Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Andy_Ross]

Fizzy Vimto is lovely. Never seen it in a bottle though.

Youngster.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I hadn't drunk Vimto for thirty years. I was in London recently and tried some. It tasted like liquid bubble gum,nothing to do with the stuff I drank as a lad.

Was itthe fizzy stuff? It tastes the same but older taste buds notice the sweetness more

 

[TSR]

.
Tom V?

That's me Da -- they featured his pants in an ad or two...
.

 

[dafydd]

Was itthe fizzy stuff? It tastes the same but older taste buds notice the sweetness more

It was fizzy.

 

[jargon buster]

Sorry to break up the lashings of vimto party guys but Menards having a pop at me on Ickes where I cant respond.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831190&postcount=37
he wrote

JB's consent theory which he seems so proud of is completely faulty, as on one side of the equation there is three things: LAW, Policy of Party A, and Policy of Party B. His theory ignores law completely and and factors in only the policy of Party A and Party B, one of which he tries to call 'law'

.
I have asked Rob on several occasions as to what "the law "is and apart from starting a thread quoting Fredric Bastiat he hasnt come up with an answer, so he has no argument.

Law is not mentioned. Basic math tells us we have to balance the equation, and he does not do so, and leaves out the main factor.

Law is mentioned because my "rules" (statutes and Common law) are the law its just that Rob doesnt agree. (Which he is free to do of course, as I am free to disagree with his interpretation of what law is, when he finally gets around to it)

He tries to claim that which he is ignoring is merley the policy of the other party, , and not law at all. That is where he fails.

Robs withdrawal of consent is simply his policy and is not law (unless he can show me where it is law) and is then accepted by me as law, because without my acceptance you are enforcing your policy/law on me without my consent and without my consent you have no contract

There is the law and then there are two parties each with separate policies. This makes THREE.. That was the basis for the discussion.

Tell me what the law is then Rob?

In his theory, there is only the policy of the two parties. Law is left out. So how is his theory sound, when he ignores law and shows an equation with only policy mentioned?

If we dont agree what the law is then all we have are each others policy.

If it was math, his equation would not be balanced and therefore would fail. It fails at logic for the same reason.

Unfortunatly it isnt maths its plain English and I relly on logic for it to be viable.

Rob, you simply cannot tell me what law is and expect me to accept it without me having the ability of withdrawing my consent to it because by that very action you destroy your own ability to withdraw your consent from my laws.

You have created a conundrum that in order to win you have to lose and vice versa.

Good luck with that

 

[jargon buster]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831234&postcount=1
Hes started a whole new thread on it now rather than come and discuss it here.

Freeman Menard: "The LAW allows me to withdraw consent to your rules, for they are not the law, nor are my rules the law, and it is not my rules that allows me to withdraw consent, it is the law."

Can someone please kill that thread stone dead by asking him what "the law " is that allows him to withdraw his consent to my rules and when he does then tell him that the same law allows me to withdraw my consent to his rules.

 

[jargon buster]

rob then wrote

It is law that allows us to deny consent to the rules of another, and those who are incapable for some reason to distinguish between law and policy will seek to argue against this state of affairs by mixing the two up, and then claiming the right to abandon law.

Yup.. and that same law (when you get around to saying what it is) allows me to deny consent to your rules.

We embrace law and by so doing claim the right to ignore the policies of others.

And as such impose your rules on them without their consent

They have to abandon law, and try to claim the right to impose their policy on others.

so do you

One side embraces law and distinguishes between basic concepts.
One side abandons law and fails to distinguish between basic concepts.

Yup if you try and use the law to enforce your rules on me you are abandoning the law as well.

 

[jargon buster]

Rather than come here and debate his points he has added this to his signature on Ickes

ME: We embrace law and by so doing claim the right to ignore the policies of others.
IDIOT:And as such impose your rules on them without their consent.
So, refusing to obey the policies of another is IMPOSING UPON THEM! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

He cannot see that he wants to use "THE LAW" to ignore the policies of others, and yet that very action requires others to follow his policies.

Unfortunatly I cant (according to Rob) use that very same law to ignore his policy. (although he has previously said I could.)

Also as he seems to be wanting to "claim the right" I say to that "claim declined as there is no one to uphold your rights"

 

[jargon buster]

Once more so we are clear

Freeman Menard: "The LAW allows me to withdraw consent to your rules, for they are not the law, nor are my rules the law, and it is not my rules that allows me to withdraw consent, it is the law."

Fine, then the law allows me to ignore your withdrawal of consent (which is your rule)

People in the Government: "Fine, so we are now free to ignore your rules."

Correct

Freeman Menard: "Yes you are, for they, like your rules, are not the law.”

Fine, although unfortunatly for you some of my rules are also law and carry the force of law and if you break those you will be taken to task regardless of your consent/non consent.

People in Government: “Fine, so we are all bound by the law, neither is bound to the rules of the other for they are not law, and we have no right to impose our rules upon you now that you no longer consent. Have a good day."

You are bound by the rules we deem to be law as we have the power to enforce them.

Now.. Rob needs to do is define what his interpretation of "the law" is.

 

[Boot2TheHead]

I don't know how he could be making it any more transparent that the only distinction between The Law and "policy" is whether he likes the rule or not.

 

[jargon buster]

exactly, his point is that he thinks he can ignore everyone else's rules and have everyone else bound by his rules.

Its simple when you see it for what it is.

 

[Cocana The Second]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831234&postcount=1
Hes started a whole new thread on it now rather than come and discuss it here.


Can someone please kill that thread stone dead by asking him what "the law " is that allows him to withdraw his consent to my rules and when he does then tell him that the same law allows me to withdraw my consent to his rules.

Someone's done it and the wriggle appears to have started.

 

[Cocana The Second]

JB, when you look at the underlying message Rob has confirmed your point yet again -

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831655&postcount=33

I know! Legislative and legal systems do not speak. The people within them can, but not the system itself. And you will have to ask them what they say.

As for me,
I say the law is a line.
One side is right and the other simply wrong.
The reason ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law is because all men know right and wrong in their hearts or should.

The problem comes when people stop looking into their own hearts for that line and allow other people decide it for them. Usually for the benefit of the ones deciding where the line should be, at the expense of the one who is supposed to follow it, and the deciders use force and violence and threat thereof to achieve compliance.

A bigger problem comes when people 'wake up' to their own power and ability to know right and wrong, and then see the line as drawn by others is on the wrong side of the line drawn by their own hearts.

Hope that helps.

Rob wishes to decide where to set the line but he still can't understand what that means for enforcement of his rules.

 

[jargon buster]

The reason ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law is because all men know right and wrong in their hearts or should.

Thats almost a stundie "all men know" errr well they "should"

Rob wrote

As for me,
I say the law is a line.
One side is right and the other simply wrong.

As for me
I say your wrong and anyway thats just your policy, it isn't law as I am not bound by those words.
1 out of 10 must try harder Rob.

I say the law is a legislative body of statutes and codified Common Law which we are all bound.
I have masses of evidence to show that to be the case as well.
You can also ask any freeman who has found himself in a courtroom to verify this to be true.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Thats almost a stundie "all men know" errr well they "should"

Rob wrote

As for me
I say your wrong and anyway thats just your policy, it isn't law as I am not bound by those words.
1 out of 10 must try harder Rob.

I say the law is a legislative body of statutes and codified Common Law which we are all bound.
I have masses of evidence to show that to be the case as well.
You can also ask any freeman who has found himself in a courtroom to verify this to be true.

This bit is the fatal flaw in Rob's theory:

The problem comes when people stop looking into their own hearts for that line and allow other people decide it for them

So Rob wants people to be able to decide where the line is drawn, yet he's incapable of understanding that this means we all set our own rules, therefore we don't have to do what anyone says. That includes not doing what Rob says.

It's beyond stupid. We need a word for the ultimate level of stupid to encapsulate the lunacy of freeman theories.

 

[Paul]

Obviously, menard.

As in "Rob's ideas are completely menard"

 

[Cocana The Second]

Obviously, menard.

As in "Rob's ideas are completely menard"

Yeah, I like that and it keeps a tidy link to one of the main gurus.

"That is soooo menard"

Yes, it could catch on.

 

[jargon buster]

I think we should start a new thread that goes above a stundie.
We could even start a new catchphrase.
"Oh no, he's gone "freeman on the land" on us"
"You must be joking mate, you sound "freeman on the land" to me"

Maybe even dedicate it solely to Menard.

We have "Its all gone Pete Tong",shall we have a competition for one for Menard?

edit Drat paul and cocana just beat me to it

 

[Cocana The Second]

I think we should start a new thread that goes above a stundie.
We could even start a new catchphrase.
"Oh no, he's gone "freeman on the land" on us"
"You must be joking mate, you sound "freeman on the land" to me"

Maybe even dedicate it solely to Menard.

We have "Its all gone Pete Tong",shall we have a competition for one for Menard?

Yes, a monthly "that is so menard/so freeman" (choose your preferred title) thread. It'll never fail to be populated with nominations.

 

[Toke]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059831478&postcount=13

It looks like miclemus have seen through him.