The Freeman Movement and England

[Paul]

It is all about doing what feels right though - cos' when it truly feels right, it usually is.

Congratulations, you've managed to add something truly stupid to the vast store of FOTL idiocy.

 

[remirol]

Guys. I dont have time for this. I should really just not come back, cos' every time I do, I feel compelled to say something.

Well, that's the problem, see. You're spending too much time saying, and not enough time thinking.

The FOTL-folks don't beg to anyone as they are their own authority. Like I said before, the use of force doesn't make things right.

But it does make things happen. For example, it makes FOTLers go to jail, have their cars crushed, and get evicted. So why should anyone follow such a bunch of bollocks? I mean, seriously.

And if it takes the ultimate sacrifice, some FOTL say "so be it". I take my hat off to those people, as I'm not sure if I could go all the way.

Self-sacrificing behavior is only productive if it helps accomplish something. What are all those FOTLers in jail accomplishing other than wrecking their own lives?

"They" don't because they can't, If they did they'd destroy their own house of cards.

Except it is patently obvious that "they" do just that, judging from all the FOTLers who end up in jail, with their cars crushed, etc. So since all the FOTL magic words obviously do not work, what is the FOTL recourse? Who do they call?

They simply either drop the case or walk away like they did at the filmed occasion you can find, when you go to vimeo dot com and then type /10211543 behind the URL.

ETA: ...When you watched that video, did you listen to the narrator's words or did you listen to what was actually being said in the courtroom? Because what the narrator claims is happening has no relation to what's actually happening in the video.

 

[D'rok]

Don't you see the problem with this statement? There is absolutely nothing wrong with studying legal philosophy, but the forums that are frequented by FOTL'ers are preaching more than philosophy. They are preaching system of evading the legal system we have established in this country and others.

Legal philosophy is fantastic. I don't even disagree with a good deal of what you said about where moral authority originates. I have my own opinions that differ, but I can't say that yours are incorrect.

What IS incorrect, is the legal practices that the FOTL forums - particularly the Icke forums - advise people to follow. If you want to stand up for your philosophy and debate it on merits on some internet forums, that is fantastic. But as soon as the FOTL'ers start throwing out plainly false theories (fringe on a flag means admiralty court, refusing to contract with the court gets you off the hook, etc.), I then have a problem with you.

Perhaps you do not provide the advice that some on those forums do. If that is the case, fantastic, don't start. If you do, then you have no right to come on these forums and try to claim moral superiority.

What is being discussed on this forum is not legal philosophy. We are not debating where moral authority comes from and who has the right to enforce laws upon humanity. What we are debating are the lunatic theories on the legal system that DOES exist (as opposed to the one the FOTL'ers WISHED existed), and how blatantly false they are.

Words of wisdom from neocenturion.

 

[uk_dave]

So, in practice, it seems that FOTL philosophy is a load of dogs' bollocks.

Just as a matter of interest, when something is said to be "the dogs bollocks" (for some strange reason) it is considered to be a good thing/the best/fantastic, whereas if something is said to be "bollocks" then it's crap.

Apparently these definitions are enshrined in natural law, or something.

 

[Cuddles]

That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian).

Murderer. Plants are exactly as alive as animals.

 

[remirol]

Just as a matter of interest, when something is said to be "the dogs bollocks" (for some strange reason) it is considered to be a good thing/the best/fantastic, whereas if something is said to be "bollocks" then it's crap.

Apparently these definitions are enshrined in natural law, or something.

I find your country disturbing.

 

[uk_dave]

I find your country disturbing.

Well, it's not so far off from where you guys say:
"It's the ****"

or

"That was sick" (for something good)

But yes, my country is disturbing. The neighbours, mostly.

 

[D'rok]

It is all about doing what feels right though - cos' when it truly feels right, it usually is.

Hey, Callicles. You like philosophy, right? You like arguments about "nature" and "natural" this and that, yes? Well I say you, Ayn Rand and "feels good man" FOTLers everywhere emulate the stone curlew, crapping where you eat, and your pleasure is that of a catamite. Go look it up.

Now, if you dropped the FOTL crap and just wanted to riff on philosophy, we might have some common ground here.

 

[LightinDarkness]

And maybe a last closing point for those who ridicule natural law:

Go and study some legal philosophy.

Locke, Rawls, Kant, Fichte are a good start for beginners.

I really wouldn't recommend a reading list from philosophers whom you clearly have not read.

And - closing point? That doesn't mean your going away, does it? Why is it so hard to get one of these Freeman to show us their proof?

Oh, because there isn't any.

 

[Hans]

I really wouldn't recommend a reading list from philosophers whom you clearly have not read.

And - closing point? That doesn't mean your going away, does it? Why is it so hard to get one of these Freeman to show us their proof?

Oh, because there isn't any.

I would suggest the fotl'er study hebetube and they may also wish to look at the Qarmatians who ran a society that had a few of the 'fotl' concepts (kinda) in its structure.

 

[dudalb]

K, D'rok and cwalner. This is the last time I'll bother. My time is too precious... may you guys become marry and happy slaves of the state.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Corrected username as per rule 0.

Call the London Police for confirmation: +1 519-661-5670


You call a notarized affidavit of truth a "worthless fantasy document"? Dude, what are you on? What do you think "propper ID" is?


That is the biased claim of someone who under no circumstances would allow "authority" to fail, when it is us humans who form authority, which makes it everything but perfect. Even if the camera would have stayed on till the end. You wouldn't allow it as prove. The answer would have been like: "This cop must have been new" or "he'll probably get a ticket in the mail".


It is only ever the things we push ahead that will work. Us humans constitute our own environment, which is only ever as perfect as the scope of granted individual freedom. Again: Right and wrong cannot be distinguished based on which side has the force of weapons. And the more the force is abused, the more people will stand up for the right (thats a historical fact).


I'm sorry to have gone over you head. All I said is that there is natura/god-given/call it whatever state of things, that constitutes natural law: That every human is equal and has to mutually respect others the way they are. That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian). Simple reasoning. Or do you claim that you as a human have no capacity for that?


How do you figure? Being truly free IS being truly responsible! No (State-defined) duties, and definitely no benefits!


I assume you're pertaining to public roads. Are they not paying taxes on gas? Not to mention the hidden tax of inflation. Show me how that can be avoided. It would be interesting to see.


They apply it only to remind "persons" they deal with to abide by it. For example they may use whatever statute grants a fair hearing.

By using the term "freeloader" you have confirmed the feelings of your kind, that I attempted to describe before. You feel that you are working hard and "paying in for them", when in fact they aint getting nothing. Or you feel that "we all need to pay in". Do we? Who are the people to decide that? Are they better in any way than the people who are against this idea?


Maybe some day you will understand that "the sake of the common good" flourishes best where there is individual freedom, not coercion. Truly free people and self-responsible people recognize that solidarity and love is a necessity of human live. Of course, some will never learn. These people are definitely better of staying where they are, being nannied and taken care of by some supervising state.


Oh, so you recognize that things are the way they are, but still stand for deceiving codification? Wow.


You don't need "minority group rights" when you have natural individual rights (which in the case of the US have been constitutionalized).


Do you honestly believe that in a world of party-dictatorship, the left-right-paradigm, backroom deals, and massive lobbyism my voice or anyone elses really matters? Wake up! Look at Ireland who clearly said NO to the Lisbon treaty. Well, lets make them vote again, till we have what we want... meanwhile we bombard them a bit more with propaganda material. Then there's the German government elected by not even 30% of the people who entitled to vote, who gave a **** about their constitution (the "basic law") and simply ratified the Lisbon-decision over their people's heads. This is how "democracy" works.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for rule 10.

Purely natural right and necessity driven... that simple. What you live is what we teach. The same applies to our "society", or shall I call it ideocracy?


There can only ever be one thing at stake. And that's the grant of being part of the community. Nobody is forced to stay and those who don't respect natural law or are unsolidary can go and try elsewhere. Mind you, that wouldn't mean they'd have to move.



Learn the difference between lawful and legal. Once you understand it, you will also understand the difference between statutes and actual law.
Actual law isn't man made but is merely based on the natural state of life and the capacity of human reason. Personally I'm not into the common law. Although it does interpret natural law fairly well, it is none the less a man-written version. I repeat: UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (that is un-saleable un-negotiable, and un-modifiable nature given rights!) cannot be defined by man. They are divine and the very opposite of lawlessness. Sorry for taking your conventional reasoning to capacity.

Not all humans but the vast amount of today's "society" needs the rule of law - that I agree with you. This however must not be an eternal state and is only the case, because they have (intentionally) been raised to be un-response-able (irresponsible), conform and fearful.

The following could be from me, but unfortunately isn't:

"
A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won!

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for rule 4.

Edited for rule 0, rule 4 and rule 10. Would suggest re-reading the Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

SO now we drag out the Ayn Rand quotes.
Though, in fairness to Rand, she ridiculed that Freeman beliefs as being silly.

 

[Pantaz]

... Hold on! Appealing equals begging. The FOTL-folks don't beg to anyone as they are their own authority. ...

(Emphasis added)

Let's think about that -- "they are their own authority".

Really, let that sink in for a moment.

Think about the HUGE implications if that were true.

 

[cwalner]

(Emphasis added)

Let's think about that -- "they are their own authority".

Really, let that sink in for a moment.

Think about the HUGE implications if that were true.

The true irony is that it was in response to a post of mine that did address those very implications and it was meant to dismiss them.

... Whether laws are in the form of common law or statutes is irrelevant. society needs the rule of law to function. You make claims to natural law or God's law, but that is a smokescreen. What FOTL is pushing is anarchy and lawlessness.

 

[jimbob]

Just as a matter of interest, when something is said to be "the dogs bollocks" (for some strange reason) it is considered to be a good thing/the best/fantastic, whereas if something is said to be "bollocks" then it's crap.

Apparently these definitions are enshrined in natural law, or something.

I find your country disturbing.

If you want to know why, it is apparently because of the dog being able (and keen) to lick them...

EDIT: putting the "E" into JREF

 

[Sledge]

"They" don't because they can't, If they did they'd destroy their own house of cards. They simply either drop the case or walk away like they did at the filmed occasion you can find, when you go to vimeo dot com and then type /10211543 behind the URL.

That's not an answer to my question. Like I said, let's assume that everything FOTL'ers say is true. Why would all the refusing to contract with the court stuff work? They have big men who can throw you in jail whether you contract with them or not. Why would you possibly think that this stuff will make the judge go all sheepish and admit that the legal system is a lie?

 

[cwalner]

Oooh, I just had an evil thought.

I should contact Menard, and buy as much of his material I can and send it to the Iwatumba Agricultural High School PTA

That could result in some serious entertainment.

 

[D'rok]

Because I never know when to leave well enough alone, here's a couple of observations about "natural" law, etc.

The FOTL idea of natural equality, which for them encompasses things like radical liberty and the harm principle, would be bizarre in the extreme to past proponents of arguments from nature. The notion that equality is natural would be absurd to the Greeks (the non-Socratic ones, that is), who would argue that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Consent is utterly irrelevant here. So are rights. Men are by nature masters or slaves, and it is just for masters-by-nature to rule over slaves-by-nature and to use them as mere means. To thwart this by claims to equality would be conventional rather than natural justice. In fact, Plato was so concerned with countering the "natural law" advocates in Athens, that he constructed elaborate thought experiments like the Republic to try and recast Justice and civil order in terms of transcendent metaphysics - i.e., to counter the "natural" with the divine order of the cosmos, or the true nature of things.

But even Plato's appeal to the eternal, unchanging cosmos as "natural" was anything but an appeal to equality and liberty. It was an appeal to a rigidly structured class system with a place for everyone and everyone in their place. It took the Christian Platonists to replace Plato's Forms with God and to usher in what Nietzsche called "slave morality", resulting in the internalization and sanctification of the morals of the meek. Conflating the Christian divine with nature finally killed Achilles. This, combined with the enlightenment social contractarians and their "states of nature", is where liberal "natural" equality comes from. And the social contractarians themselves each had mutually incompatible versions of the state of nature and the natural rights of man. They had to, because they each had different political goals that they wanted to achieve by appealing to "nature".

All of which is to say...what is claimed to be "natural" is easily revealed to be "social". The content of what is "natural" has constantly changed as social conditions and norms have changed. The same is true of the "divine". Any appeal to natural rights is not an appeal to nature qua nature; it is an appeal to a normative project for the City. It is an ought, not an is.

 

[jimbob]

That's not an answer to my question. Like I said, let's assume that everything FOTL'ers say is true. Why would all the refusing to contract with the court stuff work? They have big men who can throw you in jail whether you contract with them or not. Why would you possibly think that this stuff will make the judge go all sheepish and admit that the legal system is a lie?

Either:
It is magic: you have power over someone if you know their true name.

Or maybe they are a few grapes short of a bunch.

Hmmm... David Icke forums?

 

[D'rok]

Either:
It is magic: you have power over someone if you know their true name.

Or maybe they are a few grapes short of a bunch.

Hmmm... David Icke forums?

You forgot the third possibility.

Reptlilians.

 

[jimbob]

You forgot the third possibility.

Reptlilians.

Isn't that a combination of both the above though?