The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
tobjai said:
Child of the state - why don't you try it out. Stop paying your taxes without lawful excuse and resist when they try to violently drag you to court/jail... we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

They would just deduct it out of your wages,distraint is the term,or the bailiffs will call.If you want to shoot at them,that's your business.
 
tobjai said:
Child of the state - why don't you try it out. Stop paying your taxes without lawful excuse and resist when they try to violently drag you to court/jail... we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

People HAVE stopped paying their taxes before now. Please find me an instance of someone being shot for refusing to pay taxes.
 
tobjai said:
Child of the state - why don't you try it out. Stop paying your taxes without lawful excuse and resist when they try to violently drag you to court/jail... we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

They can't drag you to court if you've made a Claim of right. You just inform them of your status and off you toddle, or so i've been reading.
 
Sledge said:
People HAVE stopped paying their taxes before now. Please find me an instance of someone being shot for refusing to pay taxes.
Click to expand...

I stopped paying my taxes and they didn't shoot me, i was water-boarded until i agreed to pay but shot, no. :D
 
Sledge said:
People HAVE stopped paying their taxes before now. Please find me an instance of someone being shot for refusing to pay taxes.
Click to expand...

One of the videos that Tobjai linked to said that if you stopped paying taxes they would put you in jail and if you tried to leave jail, they would use deadly force to keep you there. Hence, deadly force is used to enforce tax laws.

On this point, I am more inclined to agree than disagree with Tobjai, but then again, I don't consider the wording of this point to be in the top four most important things to be discussed.
 
He's wrong. I can't put it any more clearly than that. Our police force is not routinely armed, and our prison guards certainly aren't. The notion that someone would be shot for not paying taxes is absurd.
 
tobjai said:
!

Having said that, whether my "anarchist utopia" may work or not, I honestly don't know. Funding things may possibly be challanging (no need to say more, Ladewig). .
Click to expand...

If I lived in a country that was filled with the type of injustices that federal income tax imposed on people and I felt that it was so bad that I had to move to another country. I, personally, would want to know something about that other country before I moved there - like whether or not I would die in some type of lawless widespread violence that the government could not control. But that's just me. I acknowledge your right to not elaborate on the matter.

I am still curious about your current beliefs. If you break a "law" involving a victimless "crime," do you believe you will end up in jail or is there a legal principle or maxim that you can invoke that will cause the police/courts to release you? Do court documents in which your name is spelled in capital letters refer to you or to someone/something else?
 
tobjai said:
Then its self defence as a result of ilegitimately used violence.
Click to expand...
What is self defence? It can't possibly involve violence because "Violence is never, NEVER justifiable - period."

Use of the term ilegitimately used violence implies that you believe there is a legitimate use for violence, contradicting your own emphatic statement.


Is that what statism does Einstein?
Click to expand...
I see what you did there. You tried to imply that I am stupid by sarcastically referring to me by the name of a legitimate genius.

Your problem is that you betray your own inability to grasp a simple sentence and your obsession with parroting concepts without concern for context or understanding.


Correct
Click to expand...
WRONG.
Click to expand...
In the sentence above this one you clearly agreed the opposite.


Nobody has the right to force anything on anyone
Click to expand...
Did I mention right? Force doesn't care about right.


and most common human beings are in fact able to live peacefully and productively side by side with no need of the "above".
Click to expand...
None of which will help when the first person decides that they prefer you house and possessions to theirs and that you are not going to hinder their personal advancement.


Sure.
Click to expand...

though political disorder does not equal social disorder in case you're drawing this assumption
Click to expand...
I was providing a "true, undistorted definition of anarchy" which bears no relation to your confused First International anarchy.


All it says is that politicians have no power because that couldn't possibly be in a world where everybody is equal.
Click to expand...
In socialist fairyland maybe.
 
tobjai said:
Have I not already given you an anwer to that? It doesn't matter how exactly things are going to work! What matters only and solely is that a system of violance (statism always comes down to the force of will by the point of a gun) has no legitimacy, therefore it has to be abandoned. It didn't matter whether wages could possibly have plummeted, when traditional slavery was finally abandoned - It was solely a question of morals. Same applies for modern slavery today.

Now, in order to bypass any further back and forth and to subsequently save all of our time, I suggest you and everybody else on this form to have a look at the "handout for statists" by Stefan Molyneux. We've already established the dirt on his name. So since we're all aware of it, I'm hoping y'all are able to cut the chase now and concentrate on the actual subject. What matters only is reason and evidence. Lets give it a try. I'll respond to those who checked out the "handout for statists" and still have a legitimate come-back.
Click to expand...

He's arguing with himself and losing the argument by the look of that cut over his right eye.
 
tobjai said:
I don't think I'll have to explain that violating someone else's will is also a form of violence.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you will have to explain that.

I think what you're trying to say here is that "coercion is necessary".
Click to expand...
Some degree of coercion is necessary, yes. The challenge is to find the system of government that requires the least amount of coercion, and therefore guarantees the most amount of freedom, while still providing security and stability.
So lets look into that a bit, shall we? You imply that it is ok for you and everybody else who thinks alike (possibly the majority) to enact coercion (and with it ultimately violence) on everybody. And all that just so the idea of how you and the likeminded think the world should be is supposedly going to be attained. Whether those who get affected by it agree or not seems not to matter (somehow the "right of the stronges" prevails - as if we were some primitive animals who have no concept of equalism - feelin' the violence are ya?!?).
Click to expand...
No. The right of the strongest is what prevails in the absence of the state and in the absence of the rule of law.
But is that REALLY a legitimate accomplishment... where some have it their way just because they believe it is necessary even though others may not find it necessary at all - yet they have to go with it? I beg the differ! Who are they to foist their definition of necessity over everybody else? Who gives 2 out of three the right to bully the other? NOBODY!
Click to expand...
If you live in a western liberal democracy, you have a vast degree of personal freedom. More than you could possibly have hoped to have at any other time in history unless you yourself were the King/Sultan/Emperor or whatever. Complaining about taxes and other burdens of civilization is really childish.

Having said that, whether my "anarchist utopia" may work or not, I honestly don't know. Funding things may possibly be challanging (no need to say more, Ladewig). Nevertheless, there cannot be a violent entity forcing anyone to do anything. NOTHING justifies violence - period.
Click to expand...
Let's say some psychopath rapes and murders my wife. What is a justified response in that scenario. A stern lecture?
Human beings are all born free as equal individuals and as such their own masters, regardless what land they've been randomly born on. The land was there long before us human beings, which is why it can't be possibly owned by anyone. But of course it has simply been claimed by statists anyways... and gues what.. violently! Who gave them the right to do so and what in the world could have possibly legitimized such move? I'll let you answer that yourself.
Click to expand...
Remove the state and you really think no one will claim land violently? You can't possibly be that naive. The state is what makes it possible to non-violently possess private property. Without the state, take what you have the strength to take, hold what you have the strength to hold.


Coercion is the very opposite of pure freedom. They can't possibly co-exist.. and Rousseau is a hypocrate.
Click to expand...
No he isn't. He distinguished between absolute freedom (what you call pure freedom, and what amounts to absolute license to do whatever one wants whenever one wants) and perfect freedom (life under the rule of law where one consents to subject themselves to that law if, and only if, everyone else does the same).

It's not complicated. And it is the ideal that every western society imperfectly applies to some degree or another.
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
Nonsense! The rule of law only regards to the principal that everybody must follow the law. Now what's the law again? Not what ilegitimate governments create thats for sure. Just because there is no presence of statist violance, it doesn't mean natural law doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
What do you suppose natural law is? Who determines what acts do or do not comply with natural law? How is natural law enforced? What prevents someone from violating natural law?

If you read any history or study the history philosophy, you will find that natural law has almost always meant might makes right. It is natural for the strong to take what they can and for the weak to suffer what they must. The Melian dialogue in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War is a great example of this.
 
I like how no FMOTL/anarchist I've seen attempt to defend their fantasy can seem to get their opponents (e.g. us) past the whole crime and punishment part of society.

That certainly is an important part of a stable society, but there are so many more aspects that would need to be dealt with. Commerce may be the second most important aspect of a stable society, but they clearly haven't even begun to think of ways to handle a fair exchange of goods and services.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I like how no FMOTL/anarchist I've seen attempt to defend their fantasy can seem to get their opponents (e.g. us) past the whole crime and punishment part of society.

That certainly is an important part of a stable society, but there are so many more aspects that would need to be dealt with. Commerce may be the second most important aspect of a stable society, but they clearly haven't even begun to think of ways to handle a fair exchange of goods and services.
Click to expand...

In FOTL society everyone will intrinsically know what is needed and contribute as required kinda like an ant colony.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
In FOTL society everyone will intrinsically know what is needed and contribute as required kinda like an ant colony.
Click to expand...


Ants, huh?

Some species (such as Tetramorium caespitum) attack and take over neighbouring ant colonies. Others are less expansionist but just as aggressive; they invade colonies to steal eggs or larvae, which they either eat or raise as workers/slaves. Extreme specialists among these slave-raiding ants, such as the Amazon ants, are incapable of feeding themselves and need captured workers to survive.

Ant - Cooperation and competition | Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Hmm...
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
What do you suppose natural law is? Who determines what acts do or do not comply with natural law? How is natural law enforced? What prevents someone from violating natural law?

If you read any history or study the history philosophy, you will find that natural law has almost always meant might makes right. It is natural for the strong to take what they can and for the weak to suffer what they must. The Melian dialogue in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War is a great example of this.
Click to expand...

You don't even need that specific of an education. Basic knowledge of early civilizations teaches you the same lesson.

In the absence of government, the most powerful person will exert his/her will over others around him/her and create a government that benefits him/her. Recently we have seen this exact scenario play out in places like Sudan and Afghanistan.
 
Nobody has the right to force anything on anyone and most common human beings are in fact able to live peacefully and productively side by side with no need of the "above"
Click to expand...

'Most common human beings' you say, that admits that there are some human beings wo don't want to live either peacefully or productively side by side.

How do you deal with them if not by coercing or violence?

What makes your use of coercion and violence legitimate in your ideal society?
 
I have asked the verys same question myself Captain.
The usual response is that the freemen will band together against the person not conforming and banish them from their community.
When asked why that person cannot simply refuse to contract with them and do as he pleases they say that he has broken the "common law" and has no choice???????

I know, I know they always blow their own arguments to pieces but that is the freeman way after all, they always debunk themselves if you ask the right questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom