As strange as it seems, I've noticed that for a lot of freemen (and Menard in particular), their arguments remind me a lot of someone arguing in favor of Zeno's famous paradox with Achilles and the tortoise. It may be difficult to come up with a mathematical equation for why Achilles can pass the tortoise, but that does not mean that Achilles can't pass the tortoise. Anyone with eyes can see him quickly zip past. Two people arguing about the precise mathematics of the occasion will not change the facts on the ground.
It seems almost like that with freemen. Every time Menard returns here, he asks how someone can govern another without consent. Then he leaves, returns a few days later, repeats the same question, and leaves again. What he seems to fail to understand is that the current legal system does not hinge on us giving him a satisfactory answer to that question. Menard's little conundrum does not change the facts on the ground, that courts completely disregard freeman garbage and throw it out the moment they encounter it. It is no less silly to argue that courts can't be doing what they are already doing than it is to say that Achilles will literally never catch up to the tortoise.
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?
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!
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. I am not saying it works ALL THE TIME, and yes there are those who after accepting the courts jurisdiction, then try to question it and they fail. 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?
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.
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'.
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.
