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

[TSR]

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.

.
If these theories / practices are so great and and how things are supposed to have been all along, why would you *not* put them into actual practice, unless you knew the postulates above do not, in fact reflect reality.

Who is preventing you from implementing these practices? Don't you have the courage of your principles?
.

 

[Bluekush623]

The answer to this is simplicity itself. Please try to follow along:

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

Look, your under a false assumption (like LID) that the services are now somehow run independently from the government.

I have explicitly said that the United States Corp and its services are still going to exist, but why cant a freeman privately pay the United States Corp for the same services as its taxpayers pay publicly.

And if the people do not want the services let capitalism and freedom speak for itself.

And if you don't like your neighbors not having fire protection, MOVE. You don't live in the ghetto because it is your right, you stay away because you know the environment is not safe.

 

[LashL]

Look, your under a false assumption (like LID) that the services are now somehow run independently from the government.

I have explicitly said that the United States Corp and its services are still going to exist, but why cant a freeman privately pay the United States Corp for the same services as its taxpayers pay publicly.

And if the people do not want the services let capitalism and freedom speak for itself.

And if you don't like your neighbors not having fire protection, MOVE. You don't live in the ghetto because it is your right, you stay away because you know the environment is not safe.

There's stupid, there's utterly stupid, and then there's monumentally stupid. Guess which category the quoted post above falls under.

 

[Bluekush623]

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.

Yes it is fascist if the people do not want the service and it is forced unto them.

You can claim that it is Freeloaders on the land, but it is false claim. I dont see how one is freeloading when they DONT WANT THE SERVICE and accept not receiving the service.

It is actually the direct opposite of freeloading as they take responsibility for what they want and dont want.

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.

First of all FOTL is not a political system this is another false assumption.

Second, if you dont realize the difference between anarchism and FOTL you are just a fool, who is willingly making a false claim as you understand FOTL follows common law. which is so not like anarchism.

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.

money is not a benefit of government, it is a tool.

 

[Bluekush623]

There's stupid, there's utterly stupid, and then there's monumentally stupid. Guess which category the quoted post above falls under.

and your evidence is where?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

There's stupid, there's utterly stupid, and then there's monumentally stupid. Guess which category the quoted post above falls under.

I particularly love how he protests paying "publicly" for the services, but is willing to pay "privately". I don't know about the rest of the posters here, but I certainly pay my taxes in "private"...I like to think of it as a year's worth of bills for services rendered...

 

[KingMerv00]

Second, if you dont realize the difference between anarchism and FOTL you are just a fool, who is willingly making a false claim as you understand FOTL follows common law. which is so not like anarchism.

I don't think you understand what common law is. Common law is the history of precedent and judicial decisions. I've been through law school, most of which is the study of common law. At no point have I seen a FOTL case establish a standing precedent.

Can you give me an example of a precedent that supports FOTL?

 

[Bluekush623]

.
If these theories / practices are so great and and how things are supposed to have been all along, why would you *not* put them into actual practice, unless you knew the postulates above do not, in fact reflect reality.

Who is preventing you from implementing these practices? Don't you have the courage of your principles?
.

ANOTHER FALSE ASSUMPTION.

I never claimed that FOTL was "so great". However Freeman/Sovereignty is how things have been all along.

And again my own personal status has no relevance to the discussion so it doesnt matter what i do and dont do.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK. Whatever. I'll grant it all, every last drop of it. This is how things should work. This is how things are supposed to work, how they were meant to work, how they have, in fact, worked all along. This FOTL stuff is what's going on.

Fine. How, exactly, is it to be enforced?

 

[Bluekush623]

I don't think you understand what common law means. Common law is the history of precedent and judicial decisions. I've been through law school, most of which is the study of common law. At no point have I seen a FOTL case establish a standing precedent.

Can you give me an example of a precedent that supports FOTL?

Contract Law and consent.

 

[Bluekush623]

OK. Whatever. I'll grant it all, every last drop of it. This is how things should work. This is how things are supposed to work, how they were meant to work, how they have, in fact, worked all along. This FOTL stuff is what's going on.

Fine. How, exactly, is it to be enforced?

what is there to enforce?

 

[LashL]

There's stupid, there's utterly stupid, and then there's monumentally stupid. Guess which category the quoted post above falls under.

and your evidence is where?

I'm reading this as your acceptance that the category into which your quoted post falls is "monumentally stupid". It appears that you agree.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

what is there to enforce?

One's FOTL status. Let's say Jaime declares himself FOTL. What power backs his claim?

 

[KingMerv00]

Fine. How, exactly, is it to be enforced?

1) Get arrested for tax evasion.

2) Make a legal argument that doesn't work.

3) Declare you should have won

4) Ignore failure

5) Advise others to follow you

 

[KingMerv00]

Contract Law

That's not a precedent. That's a field of study. (A monstrously large and diverse one.)

and consent.

That's not a precedent. That's a legal element (or perhaps an affirmative defense).

Please provide a precedent.

 

[TSR]

.
Hold that thought.
.

.
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?
.

.
BK: you seem to have missed this post -- would you please answer the questions posed?
.

 

[kerikiwi]

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.

And such statements are senseless.

 

[TSR]

ANOTHER FALSE ASSUMPTION.

I never claimed that FOTL was "so great".

.
Then why are you spending so much time advocating it?
.

However Freeman/Sovereignty is how things have been all along.

.
Ah, great: then you'll have not a whit of problem pointing out a *single* time when these principles and practices have been successful in declining consent when legally challenged.

I'll wait right here.
.

And again my own personal status has no relevance to the discussion so it doesnt matter what i do and dont do.

.
Actually, I would submit that your obvious consent to accepting services (use of an Internet, most of the R&D in developing and maintaining of which came from governmental or academic sources) while insisting that one can "opt out" can only lead to one of two conclusions:

1. either you you pay your taxes making your insistence that sovereignty is and has been how things should be a proposition with which you yourself do not agree (else why would you *not* take advantage of it yourself,)

2 you privately pay the various governmental and academic entities to which you owe this medium of communication and instead of detailing for us how such payments are calculated and made (thereby ending all debate) you choose to base your advocacy on baseless assertion and deception.
.

 

[tsig]

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

If you don't survive you can't reproduce and therefore lose the genetic lottery.

You would rather not survive than be a sissy?

 

[Ladewig]

Yes it is fascist if the people do not want the service and it is forced unto them.

You can claim that it is Freeloaders on the land, but it is false claim. I dont see how one is freeloading when they DONT WANT THE SERVICE and accept not receiving the service.

It is actually the direct opposite of freeloading as they take responsibility for what they want and dont want.

So FOTL believe that they can opt out of police protection. The police apprehend and lock up murderers, rapists, and arsonists, but the Freemen say, "I'm not going to pay for benefits I receive from a local police force enforcing common law mala in se crimes." You are going to seriously argue that they don't want the service that a lawful and legal police force provides to the community (please ignore all drug laws and other laws related to victimless crimes in this part of the discussion). You are going to seriously argue that they don't receive huge benefits from having other people pay taxes to support the police.

Also, having FOTL opting out of military defense (again, for clarity's sake, we are not talking about foreign wars of any sort but merely patrolling our borders to prevent hostile countries from invading) results in them getting benefits that they cannot supply for themselves.

Summing up: The FOTL (1) are receiving benefits, (2) are pretending that they are not receiving benefits, and (3) are claiming that they have the right to not pay for these benefits.

First of all FOTL is not a political system this is another false assumption.

It is a way of defining the relationship between the governed and the government. It spells out what governing bodies may and may not do. It delineates between just and unjust laws. It enumerates the inalienable rights of the common man. It outlines the fundamental principles that every fair and lawful government must follow. How can it be anything other than a political system? What do you think it is?

Second, if you dont realize the difference between anarchism and FOTL you are just a fool, who is willingly making a false claim as you understand FOTL follows common law. which is so not like anarchism.

If you believe my assertion is false, please provide evidence. Show how everyone in the U.S. adopting FOTL tactics would not result in anarchy.

money is not a benefit of government, it is a tool.

And yet if no one paid for government services, then U.S. currency would stop being made and money would drop out of circulation due to wear and tear. It is a tool that is supplied by the government and this tool provides benefits to all people residing in the country.
......