The Freeman Movement and England

[Elizabeth I]

No, it's fiction. For children. Are you a child?

You very obviously have never read Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. While it is, indeed, fiction (even fantasy), it is very emphatically an adult series. It is philosophy, political commentary, and satire all wrapped up in a fantastic gift for storytelling.

Pure Argent, I have noticed that people of limited intellect often have no ability to appreciate satire, or, in many cases, even comedy. AA's attitude is just one more example of this sad fact.

Could you start formatting your replies correctly? This "red text in a quote box" thing is really not easy to read.

But this would require him to submit to your totalitarian ideas of correct formatting. Do you really expect him to bend the neck to your yoke like that? How could he ever call himself a FOTL again?

ETA: LightinDarkness, thank you so much for getting us some new cat toys.

 

[Arthur Asky]

Arthur Asky, I never got a response to this post. As it contains a lot of rather important points, would you mind giving me your thoughts on it?

I have not the need to assert anything. You asserted that I had. As I have said before I have no debt. The freeman thing as you assert is not based on theft. You enter into a contract and you are then liable to fulfil that contract.

My home was never purchased from the government. I do not ask the Police Force to watch over me. You then begin to make more assumptions, about my job, heat and water do not come from the government they are supplied by Franchises. The food the government says is safe contains aspartame (or as they like to play funny games and hide it under names like sweetner 950 and 951, hmmmmmm! more Covert rubbish!) and MSG which is known to cause health problems. They put toxic waste fluoride in water and say it's safe in toothpaste when the waste industry says it's toxic. They put chlorine in the water and make it taste disgusting but hey! And so you go on.... Oh! I pay for my trash to be taken away. Everything I do is paid for by me! THERE ARE NO DEBTS HERE! So as to all the good things I have, they are there because I have paid for them. But much of it,from parking on a yellow line and having to register your vehicle are rubbish to being made to stand before a Judge with no power is ridiculous.

Hang on if I wish to cut to the chase as you start to duplicate your points but you go on again about not paying debts, purified food and water and the police saving me from kidnap (verging on the ridiculous it seems comes easy to you). Even if I lived in the Nevada desert the governement would still claim ultimate jurisdiction and this is my point you have sorely missed.

Jurisdiction is not anyone else's to take or decide upon. It is mine alone and I have reclaimed it. On the other hand all you have done is said you and the state can decide for me.

You can't. End of. For this I am make no apology.

You sure love the shades of grey behind which Statute lies. Oh! Dear. You crave to be governed, carry on but just don't expect everyone else to follow or demand that they do. There are many Ghandi's out there who just won't fight you or what you stand for. They will just lie down and not co-operate it's called lawful rebellion. Check it out!

 

[fromdownunder]

No, no! Just the word law is all! Statute makes no law and only has the force of law by the consensual agreement of those who wish to be governed.

Do you even understand that over 95% of Statute Law is simply codified Common Law decisions, to stop the same pointless (even though correct) decisions to be rehashed time after time using and rearguing precedent, simply to save a whole lot of judicial time effort and money?

Of course you don't.

Or, maybe you do, and therefore every time I break somebody's window, we need to go through 100 years of Common Law judicial decisions and spend a couple of weeks in a "court of my peers" to come to a decision, rather than simply having a statute which says "You break a window, it will cost you X" Which would you prefer?

Here is the classic example: Rylands v Fletcher. Not just the case - the importance of this case in subsequent codyfying of the Common Law and subsequent Legislative precedent.

Read and learn, or continue to be ignorant and continue to ignore how the real world functions, including your Masters (and that is what they are - you are a delicated follower of a group of people who do not have the faintest idea of what they are talking about) deluded belief in their own version of the Common Law. Which exists nowhere outside their useless brain cells.

Norm

 

[Arthur Asky]

Where, exactly, was your consent required?

Although the various Bills of Rights (around the world) such as the Magna Carta are not superb work in every way they enshrined some of the ideas that people can take for granted; such as the common law right to travel unimpeded. Travelling by car is then tax. Is a tax an imposition? Yes!

So consent is required now by the need for a driving license. I have to consent if I want to travel! Or so they think!

 

[jsfisher]

Although the various Bills of Rights (around the world) such as the Magna Carta are not superb work in every way they enshrined some of the ideas that people can take for granted; such as the common law right to travel unimpeded. Travelling by car is then tax. Is a tax an imposition? Yes!

So consent is required now by the need for a driving license. I have to consent if I want to travel! Or so they think!

You are trying to evade the question.

 

[Arthur Asky]

Do you even understand that over 95% of Statute Law is simply codified Common Law decisions, to stop the same pointless (even though correct) decisions to be rehashed time after time using and rearguing precedent, simply to save a whole lot of judicial time effort and money?

Of course you don't.

Or, maybe you do, and therefore every time I break somebody's window, we need to go through 100 years of Common Law judicial decisions and spend a couple of weeks in a "court of my peers" to come to a decision, rather than simply having a statute which says "You break a window, it will cost you X" Which would you prefer?

Here is the classic example: Rylands v Fletcher. Not just the case - the importance of this case in subsequent codyfying of the Common Law and subsequent Legislative precedent.

Read and learn, or continue to be ignorant and continue to ignore how the real world functions, including your Masters (and that is what they are - you are a delicated follower of a group of people who do not have the faintest idea of what they are talking about) deluded belief in their own version of the Common Law. Which exists nowhere outside their useless brain cells.

Norm

I follow no-one as I have done my own due dilligence! common law courts can also do the same with the window thing! No major differences but without a pompous ass sitting in a wig and making people stand! The idea is all about jurisdiction, authority and consent!

Gone for a short while!

 

[Nonpareil]

Pure Argent, I have noticed that people of limited intellect often have no ability to appreciate satire, or, in many cases, even comedy. AA's attitude is just one more example of this sad fact.

I don't know about his intelligence, but his automatic ridicule at the very least makes me feel very sorry for him. He's missing out on some of the greatest literary works of all time.

I have not the need to assert anything. You asserted that I had. As I have said before I have no debt. The freeman thing as you assert is not based on theft. You enter into a contract and you are then liable to fulfil that contract.

My home was never purchased from the government. I do not ask the Police Force to watch over me. You then begin to make more assumptions, about my job, heat and water do not come from the government they are supplied by Franchises. The food the government says is safe contains aspartame (or as they like to play funny games and hide it under names like sweetner 950 and 951, hmmmmmm! more Covert rubbish!) and MSG which is known to cause health problems. They put toxic waste fluoride in water and say it's safe in toothpaste when the waste industry says it's toxic. They put chlorine in the water and make it taste disgusting but hey! And so you go on.... Oh! I pay for my trash to be taken away. Everything I do is paid for by me! THERE ARE NO DEBTS HERE! So as to all the good things I have, they are there because I have paid for them. But much of it,from parking on a yellow line and having to register your vehicle are rubbish to being made to stand before a Judge with no power is ridiculous.

Hang on if I wish to cut to the chase as you start to duplicate your points but you go on again about not paying debts, purified food and water and the police saving me from kidnap (verging on the ridiculous it seems comes easy to you). Even if I lived in the Nevada desert the governement would still claim ultimate jurisdiction and this is my point you have sorely missed.

Jurisdiction is not anyone else's to take or decide upon. It is mine alone and I have reclaimed it. On the other hand all you have done is said you and the state can decide for me.

You can't. End of. For this I am make no apology.

You sure love the shades of grey behind which Statute lies. Oh! Dear. You crave to be governed, carry on but just don't expect everyone else to follow or demand that they do. There are many Ghandi's out there who just won't fight you or what you stand for. They will just lie down and not co-operate it's called lawful rebellion. Check it out!

I'm afraid that you do have the need to assert something, AA - that your Freeman beliefs are true. As you have asserted this, you must prove it.

Your home was, indeed, purchased from the government - even if it was not purchased by you, one of your ancestors did so, or, if you live in an apartment, you purchased it from a "minor government" (the landlord). And yes, your job, water, and heat are all, in the end, from the government, as none of it would be able to function otherwise. The government regulates the way that your water is purified and delivered, as well as the way the wiring in your house is put together to prevent electrical screwups. Even if it is not directly supplied by the government, without the government, you would not have these things.

Yes, you pay for everything. However, your Freeman beliefs state that you can get away with not paying for, if not all, then at least a substantial portion of these benefits - and, at the same time, that many of the rules do not apply to you at all. For example, you think that you do not have to register your vehicle (which, by the way, is far from pointless), and that you don't have to park in designated areas (which is also not pointless).

The police example may seem ridiculous. However, it is entirely true - if something happens to you, you expect the police to help. When something is not happening to you, the police are still expected to be on call in case something does go wrong. Or do you think that the police officers don't have to be paid for their time when they're not actively shooting at the bad guys?

The Nevada desert was simply an example. If you want to get technical, head to Antarctica, which, by international treaty, belongs to no one. But as long as you dwell within a society and benefit from the society, you must obey its rules and do your part to repay the benefits. If not, then you have committed theft, your "claims of jurisdiction" be damned. This is the point which you still remain entirely unable to refute.

You hide behind "statute" and "jurisdiction" and claims of being a new Gandhi, but, in the end, you are simply avoiding the issue. The simple fact is that you are attempting to ignore the rules without any consequences for doing so. Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

 

[fromdownunder]

Travelling by car is then tax. Is a tax an imposition? Yes!

So consent is required now by the need for a driving license. I have to consent if I want to travel! Or so they think!

This is not even wrong! You can travel by Public transport, in which case you incur the combined Public cost (i.e., risk to others, taxation costs on the upkeep of roads, several other things that even YOu could think of). This is included in your fare when you get on a bus, on a train, or in a taxi.

When you are driving your private transport (say, your car) You are responsible for your actions, even in an accident. If you do not have a licence or are not insured, or your car is not registered and you cause an accident, you are responsible. And unless you have the generally accepted public right to use the roads, you will get your socks sued off you. The point being, without a licence, a Registered car, and in most cases liability insurance, you are using Public Highways without permission.

What if another FMOTL ran into you, and said, hey I have the same rights to use the road as you do, and he simply refused to pay for YOUR damage and loss? Would your principles say, well he is, and I am, so I lost?

Put yourself in the position where something very bad happens to you, and another FMOTL says "it's not my fault". Would you try to use Statute Law for recomplence for $100,000 in medical bills, or would you sue under FMOTL principles? Or would you do nothing?

And knowing FOMTL as such I have read of this group, you will not have the assets put aside to "make whole" the people or proprety you have damaged in your personal and irresponsible pursuit of "freedom" You will (in any way you can) go with the "it's not my fault" brigade, and probably go as far as to use Statute Law, and declare Bankruptsy to avoid what you owe.

The basic idea of FMOTL is to get out of debt, and avoid being honest people. Abusing the system at at all times because you think that there should be such a thing as "a Free Lunch".

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

I follow no-one as I have done my own due dilligence! common law courts can also do the same with the window thing! No major differences but without a pompous ass sitting in a wig and making people stand! The idea is all about jurisdiction, authority and consent!

Gone for a short while!

OK, explain how you will set up so-called "Common Law" courts with judges and juries, and how they would be quicker and cheaper than a Magistrate looking at a Statute, without the time and effort of finding a Jury, and spending about 5 minutes saying - "You broke a window. $100 fine and pay to replace the window"

From what you have already said, there are NO judges, so you would have to find one, who would be willing to serve for Gas money and a Cheese Sandwich. What if nobody will? You will need your Jury, which does not even get the Cheese sandwich. If I had to do that (and since I have not contracted with anyone, I would not have to) I would tell you NO! I have better things to do! So, where's your Jury?

Would you want to spend half a day being in a jury line up to personally decide whether this sort of thing was a vauable use of your time? Or would you prefer the Statute scenario?

Norm

 

[tsig]

On the other hand all you have done is said you and the state can decide for me.

You can't. End of. For this I am make no apology.

!

The state can and will decide for you if you do not follow the laws. For this it will make no apology.

 

[tsig]

Where, exactly, was your consent required?

Apparently his parents should have asked him if he wanted to be born.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Your home was, indeed, purchased from the government - even if it was not purchased by you, one of your ancestors did so, or, if you live in an apartment, you purchased it from a "minor government" (the landlord). And yes, your job, water, and heat are all, in the end, from the government, as none of it would be able to function otherwise. The government regulates the way that your water is purified and delivered, as well as the way the wiring in your house is put together to prevent electrical screwups. Even if it is not directly supplied by the government, without the government, you would not have these things.

Yes, you pay for everything. However, your Freeman beliefs state that you can get away with not paying for, if not all, then at least a substantial portion of these benefits - and, at the same time, that many of the rules do not apply to you at all. For example, you think that you do not have to register your vehicle (which, by the way, is far from pointless), and that you don't have to park in designated areas (which is also not pointless).

Oh the DI forum I put up a detailed post outlining why Freeman on the land was flawed because Freemen would fail to be allocated public goods. To make things simple, I used the old "what happens when you don't consent to fire protection because you dont' want to pay for it and a fire started in your home spread to other houses?" question that even college freshmen understand, and the response I got was a mixture of utter silence and hysterical attempts to derail the thread.

Freeloaders on the land simply refuse to acknowledge the basic truth that their life decisions do not take place in a void, and that it impacts other people whether they want it to or not. They don't have a choice to consent in a society where everyone must do things like pay for fire protection in order to avoid another Great Fire of London happening every time a Freeman is feeling cheap and doesn't want to pay money for fire services.

 

[fromdownunder]

Oh the DI forum I put up a detailed post outlining why Freeman on the land was flawed because Freemen would fail to be allocated public goods. To make things simple, I used the old "what happens when you don't consent to fire protection because you dont' want to pay for it and a fire started in your home spread to other houses?" question that even college freshmen understand, and the response I got was a mixture of utter silence and hysterical attempts to derail the thread.

Freeloaders on the land simply refuse to acknowledge the basic truth that their life decisions do not take place in a void, and that it impacts other people whether they want it to or not. They don't have a choice to consent in a society where everyone must do things like pay for fire protection in order to avoid another Great Fire of London happening every time a Freeman is feeling cheap and doesn't want to pay money for fire services.

I don't know if it was early on this thread, or on another FMOTL thread that I put this scenario, but I would be interested in Arthur's response to my hypothetical:

Arthur, You and I are both FMOTL. I live upstream from you on the only water source that we both rely on. I decide to build a Dam, because I need the extra water, and because I am a smart sort of person, also divert all the excrement and other pollutants from my part of the creek below the Dam level, leaving you with only polluted water.

Under FMOTL Principles, how do you resolve this situation? I have simply exercised my FMOTL rights to do what I need to do. It's water I need, and I need to ensure that MY water does not endanger me, so as a FMOTL I have the right to do this. Do you have any rights or should you simply move to a clean stream? Simply because I have excercised MY FMOTL rights?

Norm

 

[tsig]

Oh the DI forum I put up a detailed post outlining why Freeman on the land was flawed because Freemen would fail to be allocated public goods. To make things simple, I used the old "what happens when you don't consent to fire protection because you dont' want to pay for it and a fire started in your home spread to other houses?" question that even college freshmen understand, and the response I got was a mixture of utter silence and hysterical attempts to derail the thread.

Freeloaders on the land simply refuse to acknowledge the basic truth that their life decisions do not take place in a void, and that it impacts other people whether they want it to or not. They don't have a choice to consent in a society where everyone must do things like pay for fire protection in order to avoid another Great Fire of London happening every time a Freeman is feeling cheap and doesn't want to pay money for fire services.

They can't understand that freedom has responsibility's.


Pitcairn Island, a freeman's paradise free of all law.

"Though the islanders learned to survive quite comfortably by farming and fishing, violence and illness caused many problems. Much of the violence was caused by some of the mutineers and the Polynesian men wanting the same women, there being fewer women than men."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Pitcairn_Islands

 

[RHolmes]

Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement

Aaaaaand another quote which illustrates your Alice-in-Wonderland beliefs about statute law.

Really not willing to learn, are you?

Statute is ambiguity.

This one is sometimes true, but that's because of bad draftsmanship, not statute law per se.

I'll admit that FOTL principles of harming no-one and honouring your agreements are noble, but - really - if you think ambiguity in law is bad, any suggestion that those principles be the whole of the law should have alarm bells deafening you.

 

[RHolmes]

I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like.

I get it.

Yup.

It's all very well saying "I don't need anyone to tell me what's right and wrong", but then - oh noes! - you have to deal with people whose idea of right and wrong differs from yours. What then?

There are a hell of a lot of people in the world who think that it is wrong for a woman to go out without her head covered and for two consenting adults of the same sex to have a loving, monogamous relationship. And who think it's right to punish those who do these wrongs.

Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave

.

Where they gonna go, Arthur? Off the planet? This is exactly what you have been told: if you don't like the laws of the country you'r living in, leave.

Your statement here simply confirms that a FOTL society would be substantively the same as any other. There's be laws that some people didn't like, and they coulu lump it or leave.

EDIT: Actually, there's a third option. Stick around and change the law. Help improve the society you're living in. Nowthere's a thought!

 

[Fiona]

I think it was quoted for someone else.

Be back later!

 

[Lothian]

No, no! Just the word law is all! Statute makes no law and only has the force of law by the consensual agreement of those who wish to be governed.

So you will have no difficulty in detailing one case where someone has broken a statute but has escaped punishment because they have successfully argued in court that they did not consent to the statute.

I must have asked this about 20 + times in this thread but for some weird reason I can quite fathom FTOLs seem to skip over the question.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Enjoy your society!

Well, yes, we do. Whereas if you try to live according to your incorrect beliefs about the nature of that society, you'll probably find you don't enjoy it very much at all.

Don't get me wrong, I won't deny that you have a right to claim that society should be as you imagine it, or that you have a right to campaign to make society more as you imagine it, however flawed I personally may find that vision. You will simply run into unending difficulties if you act as if society already is the way you imagine it, when in fact and in practice it isn't. You see, society has a consensus as to what society is, and that consensus is by definition right. You're claiming that it's wrong. That claim can never be correct.

Dave

 

[Arthur Asky]

Haven't had time to do the quote idea so I will have to post in a colour as I would still like to engage with you strange minded folk. So I will post in a less aggresive colour a blue or green.

I don't know about his intelligence, but his automatic ridicule at the very least makes me feel very sorry for him. Please don'tHe's missing out on some of the greatest literary works of all time.



I'm afraid that you do have the need to assert something Because you say I do but don't or because I really do?, AA - that your Freeman beliefs are true. As you have asserted this, you must prove it. I've done that, thanks.

Your home was, indeed, purchased from the government - even if it was not purchased by you, one of your ancestors did so, or, if you live in an apartment, you purchased it from a "minor government" (the landlord) Nobody owned the land and no-one still does unless they provide original title. They need to find original title or shut up!. And yes, your job, water, and heat are all, in the end, from the government, as none of it would be able to function otherwise So those that obtain their water from the tank system and do not require government intervention still must be thankful for government intervention when they played no part AT ALL in providing any service. My time spent posting with you is becoming quite boring as you cannot break away from the chains that hold you. The government regulates the way that your water is purified (again you deliver the government line and project the fact that nothing untoward is going on, depsite Cholrine and Fluoride amongst other **** that is added) and delivered, as well as the way the wiring in your house is put together to prevent electrical screwups (which was done by an electrician who was paid with paper / the government had no hand in his hiring). Even if it is not directly supplied by the government, without the government, you would not have these things. Why so? When I breathe does the government ALLOW the air into my lungs?

Yes, you pay for everything. However, your Freeman beliefs state that you can get away with not paying forHold on, what beliefs are these? Rob Menard may say one thing but he is not speaking for me. He has his way and me my own. I do not need or wish anyone to speak on my behalf., if not all, then at least a substantial portion of these benefits - and, at the same time, that many of the rules do not apply to you at all. For example, you think that you do not have to register your vehicle (which, by the way, is far from pointless), and that you don't have to park in designated areas (which is also not pointless). Thanks for agreeing!

The police example may seem ridiculous. However, it is entirely true - if something happens to you, you expect the police to help DO I, NO I DO NOT!. When something is not happening to you, the police are still expected to be on call in case something does go wrong. Or do you think that the police officers don't have to be paid for their time when they're not actively shooting at the bad guys?

The Nevada desert was simply an exampleYOUR example and a bad one, still yours though!. If you want to get technical, head to Antarctica, which, by international treaty, belongs to no one Norway, Britain, Russia, America, New Zealand, Australia to name some have claims, how I do not know. That's like me claiming your left leg as my own. Can I prove it? No. Can I say it, if I say it does it make it so, NO! Absolutely NOT!. But as long as you dwell within a society and benefit from the societyWhen you say dwell do mean physically or mentally / spiritually / consensually, you must because you sayobey really its rules and do your part to repay the benefits unless I am not in debt and the contractual terms and conditions were displayed and not covertly shown under the table that I could not see which breaches said contracts. If not, then you have committed theftAre you losing your temper?, your "claims of jurisdiction" be damnedWhy?. This is the point which you still remain entirely unable to refute. I just have and in many posts and this is my point. You continue to roll around in your diatribe "discussing rubbish that just takes up peoples time" and you like to pull people in which I have engaged with you but feel no longer willing to talk rubbish with you.

You hide behind "statute" and "jurisdiction" and claims of being a new Gandhi, but, in the end, you are simply avoiding the issue. The simple fact is that you are attempting to ignore the rules without any consequences for doing so. Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

I shall end this conversation now by saying I reject your authority and that of those that represent you. Prove your claim of authority over me and I will accept it. Until then i will continue on my chosen path.

If you think this is small, go back to the late nineties. Go back further to the sixties and then even further. People are waking up and all of your guns and rubbish don't to people like the Ghandi's. MLK's, Mandela's of this world. They will gladly do your time. Some of them may even be within your system and you may know what they did and why they did it.

Save this though, if you are part of it, be sure to distance yourself when the time comes because thousands of milllions of people may be a little upset with you when they find out you complied!