• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
tobjai said:
Here's a good (subject related) read for those of you who are always looking for new ebook material :)

Cheers.
Click to expand...

...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion.

Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh :)

Greetings,
Res Nullius
 
Last edited:
Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh
Click to expand...

care to explain what gives "Gods law" jurisdiction?
 
"God's Law" is just another interpretation by men. The champions of positive law have always tried to use it for the purpose of legitimizing state law. Not for no reason is "god" mentioned in pretty much all constitutions around the world (which has nothing to do with religion btw). So I maintain: When it comes down to it, there is absolutely nothing do derive jurisdiction from. No god's law, no ius gentium, and no ius non scriptum!

The system would not exist without our beliefs, which is why it is nothing but a state of mind!

A little side note: I was quite surprised to see the (mostly positive) debate you guys had going on the last page of this thread (I've been used to collective shoulder padding for the best -inept- ridicule). I'm hoping you'll be able to uphold this standard, for it can only bring positive. I'll be back in a few weeks. We'll see what will happen till then.
 
tobjai said:
Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh :)
Click to expand...




But not as straightforward as "Jurisdiction exists Quia Ego Sic Dico" - which is ultimately the source of all law among men.
 
tobjai said:
...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion.

Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh :)

Greetings,
Res Nullius
Click to expand...

Going somewhat off-thread here - perhaps I have missed something in your reference (and my apologies if I have) but why should anyone take this seriously when the addendum contains a statement such as:

"In addition quantum physics has shown us that all matter is essentially non-existent at the fundamental level the only thing which actually exists is electro-magnetic energy, which science remains unable to properly break down and explain in any comprehensive way."

IMHO physics has not shown this at all.
 
jargon buster said:
Dont forget, this will be "freeman" physics where anything is possible.
Statute law for example cannot pass through a car window.
Click to expand...

The "freeman" physics will have to ditch quantum mechanics to prevent entry of Statute Law through closed windows; qm allows tunneling of an object in a lower energy state through a higher energy barrier.
 
tobjai said:
...the addendum to the above (which is to be found here) holds the conclusion.

Remember ya'll: Jurisdiction can't possibly be derived from man made law, because naturally there needs to be jurisdiction first for man made law to apply - pretty straight forward stuff, eh :)

Greetings,
Res Nullius
Click to expand...

Hmm, what would be an appropriate response? Wait, someone I respect greatly had the perfect one to your original post.
Sledge said:
What points does this book make that you feel are relevant to the discussion?
Click to expand...
No doubt, that guy's a genius.
 
Horatius said:
But not as straightforward as "Jurisdiction exists Quia Ego Sic Dico" - which is ultimately the source of all law among men.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that governance is based on despotism, blasphemy and contempt of man kind? Let me tell you: If that was the case, there would be no need for legal philosophy. Most governments actually do want to appear legitimate, which is why phrases such as the quoted one above have no place in jurisprudence whatsoever. And just because you write something in Latin doesn't make it a declarative of substance.

Sledge said:
What points does this book make that you feel are relevant to the discussion?
Click to expand...

I can't really comment the book, simply because I haven't read it yet. Since I posted the first volume on this thread, I figured some of you may want to find out about the author's conclusion (even if it's just for the sake of ridicule if thats what it takes to make you feel content).
 
tobjai said:
I can't really comment the book, simply because I haven't read it yet. Since I posted the first volume on this thread, I figured some of you may want to find out about the author's conclusion (even if it's just for the sake of ridicule if thats what it takes to make you feel content).
Click to expand...

Tobjai,

Have you at least read the conclusion to the book?
 
tobjai said:
Are you suggesting that governance is based on despotism, blasphemy and contempt of man kind? Let me tell you: If that was the case, there would be no need for legal philosophy. Most governments actually do want to appear legitimate, which is why phrases such as the quoted one above have no place in jurisprudence whatsoever. And just because you write something in Latin doesn't make it a declarative of substance.
Click to expand...



Ignoring your inflammatory language, the answer is, essentially, "Yes". All governments, from the earliest city-states of Mesopotamia, up to our modern nations, ultimately derive their jurisdiction through their ability to physically control their territory, using force if necessary. In fact, "That entity which has sole right to legitimate use of force" is a good operating definition of "government" accepted by many people.

The issue of "appearing legitimate" that you bring up is secondary to that. How you appear legitimate has changed over time. It once was, "I'm the toughest Bastard in Town", became over time, "I'm Divinely selected to be King!", and is now, in our case at least, "I was elected by a majority of the people!", but those various mechanisms for determining who has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force don't change the fact that they still, ultimately, have that monopoly.

But even in our case, remember that the tyranny of the majority still exists. If you engage in activities that a majority of your society deem to be reprehensible, they can (and often will) create laws to compel you to act differently, and use force to apply those laws to you.

And you can whine about "despotism" all you like, but that won't change the essential facts of how the world really operates.
 
If you engage in activities that a majority of your society deem to be reprehensible, they can (and often will) create laws to compel you to act differently, and use force to apply those laws to you.
Click to expand...

As lordbobhalk wrote (before he fell under the spell of Icke :))
"You can do whatever you want to in life, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you."
It really is that simple, no amount of human rights, laws,statutes, rules or jurisdiction will have any impact on that at all.
 
jargon buster said:
As lordbobhalk wrote (before he fell under the spell of Icke :)) "You can do whatever you want to in life, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you."
It really is that simple, no amount of human rights, laws,statutes, rules or jurisdiction will have any impact on that at all.
Click to expand...

We haven't lost 'Lordbobhaulk' to the evil 'Ickian' empire. I think he's saying (not wanting to speak for the man himself) that we should play the 'ball rather than then man'. If this is indeed his stance I'm inclined to agree.

There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?
 
Last edited:
the ball is the man when it's what the man believes.

and even if the ball and man are separate, they still don't like someone pointing out their ball doesn't bounce.
 
Last edited:
There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?
Click to expand...

You are quite right gtm, I have been banned far more times than the other skeptics, maybe it is my approach, but I have varied my approach in the past and been banned anyway.
I even posted as a staunch freeman (steven1) and was banned.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135068
Did I do anything wrong in that thread?
I seem to get under Menard's skin more than most, probably because of my approach so should I really change it.
With regards playing the ball rather than the man, the ball has been dealt with already, its the man that now needs removing because he keeps bringing the same ball back again.
I think of him as a cancer thats been reduced with chemo , now its time for surgery to remove it completely.
 
gtm said:
We haven't lost 'Lordbobhaulk' to the evil 'Ickian' empire. I think he's saying (not wanting to speak for the man himself) that we should play the 'ball rather than then man'. If this is indeed his stance I'm inclined to agree.

There are skeptics who have remained on the Icke forum for significant periods of time without being banned - Mickelmas, Rumpole, Rumpelstiltskin & Solzhenitsyn spring to mind. you might want to ask yourself why they've survived whereas you & your various 'nome de plume' have been consistently banned?
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's because the people you named have not really angered the inmates in the asylum by demonstrating to them on a daily basis why they are wrong. JB is banned because he does so - the people you mention certain provide rational skepticism but they are rather restrained. JB hasn't done anything to break any of the rules of the forum from what I've seen, he just provides a bit to much truth for the Robert Menard who has a bit of a personal crusade against him and him alone.

JB's posting style has been so marvelously obvious in terms of highlighting why FOTL fails that they simply can't take it. Thats all there is to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom