Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[abaddon]

I think Mr Menard is missing the important part of governing without individual consent; the bit where those doing the governing add the 'or else'. The 'or else' being the unfortunate consequences of failing to obey the laws of the nation you live in.

Meh, An obvious example of making "rules" up out of the blue.

I notice he did not address the point made, quell surprise.

 

[JimBenArm]

Proof was given and you responded immaturely to it. Why should I keep trying to show you proof when it is clear your goal is not to be convinced or open your mind to a different perspective, but to attack it and denigrate it?

Claim of Right establishes a lawful excuse to disobey. Proof has been provided. Now how did you all respond? By saying, "Oh I see it now!"? Nope, you squirm and try to claim that it is not applicable.

Want true actual proof that it is so? Come try to govern me personally without my consent and see what happens. There really is no other way is there?

Assertion is not proof.
But then, you've been told this repeatedly.
You just choose to ignore it.
I'm so surprised!

 

[JimBenArm]

Oh, and if I was to try?
I would succeed.
Like virtually everyone else.

 

[abaddon]

Oh, and if I was to try?
I would succeed.
Like virtually everyone else.

But of course.
We all do the FOTL dance.
Join in, why not?

After all, we have nothing to loose but our freedom.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Unlike you, you mean?


I do not consent to your demand. Why? You are half a planet away and have no jurisdiction.


You want me to hand you $100, or else you are right? Really Rob, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Why should I? Because you say so?


Yup. Which shows you to be out of your bikkie.



I guess jurisdiction is another concept which evades you.


No, you just made stuff up.



I have identified myself in person on this very forum. I have identified my credentials. I do not need to hide like you. Go look it up. Then go and hide again.

So you do not consent, and therefore I cannot govern you. Hmmm...

We are actually in agreement. Ain't this fun?!?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Assertion is not proof.
But then, you've been told this repeatedly.
You just choose to ignore it.
I'm so surprised!

And a link where folks were found not guilty by using a claim of right is not an assertion.

What are you ignoring, besides the link and article where the claim of right was recognized as a lawful excuse?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Meh, An obvious example of making "rules" up out of the blue.

I notice he did not address the point made, quell surprise.

I had an 'or else'. He did not like it too much. Or else he agrees with me.
Nothing he can do about it either...
He does not pay me, because I cannot govern him without his consent, and therefore he agrees with me.

 

[FreemanMenard]

No, when the Motor Vehicle Act (or the equivalent in various jurisdictions) was passed.

What makes you think the word 'must' in that section is being used in the imperative sense and not merely defining the steps they need you to take before they claim it is a motor vehicle? If I say you must come to my party through the front door, does that create an obligation upon you to attend my party? Or do you still have a choice?

Did they say 'shall', 'is obliged', or did they use the highly deceptive term 'must'?

 

[D'rok]

And a link where folks were found not guilty by using a claim of right is not an assertion.

What are you ignoring, besides the link and article where the claim of right was recognized as a lawful excuse?

Claim of right and lawful excuse are two different defences. It has already been shown how completely you misunderstand these defences and how you willfully ignore the facts about when, how and why they apply. When you combine them together into one, you simply compound your error.

Claiming that we ignore the link to the NZ case is yet another lie, as that case has been dissected in this very thread more than once. It is not an FOTL victory and it is not evidence of FOTL theory in action; it is yet more evidence of your incompetence and duplicity.

 

[D'rok]

What makes you think the word 'must' in that section is being used in the imperative sense and not merely defining the steps they need you to take before they claim it is a motor vehicle? If I say you must come to my party through the front door, does that create an obligation upon you to attend my party? Or do you still have a choice?

Did they say 'shall', 'is obliged', or did they use the highly deceptive term 'must'?

And yet more equivocation. You may trick the gullible with these pathetic word games, but it is just tiresome here. "Security", "order" "includes", and now "must".

Cut the sophistry and provide some substance for a change.

 

[Stacey Grove]

or did they use the highly deceptive term 'must'?

(I know I shouldn't but sod it.)

Rob, in which way is the term "must" deceptive?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Oh, and by the way Rob, the very first thing you do to become a member of the Institute of Engineers is sign up to a Code of Ethics.

I realise this is an alien concept for you, but that is what happens in the real world.

Can they force you to sign and be a member, or is that a choice?

 

[Horatius]

Tell you what...lets see if one man can govern another without consent, and see if yuy are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

I claim the right to govern YOU without your consent.
I as your new government, demand you send me $100. Call it a tax.

If you do it, you support your claim that you can be governed without your consent by someone else with whom you have no contract. It costs you $100, but you prove your point.
If you fail to do so, you agree that I cannot govern you without your consent. And neither can anyone else.

I would respond to that by asking, "By what right do you declare yourself the Government?" See, Stephen Harper et al. can tell you exactly why they're the current government: They stood for election, and permitted every adult Canadian Citizen* the opportunity to either vote for them, vote for someone else, or even stand for election themselves and seek the votes of other Canadians. Then they won that Election.

Can you say the same?

Simple litmus test, right?

Yes, indeed, it is a fairly simple test, that you continually fail.



*Mostly. Interesting that, with the possibility of an actual problem with the process by which Canada determines the will of the governed, Menard seems completely quiet.

 

[FreemanMenard]

(I know I shouldn't but sod it.)

Rob, in which way is the term "must" deceptive?

It can have two meanings. One, which most people interpret it as is an imperative. i.e "You must breath to live." It defines a pre-existing obligation.

The other merely describes a choice which if taken, then obligates you. i.e. "You must come to my party, through the front door." That latter one does not generate an obligation nor describe an obligation to attend. It defines the actions which if voluntarily taken by you, will put you in my party, and grant me authority over you.

Must is not always an imperative. DO you think most people realize that?

 

[Jon.]

What makes you think the word 'must' in that section is being used in the imperative sense and not merely defining the steps they need you to take before they claim it is a motor vehicle?

Whu... bu... what? "Must" is an imperative. By its very definition, it creates an obligation; in this case, an obligation that is a prerequisite to a certain action (using or operating a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway).

If I say you must come to my party through the front door, does that create an obligation upon you to attend my party? Or do you still have a choice?

Of course I have a choice to not attend your party, just like anyone who doesn't like the Motor Vehicle Act has the choice to not use or operate a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway. However, if choose to I attend your party, then I am obliged to enter through the front door; similarly, if you choose to use or operate a motor vehicle on a highway, you are obliged to take the steps I quoted from the Act.

I can't believe I have to explain this to someone who claims to be an adult.

Did they say 'shall', 'is obliged', or did they use the highly deceptive term 'must'?

Actually, if you look at case law, "shall" is a less clear term than "must," although it's pretty clear now (I think it's in the Interpretation Act) that, in statutes at least, it's an imperative term.

Anyway, as Stacey Grove asked, how is "must" deceptive, and how would "shall" or "is obliged" be any clearer?

 

[ComfySlippers]

It can have two meanings. One, which most people interpret it as is an imperative. i.e "You must breath to live." It defines a pre-existing obligation.

The other merely describes a choice which if taken, then obligates you. i.e. "You must come to my party, through the front door." That latter one does not generate an obligation nor describe an obligation to attend. It defines the actions which if voluntarily taken by you, will put you in my party, and grant me authority over you.

Must is not always an imperative. DO you think most people realize that?

I'm sure they must have some free adult literacy classes in your area Rob.

For the love of God please enroll in one because your infantile grasp on the English Language, and how to use it, is truly appalling.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I would respond to that by asking, "By what right do you declare yourself the Government?" See, Stephen Harper et al. can tell you exactly why they're the current government: They stood for election, and permitted every adult Canadian Citizen* the opportunity to either vote for them, vote for someone else, or even stand for election themselves and seek the votes of other Canadians. Then they won that Election.

Can you say the same?






Yes, indeed, it is a fairly simple test, that you continually fail.



*Mostly. Interesting that, with the possibility of an actual problem with the process by which Canada determines the will of the governed, Menard seems completely quiet.

I was elected by the members of The World Electorate Society to govern you. Did you not vote? Oh well, you are still a member of that group, because they said you were, and you inhabit the same planet as they do. If you do not like it, leave the planet.

So are you paying up, or claiming I cannot govern you without your consent?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Whu... bu... what? "Must" is an imperative. By its very definition, it creates an obligation; in this case, an obligation that is a prerequisite to a certain action (using or operating a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway).



Of course I have a choice to not attend your party, just like anyone who doesn't like the Motor Vehicle Act has the choice to not use or operate a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway. However, if choose to I attend your party, then I am obliged to enter through the front door; similarly, if you choose to use or operate a motor vehicle on a highway, you are obliged to take the steps I quoted from the Act.

I can't believe I have to explain this to someone who claims to be an adult.



Actually, if you look at case law, "shall" is a less clear term than "must," although it's pretty clear now (I think it's in the Interpretation Act) that, in statutes at least, it's an imperative term.

Anyway, as Stacey Grove asked, how is "must" deceptive, and how would "shall" or "is obliged" be any clearer?

Shall and may are in the Interpretation Act. Must is not. Wonder why that is?

So your belief that must is an imperative, is supported by nothing but your previous beliefs right?

 

[Jon.]

It can have two meanings. One, which most people interpret it as is an imperative. i.e "You must breath to live." It defines a pre-existing obligation.

The other merely describes a choice which if taken, then obligates you. i.e. "You must come to my party, through the front door." That latter one does not generate an obligation nor describe an obligation to attend. It defines the actions which if voluntarily taken by you, will put you in my party, and grant me authority over you.

Must is not always an imperative. DO you think most people realize that?

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

How do you not see that there is no difference in the meaning of the word "must" in the two examples you have given?

"You must breathe to live" = "If you wish to live, it is imperative that you breathe."

"You must come to my party through the front door" = "If you wish to come to my party, you must enter through the front door."

In both cases, the imperative is not absolute, but is contingent upon choosing to have a particular state of affairs exist or continue to exist.

Ironically, by putting a comma between "party" and "through," you have actually made the imperative created by "must" absolute, not contingent. But then, as virtually every one of your theories has indicated, grammar and the parsing of sentences is not your strong suit.

Anyway, yes, "must" can be contingent or absolute. In the case of the quoted example from the Motor Vehicle Act, it is contingent: there is no absolute obligation to obtain a driver's license, etc., but if you wish to use or operate a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway, then you are subject to that obligation.

I can't imagine how it could have been made any clearer.

 

[Moss]

Is there supposed to be a point where Mr. Menard realizes that he implies consent by taking what is provided based on the assumption that he not only uses his rights as a citizen but also that he abides by the responsibilities that come with those same rights?
By using public services, for example roads not owned by yourself, you do just that.
For some reason it really sounds like having your cake and eating it too.

Lets just use one of those rote formulas: I do not consent to you, Robert Menard, hiding relevant information. So, what now?