I realize your answers have no effect on anything, and what happens on this forum has no bearing on what happens outside of it. You may wish to try and tell others here that, as they seem to think that they defeat me in life by insulting me en masse here. I also realize they have never answered the question posed, they simply say 'Thats the way it is" then they insult me, try to taunt or engage in other childish activities to try and hide the fact they can't answer the question without supporting my position. 2+2 = 4, and you cannot govern your fellow man without their consent and not abandon the rule of law and the requirement for equality. It is simply impossible, and they refuse to admit or address it in any meaningful way. Their answers usually involve school yard type chants, taunts, rhymes and insults. You can find a perfect example from coccana here on this page. That is what they consider to be an answer. DO you?
Coccana's Scooby doo parody isn't intended as an actual answer, it's there for the lols. I laughed, and I'm sure others did. Much as I do concerning the FMOTL "magic". Life (and law) doesn't work the way you think it does. Or, maybe it does and you are cynically bilking people while not falling into your beliefs, or you are simply afraid to actually put all your beliefs into practice - either way, I can look myself in the eye every morning when I shave and say that I'm doing right - can you?
I'll start off with a wonderful paraphrase of Inigo Montoya - "I don't think that means what you think it means."
Rule of Law - all persons are subject to the law.
No real shockers here, but the FMOTL philosophy is rather counter to that concept.
you can't govern me without my consent - Actually, society can, and does either through the naked application of force, or more subtly through peer pressure, convention and tradition. Society imposes all sorts of rules and stuff on everyone, and governments do it all the time, the trick is to find the balance point between individual freedom and society's needs. Broadly speaking, Canada, the US and the UK do a pretty good job. If you don't like society's rules, you can exercise your right to travel and leave - your problem will be to locate a spot where no one actually says that they get to make the rules, oh, and doesn't have the means to impose their will on you.
As for arguing about what the courts can do and can't do, well they argue about what I can and can't do, claiming I can't do something I have already done!
No on actually says that you can't have done "it" (whichever "it" you care to use as an example), but what we have pointed out and what you have either failed to grasp, or rather perversely ignore, is that that activity is still contrary to society's rules, and that you can be hauled in front of a nice person in a black robe with a red sash sitting infront of the Canadian coat of arms, who will impose sanctions on you for it.
Arguing that "I've done it, and haven't been punished means that you likely need to add one word to the end of that sentence "yet."
Your claim that the courts completely disregard the freeman position is simply not supported by what I have seen first hand with my own eyes.
Then I'm sure you can provide a citable example.
I am not saying it works ALL THE TIME,
or at all
]and yes there are those who after accepting the courts jurisdiction, then try to question it and they fail.
It's not that they fail in questioning the court's jurisdicition, the defence they offer has been rejected. In all cited cases.
There have been cases where the claim of self-defense was not accepted. Does that mean the claim of self-defense is NEVER accepted? And in cases where self-defense was accepted, and no charges were brought due to that, would there be a court record when there was no court action?
That is the responsibility of the Crown prosecutor to decide if a case goes forward. Defences are raised at trial.
Wanna know what some idiot tried telling me in regard to 'equality'? They tried to claim (in order to reconcile equality with what is happening) that I did not know what equality meant, but they of course did, and what it meant to them was not supported by any dictionary. They try claiming that "consent of the governed" does not actually mean 'consent of the governed' and they have to replace one word with another, until they are claiming 'consent of the governed' means 'consent of some of the people' which allows them to govern all people. They have to undertake the most twisty and insane modifications of language to support their position, and they do it here again claiming that their responses to my questions were actually answers. They were responses, I will grant them that. They were not answers.
Equality in Canada is a legal concept meaning that we all are subject to the same laws, and that no one is exempt from the law. Politically, it is the "one adult citizen, one vote".
By chosing to live here you give your implicit consent to abide by the rules and laws, and to accept the consequences of your actions if you break the rules. No society that has ever existed on this planet follows the FMOTL logic that explicit consent is required for rules to apply, on a practical note because requiring that every citizen go through the Revised Statutes of Canada, Revised Statues of [insert province here], and a rather extensive collection of county, and other municipal by-laws to give explicit consent to each would be so unweildy as to be unworkable, and the paperwork alone would likely strip the forests of trees for generations to come.
Hey since you are new, and no one would expect you to dig through all the threads, lets see if the will repeat their 'answers'.
Actually, I went through the threads before I started posting. call it research. You may need try this sometime.
Yes, that was intended as a dig. The theory you've put forward does not appear to have been based on actual through research, so I feel justified in calling you on it.
How can you personally govern your neighbour without his consent and not abandon equality and thus the rule of law? And if you can't do it directly to your neighbour in a one on one situation, how can you hire someone and empower them to do it on your behalf?
This is what they have NEVER answered, will not answer and cannot answer, but they will respond, and consider their insults and taunts to be an answer. Like many things, they fail too in this regard and are incapable of distinguishing an answer from a response.
They respond all right, usually like children, yet they never answer the question. And they cannot see the difference.
Nature doesn't make people equal - the rule of law is what makes people equal. Otherwise someone who is bigger, faster, stronger can impose his/her will on you with no potential repercussions, or without boundaries on how the will is imposed. Complete freedom is not possible. I may not be able to impose my will on my neighbour, but several of us working together can put pressure on a neighbour to comply with societal norms, generally by offering behavioural incentives to achieve compliance - or if they truly step outside what is acceptable, then we can impose more punitive sanctions.
)