?

Your arguments hold ZERO water. Everything you state as fact is only your deluded opinion.

LID your argument is this:

"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, this is some seriously sick mentality ill stance 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.

Your a hypocrite who is crying life is not fair as you claim the freeman to be.

Since you basically dodged all my questions and the whole post i will reask the main questions:

"Who says fireman cant put the fire out? Especially if it begins to spread beyond the non serviced (payed for) area? Don't the firemen have a duty to protect a paying customers property?"

Dont forget this is not under your assumed "freeman utopia" this is under current real life.

This yet again demonstrates you are either (1) delusional or (2) just ranting at every post without reading. There isn't even anything to respond to, since you failed to actually address anything I said and I've debunked your previous "questions". In fact, you still haven't answered the question I posed to you pages ago.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Then we mine as well get rid of the court system and jail.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

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?

Who says you have to buy anything?

If it wasnt for "this society" people could live off the land just like 100 years ago.

 

[Mojo]

Americans do it everyday concerning the British Government.

That is because they have removed themselves from the geographical jurisdiction of the Crown. I think there was some little incident back in the 1770s.

If you want to ignore the laws of a particular country, you need to leave that country's jurisdiction, whether by emigration or (if you can get enough pals involved) secession. If you want to stay in the jurisdiction but not obey the laws, then you will need to get those laws repealed.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

this is an inherent wrong assumption.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Assuming the freeman would deny a fire to be put out is an erroneous claim to make, as it the the Freeman denier who says they wont allow for their money to put out a freeman fire.

I mean seriously, no one here has any valid arguments.