The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
cwalner said:
I would, but honesty would force me to use my one degree, BS, and well we all know where that would lead.
Click to expand...



You have degree in BS, but you cant just make up some more? What were you, last in your class?
 
tobjai said:
...I suggest you guys have a listen to kanadian philosopher Stefan Molyneux.
For what I'm concerned he deliveres the points across the best, for he's well articulated and at the same time entertaining. Any of his "FreedomainRadio" shows are very thought provoking, but for the sake of this threat (which at core is all about freedom) I would suggest this particular video (1.5 hours): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1rEbRbBDQ (External youtube video blah blah blah, same disclaimer as always).

But please only bother if you have time to watch the full speech and if you are open to openly discuss the points of argument without getting personal.
Click to expand...

I watched a quarter of it and I have a question I'd like to openly discuss without getting personal. The first 24 minutes are about libertarianism. Does he ever switch over to FMOTL?
 
Ladewig said:
I watched a quarter of it and I have a question I'd like to openly discuss without getting personal. The first 24 minutes are about libertarianism. Does he ever switch over to FMOTL?
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is all about antinomianism, and with it the incremental abolition of statism (as the only supposed legit excuse for human ownership and violence). In simple terms it is all about individual freedom which is exactly where free(wo)men and libertarians meet.

...this guy wouldn't get along with FMOTLers at all if you read the website. FMOTLer propaganda comes from the assumption that there is some vast God-given "common law"..
Click to expand...

1. As just explained above, his values very much align with those of the FOTL.
2. The general FMOTL agenda (remember there are many variations within individual approaches of the movement) lies on the premis of natural law (which is interpreted not only by geographic areas of common law, but also by those of civil law).

Regarding pretty much all other responses I can only shake my had. Once again you folks have proven that you cannot hold a reasonable debate on any offered subject by anyone, without doing exactly what I asked not to -> becomming personal (for that very incapability you all are probably better off with in the violent constraints of statism). It does not matter what Stefan Molyneux does for living, what his background is, or what oppinion he has on other subject matters. What matters only is the subject brougth to the table, which I'd love to get into detail (when question arise) while applying nothing but logic, evidence and reason. Thank you.
 
LightinDarkness said:
Oh my god, I finally listened to one of his podcasts and he actually introduces himself a Stephan Molyneux, M.A. Who does that?


LightinDarkness, PhD Candidate, MPA, MA, BA, BA, BA :D
Click to expand...

Really? (I'm not wasting time on the podcast) I have two Masters' and a Doctorate (and working on a second) and I don't even use the title doctor unless someone's being patronising.

Hans said:
Only vain poseurs with self confidence issues.....LOL

Hans, esquire and a host of Capital letters
Click to expand...
Exactly.


Horatius said:
Just imagine what this kid's teenage years are going to be like!
Click to expand...
Hopefully he'll find some internet guru and "detach" from his parents.....
 
D'rok said:
I like how he brags about getting an "A" on his thesis. Congrats, ya putz! You landed right in the centre of the masters degree bell curve. Try for excellence next time!
Click to expand...

Since when are master level theses graded? Mine faced acceptance or rejection.
 
tobjai said:
Once again you folks have proven that you cannot hold a reasonable debate on any offered subject by anyone, without doing exactly what I asked not to -> becomming personal (for that very incapability you all are probably better off with in the violent constraints of statism).
Click to expand...

So, do you feel that the state has a valid role in restraining the behaviour of those incapable of exercising their freedoms responsibly? That sounds a very un-libertarian view; you seem to be suggesting libertarianism only for yourself and people who agree with you, and a state to manage those who don't. How does that work, exactly?

Dave
 
quixotecoyote said:
Since when are master level theses graded? Mine faced acceptance or rejection.
Click to expand...

My university's computers insisted that all degree requirements be formalized in coursework, and that all completed coursework have a final grade so you could tell that it was completed.

I think the 699 course was "Master's Thesis" and the 799 was "Ph.D. dissertation". IIRC, there may even have been a 798 "Ph.D. Candidacy Exam." A's in all three were, of course, the norm unless you dropped out and the computers turned them into 'F's for failure-to-complete-by-deadline.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So, do you feel that the state has a valid role in restraining the behaviour of those incapable of exercising their freedoms responsibly? That sounds a very un-libertarian view; you seem to be suggesting libertarianism only for yourself and people who agree with you, and a state to manage those who don't. How does that work, exactly?

Dave
Click to expand...

It is very simple Dave. Just because some people may benefit from something immoral it doesn't make it less immoral nor does it justify its existance. When the United States got rid of slavery (the obvious kind) many many years ago, it was a sole question of moral, whereby other concerns such as "what if that makes wages drop?" or "who's gonna whipe my butt now?" were simply untenable.
Getting rid of the method of violently enforced will (ie statism) also is a sole question of moral. It is totally irrelevant who looks after the streets, schools or whatever, just as it was irrelevant 100 years ago when the abolition of slavery may have brought up questions such as "who's gonna do the crapy work now?". Whatever the structure may be, it cannot be handed the immoral force of violence for nobody has the "god" or nature given right to do so - not one and not the majority. It is only ever "claimed"... with the threat of violence.
 
tobjai said:
Regarding pretty much all other responses I can only shake my had. Once again you folks have proven that you cannot hold a reasonable debate on any offered subject by anyone, without doing exactly what I asked not to -> becomming personal (for that very incapability you all are probably better off with in the violent constraints of statism).
Click to expand...

In other words, we've proven that Libertarian doesn't work. If ordinary incivility is sufficient for Libertarianism to break, it's far too fragile a political system to handle any kind of real dispute over something that matters.


What matters only is the subject brougth to the table,
Click to expand...

That subject being "Libertarianism," which by your own admission fails to be an adequate framework for resolving differences of opinion among real people?

which I'd love to get into detail (when question arise) while applying nothing but logic, evidence and reason. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I don't think there are any more details you need to go into. It's a failed system.
 
tobjai said:
It is very simple Dave. Just because some people may benefit from something immoral it doesn't make it less immoral nor does it justify its existance. When the United States got rid of slavery (the obvious kind) many many years ago, it was a sole question of moral, whereby other concerns such as "what if that makes wages drop?" or "who's gonna whipe my butt now?" were simply untenable.
Getting rid of the method of violently enforced will (ie statism) also is a sole question of moral. It is totally irrelevant who looks after the streets, schools or whatever, just as it was irrelevant 100 years ago when the abolition of slavery may have brought up questions such as "who's gonna do the crapy work now?". Whatever the structure may be, it cannot be handed the immoral force of violence for nobody has the "god" or nature given right to do so - not one and not the majority. It is only ever "claimed"... with the threat of violence.
Click to expand...

Thank you for trying to give the impression of answering my question. Do you plan to actually answer it some time?

Dave
 
tobjai said:
Libertarianism is all about antinomianism, and with it the incremental abolition of statism (as the only supposed legit excuse for human ownership and violence). In simple terms it is all about individual freedom which is exactly where free(wo)men and libertarians meet.



1. As just explained above, his values very much align with those of the FOTL.
2. The general FMOTL agenda (remember there are many variations within individual approaches of the movement) lies on the premis of natural law (which is interpreted not only by geographic areas of common law, but also by those of civil law).

Regarding pretty much all other responses I can only shake my had. Once again you folks have proven that you cannot hold a reasonable debate on any offered subject by anyone, without doing exactly what I asked not to -> becomming personal (for that very incapability you all are probably better off with in the violent constraints of statism). It does not matter what Stefan Molyneux does for living, what his background is, or what oppinion he has on other subject matters. What matters only is the subject brougth to the table, which I'd love to get into detail (when question arise) while applying nothing but logic, evidence and reason. Thank you.
Click to expand...
You didn't bring anything to the table. You told us to go watch a youtube propaganda video.

Grow the **** up.
 
LightinDarkness said:
Oh my god, I finally listened to one of his podcasts and he actually introduces himself a Stephan Molyneux, M.A. Who does that?


LightinDarkness, PhD Candidate, MPA, MA, BA, BA, BA :D
Click to expand...


It's a shame it wasn't BSc, then we could have made jokes about "Bronze Swimming Certificate".......
 
quixotecoyote said:
Since when are master level theses graded? Mine faced acceptance or rejection.
Click to expand...

catsmate1 said:
It could have been a taught Masters rather than theis based; they would probably be graded as other coursework.
Click to expand...
Upon reflection, I think you're both correct and I'm mistaken. Masters degrees in many Canadian schools are offered through coursework alone, less coursework plus a research essay, or even less coursework plus a thesis. The thesis isn't graded, but the research essay is (if one chooses that option). Mrs. D'rok chose the research essay option and therefore got a grade.

It seems likely that Mr. Molyneux is inflating his credentials ever so slightly by calling his work a Masters thesis.
 
tobjai said:
Libertarianism is all about antinomianism, and with it the incremental abolition of statism (as the only supposed legit excuse for human ownership and violence). In simple terms it is all about individual freedom which is exactly where free(wo)men and libertarians meet.
Click to expand...

While Libertarians and FMOTL have a few things in common, there is a world of difference between them.

1) Libertarians believe victimless crimes should be repealed but we have to follow them until that time. FMOTL believe that they may simply ignore such laws because the current government has no jurisdiction over them.

2) Libertarians believe the current tax structure is an unjust and violent violation of our natural rights, but until we repeal such laws, we have to pay the taxes. FMOTL believe that they may simply ignore such taxes because the current government has no jurisdiction over them.

3) Libertarians believe that there are legitimate needs that only the government can meet - such as providing national defense (with a much smaller military), ensuring a fair criminal justice system (including courts, appeal courts, and prisons), issuing passports, maintaining the borders. FMOTL on the JREF have argued that none of those tasks is a legitimate task of government.

4) Libertarians believe that if you receive a court order to appear and your name is in capital letters, then you have to appear and the order really is correctly identifying you. FMOTL believe that the difference between one's name and one's name in capital letters is so radically different that they don't have to respond in any way to such court orders and summonses.

5) Libertarians believe that when facing charges related to a victimless crime, one must follow the rules of the criminal justice system while making use of all the defendant rights available in the Constitution and other law. FMOTL believe that they can say latin phrases to make the court tacitly or explicitly admit that there was no valid legal reason for the charges before dismissing the defendant.

If you like, I could go on (admiralty courts, birth bonds, gold-fringed flags, etc.). Many on this board may disagree with Libertarianism, but no one here believes it is in the same ballpark as FMOTL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom