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

[carlitos]

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.

But it's not 100 years ago.

You maintain that Freemen can co-exist with the current US government.

I ask "how could you do this unless it's off the land in the wilderness?"

Your response is that you don't have to "buy anything."

Please elaborate - how could one live in a populated area without buying anything? To start, where would you live?

 

[Bluekush623]

Cops are not rich, and they are the ones that physically enforce the laws. I fail to see how this is an issue of the rich keeping the poor down, when the crux of the law ( enforcement) makes slightly above average pay at best. No cops, no law. Plain and simple. A law that cannot be enforced has no power whatsoever.

oh come on.

we know the cops are not the "man" they follow the orders of the man.

 

[Bluekush623]

So a murderer can simply say, "I do not consent to the state's jurisdiction. No arrest warrants for me, thank you"?

Why does everyone ignore and forget the Common law?

 

[Bluekush623]

Oh yeah we live in a total police state, i mean why can't i drink a beer in my living room while smoking a cigar, while not believing in god, watching porn, talking crap about the government, writing my opinions on the internet for all to see, and maybe having a three way if i get time?

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

Big whoop you can drink liquor and smoke tobacco (The 2 deadliest drugs) and have the option to believe in fiction, watch porn, talk crap and write your opinions.

But you cant take other substances such peyote, lsd, psilocybin, dmt, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, meth countless other drugs. Because they are not "safe", its hysterical. This is the oppression.

 

[Bluekush623]

You're still here. What more consent do they need?

You are only assuming someone is accepting government services.

Also why cant freeman pay privately for what other people pay publicly aka taxes?

 

[Bluekush623]

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

14th Amendment

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?

key word is "persons".

 

[Ladewig]

Why does everyone ignore and forget the Common law?

I can answer that one. I forgot about common law because in your post you said, "However they need your consent to claim jurisdiction over a you." You did not say, excepting Common Law, a government needs consent. Furthermore, at no point in this thread have you you have ever said local, state, or federal governments have the right and jurisdiction to enforce any laws at all. In addition, you have not acknowledged that local, state, or federal governments have the right to tax people in order to fund a police force.

Feel free to clear that up right now. Can taxes(of any sort) be used to hire police forces to arrest violent criminals?

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

This would invalidate what this government/society is, and why every FOTL denier's assumption is wrong.

 

[Ladewig]

You are only assuming someone is accepting government services.

Also why cant freeman pay privately for what other people pay publicly aka taxes?

Because it is absurd to think that freeman can privately pay for a security force that can protect the U.S. from invasion. A publicly-funded army is the only workable solution.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

Nope, because the US has to play by the rules they set for themselves.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

No they did not alter the monarch, they altered their status, big difference.

 

[Bluekush623]

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

"Consented to breaking the law by punching".."it" should be removed.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You are only assuming someone is accepting government services.

No. You are receiving government services. At the absolute least, even if you don't buy anything, use no roads, were not publicly educated, are somehow not accessing the internet through one or another media enabled and protected by the government, even if you are somehow managing to avoid all of this, by your mere physical presence, you are living under the protection of the US military.

Pay up.

Also why cant freeman pay privately for what other people pay publicly aka taxes?

The aforementioned entanglement. There is no way to ravel the threads that bind you to the society in which you live, and (the point you keep missing), them to you.

How much should you pay to the firemen who put out the fire at your neighbor's house?

 

[TSR]

key word is "persons".

.
And since it is so key, how is it defined in that document such that the usual definition as it relates to an individual as "any individual human being" is somehow changed?
.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

This would invalidate what this government/society is, and why every FOTL denier's assumption is wrong.

I suppose you could say overthrowing it would invalidate it, after a fashion, but if it is not invalidated already (that is, if it is currently valid), why should you not be subject to its laws?

 

[carlitos]

key word is "persons".

.
And since it is so key, how is it defined in that document such that the usual definition as it relates to an individual as "any individual human being" is somehow changed?
.

I have the same question. What in the world makes "persons" the key word in the 14th Amendment? It doesn't apply to dogs or horses, it applies to people.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

So I was only wrong on the toll road? That is hardly agreeing with my critics.

Also not paying a toll is NOT theft, there is no damaged or stolen road. It is a fee which is legal by the consent of using the road.

you made no mention of using the road and not paying the toll, which is what i think you meant.

 

[Bluekush623]

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?

go re read and you will find the childish argument. Just more assuming and ignorance from a FOTL denier dipping into a conversation that was not directed towards them.

 

[Paul]

...you cant take other substances such peyote, lsd, psilocybin, dmt, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, meth countless other drugs. Because they are not "safe", its hysterical. This is the oppression.

Seriously, you think you're being oppressed because you can't ingest toxic chemicals?

 

[Ladewig]

So I was only wrong on the toll road? That is hardly agreeing with my critics.

Also not paying a toll is NOT theft, there is no damaged or stolen road. It is a fee which is legal by the consent of using the road.

you made no mention of using the road and not paying the toll, which is what i think you meant.

This train of thought is too stupid to continue.

Pleasse address #887 and #889 when you have time.