Incidentally, if anyone wishes to denigrate these peaceful resolution mechanisms, I would point out this is simply how adults settle issues, and they are routinely used now. Friends of mine were having marital problems and the community helped them out. People who think that the state is needed are burdened with a childish mindset, and remedy has to be imposed by some authority figure, for they are incapable of imagining settling issues using discussion or negotiation.
And yes, we have the right to call the police and force them to fulfill their peace officer duties. We also have the power to refuse to be subject to the policies they enforce in their other role. I kept an after hours club open for six months. Stood my ground, established their bylaws and statutes were not applicable, respected them for their peace officer roles, and invited them to attend anytime they wishes, provided they left their policy enforcement hat in the car and wore only their peace officer hat. They ended up coming by once or twice a night, they would do a walk through while people were smoking pot, drinking and we were selling beer, dancing the night away. But because they were only peace officers, all they did was keep the peace. They pointed out a few times known gang members and trouble makers. People thought I was paying off the police! All I did was force them to do their peace officer job while realizing the limits of their policy enforcement powers. Same thing can be done with a plot of land.
Of course those who are for what ever reason incapable of distinguishing between policy and law, will claim that by accepting the power of the police to enforce the law against murder, that we are also bound by the statutes against growing certain plants.
They will also likely try claiming that the potential is the same as the actual, and we need have in place something to address THEIR FEARS of a POTENTIAL. Take the post above made by our newest member sunandmoon. I can't be bothered to try guessing which one that is.
Quote:
As a parent and as one with experience of the very negative effects (on others including children) of drink and drug abuse I think anyone with a history of drink/drug abuse or, as well, violence or taking advantage of children should not be selected as a Stewart.
Here we have the fear based mindset clearly screaming for security and protection from that which does not exist but may. It is also an obvious poke. Would these same standards be applied to people moving into other communities? Their relationship with what they put in their own bodies will not be a factor. I am hoping to attract healthy people though, and establish a healing centre. The people I am meeting are all very aware with many restricting their diets to organic vegetables and wild fish. There is a growing concern about what we eat, with many forgoing fast food entirely. These are not just hippies either. Instead of restricting it to people who consider themselves to be perfect, or who have 'no history' (which often just shows an ability to hide) we would embrace people as they are, and help them overcome their burdens, and learn and grow.
See, to some people, the potential itself is sufficient to demand restrictions and control. I know people who have a history of drug and alcohol abuse and who have over come it. I know very few here in Canada who do not drink socially. Many drink quite a bit. In some places it is a pass time. In others marijuana use is the norm. These are some of the most peaceful, creative and happy communities.
As to the taking advantage of children, well I do not know anyone who does that, and it is like saying accept no one who kicks puppies daily. It is simply obvious, and likely a very stupid statement designed to try and poke.
Quote:
The mainstream community is flawed but I know I can call the police if there is domestic violence and, in my experience, they have come and sorted things out. This won't be the case in the community though, will it, because that will go against the Freeman ideology?
In our community we can also call our police, they will be peace officers and also our neighbours. Is there something wrong with being neighbours with a peace officer? Plus in our community, all are sworn peace officers, and less likely to engage in conflict.
And calling for the help of a sworn peace officer does not in anyway go against the Freeman ideology, and is labeled here by this newest member, apparently with enormous confidence, and with intent to limit the actions of Freemen. Who says we as Freemen can't call a peace officer for help? When they come and provide their services, they are free to present a bill.
No on to the topic at hand.
I have secured enormous interest in this and heard from a medically trained family man with a fully equipped EMR he wants to bring to the community! WOOT WOOT! We also have the first family likely identified. He is a master carpenter and she is a mom and baker.
The decision process we are looking at is consensual, so those two families will help decide who is next chosen. Then the the three families will decide and so on until the parcels are taken.
I have also been looking at existing leasehold agreements, and think that will be a lot easier then we first thought, as people have already done very similar stuff. We will likely hire a lawyer to draft one up. We will do this as a group so everyone is happy, protected and confident their energies are not lost.
Hope you all have a good day! I did a show last night in Moncton and had an awesome turnout and great show! Freemanery is getting huge here....
