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

[tsig]

t.



Excuse me while I roll my eyes. I suggest that taxes be levied against everyone to pay for a police force that arrests murderers and you label that philosophy as fascist. Do you even understand what that word means? I am going to have to agree with the other posters: freeloaders on the land is the most accurate description. You want the benefit of being protected against violent crimes without paying any contributions.

Thank you for answering all my questions. I will not be asking any more because I now have a complete picture of your version of FOTL. It is a laughable and foolish political system that is inherently unsupportable. In the General Politics subforum there is a thread advocating anarchism. I can see no difference between your flavor of FOTL and the anarchism described in that thread.



________________________________________
ETA: I just want to add one more government supplied benefit that the FOTL enjoy but don't want to pay for: A widely-accepted currency that is hard to counterfeit but is accepted by foreigners.

The problem with anarchy is that everyone would have to be a saint to make it work.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Because if paying for these services were private and voluntary, not enough people would pay to make it possible to provide them.

Pay very close attention to this.

Then, read this, keeping the above in mind.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What Im asking is why cant a freeman pay privately to the United States Corporation for services such as fire protection/security, instead of having to pay publicly through taxes?

Because it is impossible to tease out precisely what an individual owes for the benefits he or she gains, due, once again, to the entanglement society is trapped in with the individual.

Or, put another way and repeating myself, what do you owe the fireman who saves your neighbor's home from burning?

 

[Bluekush623]

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

toxic is a highly erroneous false claim to make, with no evidence.

however if you want to make the argument, alcohol and tobacco ARE THE MOST TOXIC substances yet they are the government approved drugs.

 

[Bluekush623]

This train of thought is too stupid to continue.

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

oh whatever, because im right im stupid.

i will repeat it.

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.

 

[Bluekush623]

See, here's what you seem to be missing:

By remaining inside the Territory claimed by the United States Gov't (and it's associated territories), you have de facto consented. If you choose not to consent to the laws of said Territorial ownership, you are free to move to a location not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In short: By choosing to remain in the US, you are consenting to being governed by the US. By choosing to remain a part of the United States and the society thereof, you have de facto consented to being governed by the laws and regulations thereof. That is, precisely, what "de facto" means.

wrong, i have already gone over this many many times.

tacit consent it not a valid argument, because no one consented to be born in america.

 

[Bluekush623]

Really? 100 years ago everybody lived off the land? What planet was that?

Kiwi, Cmon please read and develop some cognitive abilities.

I said people COULD, not that everyone did.

 

[TSR]

toxic is a highly erroneous false claim to make, with no evidence.

.
Hold that thought.
.

however if you want to make the argument, alcohol and tobacco ARE THE MOST TOXIC substances yet they are the government approved drugs.

.
Let's see your evidence then, hmmn?

And then maybe you'd like to show us where "persons" is defined in the US Constitution such that the usual definition as it relates to an individual as "any individual human being" is somehow changed, since it is so key to understanding Amendment 14?
.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

wrong, i have already gone over this many many times.

tacit consent it not a valid argument, because no one consented to be born in america.

And America did not consent to have you born in it, except to the extent they did not force your mother to abort.

 

[TSR]

tacit consent it not a valid argument, because no one consented to be born in america.

.
But you *have* consented to stay, and make use of services offered by that government -- or are you unaware of how and why the Internet itself was developed? How much have you paid for that basic R&D?
.

 

[Bluekush623]

People lived off the land in 1910? Which history books have you been reading?

You're a head, then? Thought so.

ETA: A couple of posts ago, you called me 'another know it all.' I'm not. I know very little about law. FYI I'm engaged in a long and bitter contact battle with my ex. I feel that the system assumes in disputes of this type that the man is always in the wrong and anything the woman says is true. They've certainly swallowed a load of evidence free lies by my ex.

It has poisoned me against the legal professions. I even feel that my own legal team don't believe my side of the story and are just happily raking in the cash that I release from the public purse. These days, I refer to solicitors as 'black rats' and the Department for Work and Pensions, and the CSA as 'the sonderkommando.'

I would dearly love to believe there was a magic phrase I could use to free myself from the courts jurisdiction, tell the lawyers to screw themselves and see my little girl whenever I wanted without my ex being able to stop me. But I'm also relatively bright, and relatively good at smelling bs; if you can't convince me, who doesn't understand the law very well and would love for all this nonsense to be true, how the hell do expect to convince anybody else?

Great you admitted you know very little. Yet you somehow have a strong BS meter for law.

These 2 statements are in contradiction.

 

[Bluekush623]

Nope. Still doesn't make sense:

It doesn't matter, he is breaking the common law and consenting to breaking the common law by punching the unconsented.

Does this mean he consents to breaking the law by breaking the law?

omg. kiwi you are next to be ignored. your cognitive abilities are not good enough for this convo. you say it doesnt make sense, then 2 sentences later you understand it.

Yes "Consented to breaking the law by punching" means he consents to breaking the law by breaking the law. There is no other way to consent to breaking the law.

 

[Bluekush623]

This is an open forum. Everyone who sticks to the rules can join in.
You consent to those rules by using the forum.
And I thought you weren't FOTL.

Ok, so?

He is still butting into a conversation he was not apart of. It is rude and impolite no matter what the forum rules are. Just like real life.

 

[Bluekush623]

Happens all the time.

Happens but it still is not lawful. Which is my point.

 

[Bluekush623]

He has yet to learn one of life's lessons:

Never piss off the man who can lock you up

That is not a life lesson. That is a sissy move for survival (like i said in my previous closing statement).

 

[Bluekush623]

Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
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.

Seems like he did mention it.

He did not mention it in the original question though, as stated the question was:

"not paying a toll on a private toll road (or on a public toll road)"

Like i said there is no mention of using the road. If it were worded that way then i guess i would be (mala in se).

So whatever, Im not wrong, this is only a case of miscommunication.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

He did not mention it in the original question though, as stated the question was:

"not paying a toll on a private toll road (or on a public toll road)"

Like i said there is no mention of using the road. If it were worded that way then i guess i would be (mala in se).

So whatever, Im not wrong, this is only a case of miscommunication.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on

 

[BobTheDonkey]

wrong, i have already gone over this many many times.

tacit consent it not a valid argument, because no one consented to be born in america.

That's true, you did not consent to being born here. However, you have consented to remaining here after the point in which the United States decrees you are subject to it's laws/regulations due to de facto consent.

When you drive down the road, you are de facto consenting to adhere to the laws pertaining to that road as set by the owners thereof. Pretty simple concept, really. You choose to use the services provided by the United States of America (and it's territories/subsidiaries/representatives/etc), including but not limited to toll roads, highways, city streets, fire services, police services, military services, trash collection, et al, you are de facto consenting to adhere to the rules/regulations/laws of the United States of America.

ETA: Coincidentally, this applies to those of our friends/neighbors "across the pond" (you know who you are - here's looking at you Sledge) who choose to visit the United States, and conversely, those of us from here in the United States who choose to visit other Nations do so with the de facto consent that we will abide by the rules/regulations/laws as set out by the governing body in whichever territory we may be in. While some leeway is allowed due to differences in legality, ultimately, when I travel to England, my presence there implies consent with their laws.

 

[Bluekush623]

So you have no answer? Or was the example too long for your limited attention span? Or is the blue haze screwing with your comprehension?

Correct, I have no answer for an assumed/speculated scenario because i deal in reality.

When will you be ceasing your internet use, then?

Well, see, he's at a real disadvantage with this question - if he admits he pays taxes then he's just spit all over his FOTL principles. If he admits he doesn't have a job and doesn't pay taxes, he proves what the rest of us have been saying this whole time.

For the sake of intellect you people need to start reading or stay out of the discussion.

I have covered this many many many times now. MY PERSONAL STATUS has no relevance to the argument, this discussion is about the Law and Freeman theories/practices. It is not about whether or not i am allowed to become a freeman.

 

[TSR]

He did not mention it in the original question though, as stated the question was:

"not paying a toll on a private toll road (or on a public toll road)"

Like i said there is no mention of using the road. If it were worded that way then i guess i would be (mala in se).

So whatever, Im not wrong, this is only a case of miscommunication.

.
Seriously? You're going to try to pretend that "not paying a toll on a toll road" in this context does not reasonably imply subsequent use of that road?
.