Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[fitzgibbon]

I advocate a society of equals,

Bully for you. However, when you are in a minority of individuals in that society (let alone in a tiny, lunatic fringe of that minority), you don't magically get a pass on whether you will obey the wishes of the majority.

The majority (the very VERY large majority in this case) however has the wherewithal to compel you, something you entirely lack in your 'example'. At best, you might coerce, confuse, confabulate; none of these compels.

Such is the nature of society that your freedom to pick-and-choose which of society's strictures you will adhere to and which you won't ends when they affect/involve anyone else.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Originally Posted by Bishop

While I agree with you, I don't think that discussing political philosophy is the best way to debunk freeman claims about the requirement of consent. The reason that Menard can't force any of us to pay him is because he does not have the ability to physically enforce it. If he did, then it wouldn't matter if we consented or not.

So if I can force someone to pay me without their consent, cause I am bigger and stronger, then it's ok?

So if someone commits a mugging all they have to do to defend themselves against charges in court is claim they were physically able to do so, and so the consent of the victim does not matter?

Admit it. You are a defense lawyer.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Bully for you. However, when you are in a minority of individuals in that society (let alone in a tiny, lunatic fringe of that minority), you don't magically get a pass on whether you will obey the wishes of the majority.

The majority (the very VERY large majority in this case) however has the wherewithal to compel you, something you entirely 'example'. At best, you might coerce, confuse, confabulate; none of these compels.

Such is the nature of society that your freedom to pick-and-choose which of society's strictures you will adhere to and which you won't ends when they affect/involve anyone else.

So when you speak of a society, are you using the legal definition that acknowledges the requirement of consent to even be a member of it, or do you claim that consent is not required to be a member, because I inhabit an arbitrarily defined piece of land?

So you know, I was referring to one which realized the need for consent, are you referring to one that does not follow the legal requirement of consent? Cause if so, you have shifted the discussion away from one to the other.

If i am a member of a society, where I am the minority, and I do not like what the majority are doing, am I not free to leave the society and not leave the land we all inhabit regardless of societal membership? OR do they somehow have the magical power to force me to leave a certain piece of this earth, because I am not a member of their society?

 

[FreemanMenard]

So I have a question for those who do not believe individuals can simply opt out of statutes.

Do you believe the same thing about corporations? Or persons engaging in the business of selling something?

Can a business such as a restaurant or say a bank, choose to not obey a statute?
Or are they in your opinion, bound without choice to applicable statutes? (ones within which they are specifically mentioned as a person selling something)

Thank You... so much.

 

[ComfySlippers]

So when you speak of a society, ...

Again you gleefully wave your flag of illiteracy. It probably has a gold fringe

The term "society" is currently used to cover both a number of political and scientific connotations as well as a variety of associations.

You were born into society like it or not.

However The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and The Royal Society for the Prevention of Laughing at Numbnuts have little hold over you as you are not a member of any of them.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

So I have a question for those who do not believe individuals can simply opt out of statutes.

Do you believe the same thing about corporations? Or persons engaging in the business of selling something?

Of course. (I'm not sure if you're suggesting that a corporation is the same as "persons in the business of selling something"? If so, they aren't.)

Can a business such as a restaurant or say a bank, choose to not obey a statute?

Of course not.

Or are they in your opinion, bound without choice to applicable statutes? (ones within which they are specifically mentioned as a person selling something)

Of course (expect obviously that a corporation is not "a person selling something").

Thank You... so much.

You're welcome.

ETA: Today was vintage Rob Menard. I truly enjoyed it.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Do you believe the same thing about corporations?

The old corporation rubbish again.

Do you know what a corporation is?

(Rhetorical. You don't.)

 

[Hans]

So he just rehashed for the 15th time the same old tired word ploys.....and got nowhere as usuall....

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, but you merely insulting me does not disprove my theories, and is not debunking, regardless of what the majority of the posters on this forum believe.

There were no insults in that post.

Read up. I said I do not.

Then why do you disregard all the judicial precedents that have been placed before you? That is what common law is.

I asked then why you hate equality. Care to answer my question now?

I don't. I think everyone should be equally subject to the law. You are the one who thinks you should be able to have special exemption, and who wants to create the sort of lawless society in which gang lords and petty despots flourish.

 

[jargon buster]

I advocate a society of equals, where authority to govern rest clearly upon consent, and those who do govern are fully accountable.

Rob, Im confused now, how can you have a society of equals that has individuals who govern others?
By definition the governor can make an individual do something they dont want to because he/she has the backing and support of others.

If we were all truly equal then no man may govern another without his consent, isnt that what you have been teaching all along?
A truly free society would have no rules and no leaders and everyone would be exactly the same.

Isnt that what you should be striving for?

 

[Border Reiver]

So I have a question for those who do not believe individuals can simply opt out of statutes.

They can't, the courts have been crystal clear on this.

Do you believe the same thing about corporations? Or persons engaging in the business of selling something?

Again, yes.

Can a business such as a restaurant or say a bank, choose to not obey a statute?
Or are they in your opinion, bound without choice to applicable statutes? (ones within which they are specifically mentioned as a person selling something)

Thank You... so much.

Not sure where you're going with this, but the answer is simple, you cannot "opt out" of statutes.

Legal entities can choose not to follow the rules - corporations, people, etc. but the rules still apply.

 

[Border Reiver]

So according to you, a piece of inanimate paper, gave them their authority?

Backed by the vast majority of persons within that geographical area, yes.

 

[Horatius]

Not sure where you're going with this, but the answer is simple, you cannot "opt out" of statutes.

Legal entities can choose not to follow the rules - corporations, people, etc. but the rules still apply.

I'm rather disappointed. He started out with an obvious "Socrates on The Land" question strategy, then just bailed before the "Ha! Gotcha!" reveal that would almost certainly have ended up in the Stundies.


Sigh.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I'm rather disappointed. He started out with an obvious "Socrates on The Land" question strategy, then just bailed before the "Ha! Gotcha!" reveal that would almost certainly have ended up in the Stundies.


Sigh.

Didn't mean to leave you hanging, just had other stuff to do. And wanna formulate my argument better.

 

[Stacey Grove]

And wanna formulate my argument better.

Rather than posing a series of leading questions designed to arrive at a "Gotcha" declaration, if you have a point to make, why don't you simply make it? Or does your point rely on somebody answering a series of leading questions in a certain manner?

 

[Horatius]

Or does your point rely on somebody answering a series of leading questions in a certain manner?

Because that's how Socrates Rolls, man!

 

[jargon buster]

Didn't mean to leave you hanging, just had other stuff to do. And wanna formulate my argument better.

Great response Rob, use the psychology on them, make them think that you believe they are actually waiting for a response from you.
And the little joke about formulating your argument better is priceless, they will now come back at you with responses claiming you havent put together a decent response in over two years which will then allow you to claim the moral high ground and accuse them of ad hominem attack, beautiful Rob, really beautiful

 

[FreemanMenard]

Rather than posing a series of leading questions designed to arrive at a "Gotcha" declaration, if you have a point to make, why don't you simply make it? Or does your point rely on somebody answering a series of leading questions in a certain manner?

Why do you assume that is my intent? Is it because if you were asking the questions that would be YOUR intent?

I am not trying to get to a gotcha moment, this argument is merely now percolating, and needs refinement. I did come across something, which is very interesting, and I am examining it now. I apologize for being cryptic, but I simply do not have my argument properly formulated yet.

 

[Border Reiver]

Why do you assume that is my intent? Is it because if you were asking the questions that would be YOUR intent?

I am not trying to get to a gotcha moment, this argument is merely now percolating, and needs refinement. I did come across something, which is very interesting, and I am examining it now. I apologize for being cryptic, but I simply do not have my argument properly formulated yet.

BIN12345/Bob, you've had years to get it properly formulated. You've allegedly done 1000s of hours of studying of the law (although I think you spent most of that time watching LA Law, rather than at an actual library, but that's merely supposition), and yet every one of your "legal" theories has failed, or been shown not to work outside of a philosophical construct, vice the world the rest of us live and work in.

By all means though, do some research and you will realize that your little "the world should work this way" concepts don't work.

 

[jargon buster]

I am not trying to get to a gotcha moment, this argument is merely now percolating, and needs refinement. I did come across something, which is very interesting, and I am examining it now.

Again Rob, brilliant, that should give us a couple more months breathing space to allow a few more people to hear about our new discovery before we finally reveal that it wasnt really an option.

Great stuff