The Freeman Movement and England

[LightinDarkness]

You think he's serious, then?

I think there is a difference between intentionally trying to cause a disruption in a forum (which is what I define a wind-up being) and illustrating stupidity by acting like the stupid. The former isn't educational, the later actually serves a purpose in forcing those who believe in FMOTL propaganda to actually see how absurd they are.

 

[fromdownunder]

The FMOTLers were given a mirror called steven1, who (theoretically at least) "put up", and were shown their own faces in that mirror and asked to "put up or shut up". Since Menard is utterly incapable of putting up, he could only either shut up or attack.

He chose to attack, and the others followed up with the same strategy because they did not like what they saw when they looked in the mirror, or are such dedicated Menardites, that they were simply following the leader.

Either way, they have been shown for what they are - incapable of actual action, which they leave to others (like girlgye) who do believe, act on the so called principles of FMOTL, and wind up in prison. All they do is simply applaud from the sidelines, and send "we are right behind you" posts. But you need to remember, the rest of them stay a long way behind the ones who talk themselves into prison.

But when somebody comes along and says "I actually did this" they are lost.

Norm.

 

[zooterkin]

I think there is a difference between intentionally trying to cause a disruption in a forum (which is what I define a wind-up being) and illustrating stupidity by acting like the stupid. The former isn't educational, the later actually serves a purpose in forcing those who believe in FMOTL propaganda to actually see how absurd they are.

Hmm, ok, a question of definition then; I would say 'wind-up' covers both of those. It's usually, in my experience, used to mean leading someone on, getting them to believe a tall tale, which is exactly what is happening here; I don't see disruption being a necessary part of it. Entertainment and enlightenment can both be the result.

 

[jargon buster]

It's usually, in my experience, used to mean leading someone on, getting them to believe a tall tale, which is exactly what is happening here;

Go and read what steven1 wrote and then tell me if anything he wrote was in fact a "tall tale" as far as FMOTL goes.
They all believe everything he wrote to be true, thats their philosophy.
The only reason they got so worked up about it was that he was previously a skeptic and badgered them for proof and made their lives difficult.

He actually showed up the silliness of the theories by posting them as truth.
Everything he wrote has been written before on freeman forums and eaten up by the idiots, but when its someone they dont like doing it, its questionable.

 

[zooterkin]

Go and read what steven1 wrote and then tell me if anything he wrote was in fact a "tall tale" as far as FMOTL goes.

I'm not sure why that is relevant. It's a tall tale as far as reality is concerned; the fact that they are predisposed to believe a particular tall tale is the whole point of the exercise.

They all believe everything he wrote to be true, thats their philosophy.

I think you're missing an important distinction (well, you probably haven't missed it, but it's not expressed). They believe what he describes is how the system "really" works; whether they believe that what he relates actually happened to him is another matter.

The only reason they got so worked up about it was that he was previously a skeptic and badgered them for proof and made their lives difficult.

He actually showed up the silliness of the theories by posting them as truth.
Everything he wrote has been written before on freeman forums and eaten up by the idiots, but when its someone they dont like doing it, its questionable.

Indeed.

 

[Ladewig]

Hey, Tobjai, I still have some questions if you are willing to discuss FOTL.

(1) After "everybody realistically considers their contributions" (from your post #3924) do you expect to have enough money to patrol the streets; arrest people accused of crimes; collect and store forensic evidence; house the suspect until the trial; provide for a courthouse; and pay a judge, a county prosecutor, a baliff, and a court transcriptionist?

(2) will you keep track of who contributes and who doesn't? Will people attacked by criminals have access to local police if they didn't contribute?

(3) will national defense also be paid for by voluntary contributions?

(4) [ignore if you are not American] how much money do you think each American will need to voluntarily contribute to the national defense in order to protect the U.S. from attacks?

(5) what is your opinion of post #3920?

(6) given that no government-issued IDs will be available (and no national database of fingerprints or DNA will be available), what is to stop a person from committing a crime in one "tribal area" or jurisdiction and then travelling cross country under an assumed name to avoid prosecution?

 

[BobHaulk]

Hey, Tobjai, I still have some questions if you are willing to discuss FOTL.

(1) After "everybody realistically considers their contributions" (from your post #3924) do you expect to have enough money to patrol the streets; arrest people accused of crimes; collect and store forensic evidence; house the suspect until the trial; provide for a courthouse; and pay a judge, a county prosecutor, a baliff, and a court transcriptionist?

(2) will you keep track of who contributes and who doesn't? Will people attacked by criminals have access to local police if they didn't contribute?

(3) will national defense also be paid for by voluntary contributions?

(4) [ignore if you are not American] how much money do you think each American will need to voluntarily contribute to the national defense in order to protect the U.S. from attacks?

(5) what is your opinion of post #3920?

(6) given that no government-issued IDs will be available (and no national database of fingerprints or DNA will be available), what is to stop a person from committing a crime in one "tribal area" or jurisdiction and then travelling cross country under an assumed name to avoid prosecution?

What are you going on about? a freeman aint bothered about any of that. All he wants to do is play his xbox while travelling his car with a fat joint in his mouth without the pigs hassling him. Honourable stuff like that.

 

[TraneWreck]

You know, it occurs to me that these bozos are marching very closely to the "giving legal advice without a license" line.

As a lawyer, I would never tell someone what to do in court over these forums. I could be sued.

It seems to me that telling someone to go into court and act like a clown, inevitably leading to contempt of court citations or other penalties, leaves them pretty vulnerable to a lawsuit.

 

[Ladewig]

You know, it occurs to me that these bozos are marching very closely to the "giving legal advice without a license" line.

Yes, but if you believe it is illegal to pass a law saying only professionally licensed lawyers can give legal advice, then you're still going to give legal advice. Furthermore, they don't see it as legal advice, they see it as information to protect your inherent human rights.

If they do get charged, then to them, it will simply be more evidence that "the Man" is trying to silence THE TRUTH!!!111!!!!

 

[jargon buster]

all their websites have the obligatory disclaimer.
Menards videos even have a disclaimer saying they are for entertainment purposes, unfortunately he gives the impression hes just saying that to cover his back and that its really all true.

 

[D'rok]

You know, it occurs to me that these bozos are marching very closely to the "giving legal advice without a license" line.

As a lawyer, I would never tell someone what to do in court over these forums. I could be sued.

It seems to me that telling someone to go into court and act like a clown, inevitably leading to contempt of court citations or other penalties, leaves them pretty vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Menard has already crossed the line.

Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver has been prohibited by the Supreme Court from appearing as counsel, preparing documents for use in proceedings, and identifying himself in any way that suggests he is a lawyer. He was also ordered to pay costs.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publications_forms/bulletin/2009/09-04-27_upl.html

 

[jargon buster]

Strangely enough he denies that was him??????

he wont make anymore mistakes, he cant afford too.

He will only need to get arrested and its all over.

 

[tobjai]

Hey, Tobjai, I still have some questions if you are willing to discuss FOTL.

(1) After "everybody realistically considers their contributions" (from your post #3924) do you expect to have enough money to patrol the streets; arrest people accused of crimes; collect and store forensic evidence; house the suspect until the trial; provide for a courthouse; and pay a judge, a county prosecutor, a baliff, and a court transcriptionist?

(2) will you keep track of who contributes and who doesn't? Will people attacked by criminals have access to local police if they didn't contribute?

(3) will national defense also be paid for by voluntary contributions?

(4) [ignore if you are not American] how much money do you think each American will need to voluntarily contribute to the national defense in order to protect the U.S. from attacks?

(5) what is your opinion of post #3920?

(6) given that no government-issued IDs will be available (and no national database of fingerprints or DNA will be available), what is to stop a person from committing a crime in one "tribal area" or jurisdiction and then travelling cross country under an assumed name to avoid prosecution?

Have I not already given you an anwer to that? It doesn't matter how exactly things are going to work! What matters only and solely is that a system of violance (statism always comes down to the force of will by the point of a gun) has no legitimacy, therefore it has to be abandoned. It didn't matter whether wages could possibly have plummeted, when traditional slavery was finally abandoned - It was solely a question of morals. Same applies for modern slavery today.

Now, in order to bypass any further back and forth and to subsequently save all of our time, I suggest you and everybody else on this form to have a look at the "handout for statists" by Stefan Molyneux. We've already established the dirt on his name. So since we're all aware of it, I'm hoping y'all are able to cut the chase now and concentrate on the actual subject. What matters only is reason and evidence. Lets give it a try. I'll respond to those who checked out the "handout for statists" and still have a legitimate come-back.

 

[D'rok]

Have I not already given you an anwer to that? It doesn't matter how exactly things are going to work! What matters only and solely is that a system of violance (statism always comes down to the force of will by the point of a gun) has no legitimacy, therefore it has to be abandoned. It didn't matter whether wages could possibly have plummeted, when traditional slavery was finally abandoned - It was solely a question of morals. Same applies for modern slavery today.

Now, in order to bypass any further back and forth and to subsequently save all of our time, I suggest you and everybody else on this form to have a look at the "handout for statists" by Stefan Molyneux. We've already established the dirt on his name. So since we're all aware of it, I'm hoping y'all are able to cut the chase now and concentrate on the actual subject. What matters only is reason and evidence. Lets give it a try. I'll respond to those who checked out the "handout for statists" and still have a legitimate come-back.

Buy my books.

Violence is bad
Coercion is violence
Taxes are coercive
Therefore, taxes are violence
Therefore, taxes are bad

That about sum it up?

 

[D'rok]

tobjai, do you have a thought or an argument of your own, preferably one that is on topic, that you wish to make?

 

[tobjai]

tobjai, do you have a thought or an argument of your own, preferably one that is on topic, that you wish to make?

That IS my though as well, just that I find myself not quite as articulate and glib as Stefan. Therefore why not just refer to the done work. And yes, you did sum it up there quite nicely ...whereby the promotion of the book and the request for donations of course isn't part of the argument.

 

[D'rok]

That IS my though as well, just that I find myself not quite as articulate and glib as Stefan. Therefore why not just refer to the done work. And yes, you did sum it up there quite nicely ...whereby the promotion of the book and the request for donations of course isn't part of the argument.

There are three premises in his argument as I've summarized it. Can you spot which one contains the bait and switch?

 

[drkitten]

Have I not already given you an anwer to that? It doesn't matter how exactly things are going to work!

Certainly it does. That's the whole point. If what is proposed is patently unworkable (as FOTL theology is), then the whole edifice comes crashing down.

What matters only and solely is that a system of violance (statism always comes down to the force of will by the point of a gun) has no legitimacy, therefore it has to be abandoned.

Abandoned in favor of what? The system of a sovereign monopoly on violence that protects everyone from unsponsored violence is indeed legitimate, precisely because everyone is still better off under it than they are under rule-of-anarchy where only one's will-to-power matters.

Now, in order to bypass any further back and forth and to subsequently save all of our time, I suggest you and everybody else on this form to have a look at the "handout for statists" by Stefan Molyneux.

One of the easiest ways to spot someone who is clueless is that he has no arguments, only YouTube videos.

If you have a point to make, make it. If he has a point to make, present it (with evidence) and we'll examine it.

Life is too short to watch videos made of fail.

 

[tobjai]

erased.

 

[tobjai]

Certainly it does. That's the whole point. If what is proposed is patently unworkable (as FOTL theology is), then the whole edifice comes crashing down.

Violence is never, NEVER justifiable - period.

Abandoned in favor of what?

Freedom silly.

The system of a sovereign monopoly on violence that protects everyone from unsponsored violence is indeed legitimate, precisely because everyone is still better off under it...

This may be your assumptive possition. A "monopoly to violance" as you call it can't possibly be legitimate based on someones oppinion like yours. The only way it was ever legitimized is if there was 100% of the people who gave their consent. Because we're all born equal, no two have the right to force their common will over a third.

...than they are under rule-of-anarchy where only one's will-to-power matters.

Go look up a true, undistorted definition of anarchy. I has nothing to do with "one's will to power" and everything to do with lived individualism.... With everybody being their own masters while respecting everybody else as they are without imposing on them.

One of the easiest ways to spot someone who is clueless is that he has no arguments, only YouTube videos.

And there come the personal attacks again. Stick to the subject please... my arguments are the same as Stefan's. I'm not goint to type out something that is already there to be presented... But if you don't want to participate, be my guest.