The Freeman Movement and England

[tobjai]

People HAVE stopped paying their taxes before now. Please find me an instance of someone being shot for refusing to pay taxes.

It was just an example and I'm sure it has happened... but even just being dragged to court is violence.

 

[atecom]

Since when are all people born equal? The only way to achieve that is to set a law which states that, and pray everyone has a guilty concience enough to follow that law without coercion.

 

[tobjai]

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.

My idea of freedom does not involve "countries"/states (people farms). I acknowledge that in order to survive humans are better off living in groups. That however does neither justify coercion nor statism. I claim that wherever people can live undisturbed, are not restricted to resources (by some fictional "above") and do not have to be subject to intergovernmental affairs (unlike Somalia), they will do so peacefully and productively.

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?

I don't care about how my legal name is spelled. States can either claim things by an act of violence and therefore have no legitimacy or they can pretend. Now, the "uber-juridical" sphere of natural law is well recognized by pretty much all legal systems around the planet. Subsequently it is understood that conventional law can only ever work with codification (which the sheeple don't understand or misinterpret) and the implication of assumed consent... Those who cannot be deceived (revoke consent) and have enough courage and adamance facing the system.. they may just get it their way, for why wouldn't they! Just because some group says "we're the majority and we're stronger" it doesn't give it the right to impose. And of course the legal society is aware of this "dilemma". So they're faced with two choices: The use of illegitimate violence or to let the freeman go.

 

[tobjai]

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.

OK, rephrase: What I meant to say is that violence as a means of imposed will is never justifiable. Self defense always is a reaction to "the first strike" which again is not justifiable.

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.

I meant no offense.

Did I mention right? Force doesn't care about right.

Which is why it is illegitimate.

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.

That first person can pursue as much advancement as they want as long as they do not impose on others, in which case we'll have a situation of self defense.

In socialist fairyland maybe.

Huh? Thats the very opposite of freedom. Socialism always implies the compulsory surrender of ownership..... controlled by guess who.. a state! No thanks.

 

[Mojo]

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.

This is not really relevant to FOTL. FOTL claims not that the way the system works "has to be abandoned", but that it already is as they claim it is.

Arguments about how things should be do not support FOTL.

 

[tobjai]

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

Agreed.

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

Self defence

What makes your use of coercion and violence legitimate in your ideal society?

And again... self defence... they'll have to do the first (illegitimate) strike though. Thats when us common people come after them with hay forks and rakes (just kidding ).

 

[tobjai]

This is not really relevant to FOTL. FOTL claims not that the way the system works "has to be abandoned", but that it already is as they claim it is.

Arguments about how things should be do not support FOTL.

It supports why FMOTL do what they do... what I do (just got some speeding charges against my legal name dropped - that is in Germany though).

 

[Mojo]

just got some speeding charges against my legal name dropped

Were you driving the car?

 

[Paul]

OK, rephrase: What I meant to say is that violence as a means of imposed will is never justifiable. Self defense always is a reaction to "the first strike" which again is not justifiable.

In your system almost anything you disagree with is violence and so justifies a violent response; hardly "Violence is never, NEVER justifiable - period".

I meant no offense.

If you don't intend to offend you should proofread you posts for obvious deliberately offensive statements.

Which is why it is illegitimate.

Force doesn't care about legitimacy.

That first person can pursue as much advancement as they want as long as they do not impose on others, in which case we'll have a situation of self defense.

In which case you will require some apparatus of coerced arbitration, otherwise anarchy in the real sense and a spiralling culture of "self-defence" will prevail.

Huh? Thats the very opposite of freedom. Socialism always implies the compulsory surrender of ownership..... controlled by guess who.. a state! No thanks.

From the OED again:

socialism, n.
1. Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.
2. A pre-capitalist state of society in which things are held or used in common.
​

How does your anarchist philosophy regulate the personal ownership of land and resources?

 

[tobjai]

How does your anarchist philosophy regulate the personal ownership of land and resources?

As I already stated in this forum thread, I do believe that humans are better off in a group (I'm talking small groups/tribes, where one looks out for another). It works just fine WITHOUT coercion and WITHOUT human ownership (in case you you are going to say "there is no such thing" then I'm sure we can also agree that courts don't have a say over us).

 

[Sledge]

It was just an example and I'm sure it has happened

So cite a case where it has happened.

 

[Tolls]

My idea of freedom does not involve "countries"/states (people farms). I acknowledge that in order to survive humans are better off living in groups. That however does neither justify coercion nor statism. I claim that wherever people can live undisturbed, are not restricted to resources (by some fictional "above") and do not have to be subject to intergovernmental affairs (unlike Somalia), they will do so peacefully and productively.

I've just spotted (ETA: another) fatal flaw in your utopia.

Resources are invariably restricted...

 

[dafydd]

It was just an example and I'm sure it has happened... but even just being dragged to court is violence.

So nobody should ever go to court? We can all do whatever we like with no consequences. Your Anarchy Land sounds like a nightmare to me.

 

[dafydd]

It supports why FMOTL do what they do... what I do (just got some speeding charges against my legal name dropped - that is in Germany though).

I've had speeding charges dropped too.I didn't know that I was a FOTL anarcho- warrior.Smash the system!

 

[dafydd]

It was just an example and I'm sure it has happened... but even just being dragged to court is violence.

Cite a case or stop making up crap.

 

[tobjai]

Some degree of coercion is necessary, yes.

Your opinion against mine. Which "god" is it that makes you so paramount? As for me, I don't need one, as my ideas do not involve forcing others to follow my will or that of the collective.

The right of the strongest is what prevails in the absence of the state and in the absence of the rule of law.

And how exactly does the presence of the state not demonstrate "the strongest"?

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.

Just because there can be worse doesn't make wrong right.

Complaining about taxes and other burdens of civilization is really childish.

Just as childish as the uprise of traditional slaves was, right? Is there a human need for societies? Sure. Does that need justify societal force over the individual? No. You can either take part or do your own thing - and that's got nothing to do with geographic location.

Let's say some psychopath rapes and murders my wife. What is a justified response in that scenario. A stern lecture?Remove the state and you really think no one will claim land violently?

You always try to justify force coercion and violence over millions with the example the odd-time occurring precedence. Sure they occur... and have to be dealt with then and there. Still no justification to keep the masses in an invisible prison. No horror scenario in the world provides sufficient justifications for some humans to foist their will on others without their consent.

The state is what makes it possible to non-violently possess private property.

Haha - thats a good one! A state is THE definition for violent possession.

...what you call pure freedom, and what amounts to absolute license to do whatever one wants whenever one wants...

"License to freedom" LOL! Freedom cannot ever be licensed... a state of freedom requires no licensing. So either you are free or not... there is no in between for that would come with restrictions which again are the opposite of freedom. "Perfect freedom" pfff! That can only come from someone who has either no regard for freedom or just doesn't set it on top of the priority list.

 

[tobjai]

I've just spotted (ETA: another) fatal flaw in your utopia.

Resources are invariably restricted...

Dude,
that was in regard to state control.

 

[tobjai]

So nobody should ever go to court?

That would be ideal.

We can all do whatever we like with no consequences.

As long as we do not impose on others or their property, yes.

Your Anarchy Land sounds like a nightmare to me.

Is that how you justify for you and the likeminded (who constitute states) to violate the will of others? Frankly, I'm living the nightmare. Now, who am I imposing on, trying to get rid of that nightmare? And then ask yourself the question vice-versa.

 

[zooterkin]

As I already stated in this forum thread, I do believe that humans are better off in a group (I'm talking small groups/tribes, where one looks out for another). It works just fine WITHOUT coercion and WITHOUT human ownership (in case you you are going to say "there is no such thing" then I'm sure we can also agree that courts don't have a say over us).

And what was life-expectancy like the last time the population was spread thinly enough for this to work?

 

[D'rok]

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.

Exactly.

tobjai continues to ignore this fundamental issue.