Freeman-on-the-land idiocies

[8den]

I reserve it all for you sweet tits. Other people are capable of actual debate, you are just a cunt who I'd laugh at if I saw mangled in a horrific accident.

And you're just a class act. Filled with vile and venom and incapable of understanding how the world really works

 

[8den]

ELECTED peoples. And no, the currecnt goverment aren't elected. Yoiu can not class it as that when there are only a handful of people to represent a country. (and they're all utter corrupt cunts)

WHAT DO WE WANT? A NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT? WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE? Uh Dunno.....

Theres a slogan we can all gather around.

 

[xes]

This rather proves my point xes.

You're in no position to judge who is capable of reasoned debate, when all you've done so far is call me thick or ignorant numerous times. *applauds the superior Blasta*

 

[xes]

WHAT DO WE WANT? A NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT? WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE? Uh Dunno.....

Theres a slogan we can all gather around.

It's at least 436 times better than " WHAT DO WE WANT?...I DON'T KNOW, LET THE GOVERMENT DECIDE FOR ME...WHEN DO WE WANT IT? ...I DON'T KNOW LET, THE GOVERMENT DECIDE FOR ME!" is it not?

 

[Santino]

It's at least 436 times better than " WHAT DO WE WANT?...I DON'T KNOW, LET THE GOVERMENT DECIDE FOR ME...WHEN DO WE WANT IT? ...I DON'T KNOW LET THE GOVERMENT DECIDE FOR ME!" is it not?

Do you know what 'false dichotomy' means?

 

[xes]

Is it a medical procedure?

 

[Crispy]

You are ignorant though Xes. Common Law is the foundation of our legal system, yet you called it "being nice"

 

[xes]

It's becasue I don't need anyone to tell me that I should be nice. And whilst yes, I am ignorant toward many things, I;m still right.

 

[butchersapron]

I think he may have mistaken it for the golden law/rule.

 

[xes]

I think he may have mistaken it for the golden law/rule.

I'd heard is said as common law, also as layman law and freeman law. It boils down to the same thing, be nice. if what I'm refering to is what you said, then fair enough.

 

[butchersapron]

I'd heard is said as common law, also as layman law and freeman law. It boils down to the same thing, be nice. if what I'm refering to is what you said, then fair enough.

Then your whole case has no basis in any actual law whatsoever.

 

[xes]

Then your whole case has no basis in any actual law whatsoever.

But it's right. I like to try and keep things simple. I hear something and I ponder if it is right or wrong. All I hear from the current system is wrong wrong wrong. It is wrong, we need to change. That is what I know, and i want out.

 

[butchersapron]

But it's right. I like to try and keep things simple. I hear something and I ponder if it is right or wrong. All I hear from the current system is wrong wrong wrong. It is wrong, we need to change. That is what I know, and i want out.

The whole basis of this nonsense is that it's perfectly legal. You're undermining that case.

 

[Jazzz]

Who would intervene in cases of child neglect or domestic violence?

um, common law can come down on you like a ton of bricks.

 

[xes]

I think it is legal to be able to live your life the way you want, if you're not causing harm or loss to person or property. I think that most taxes are illegal, or at the very least nothing but an attempt at making rich people richer. And I think that if you want, you should be able to opt out. yes, this would mean that you couldn't claim benifits, or have a dustman empty your bins, or have public education/health services. But I still think it's a step in the right direction, and I fully back those who are trying it.

 

[Santino]

I think it is legal to be able to live your life the way you want, if you're not causing harm or loss to person or property. I think that most taxes are illegal, or at the very least nothing but an attempt at making rich people richer. And I think that if you want, you should be able to opt out. yes, this would mean that you couldn't claim benifits, or have a dustman empty your bins, or have public education/health services. But I still think it's a step in the right direction, and I fully back those who are trying it.

You don't know what 'legal' means. You don't understand. Wishing doesn't make it so.

 

[butchersapron]

I think it is legal to be able to live your life the way you want, if you're not causing harm or loss to person or property. I think that most taxes are illegal, or at the very least nothing but an attempt at making rich people richer. And I think that if you want, you should be able to opt out. yes, this would mean that you couldn't claim benifits, or have a dustman empty your bins, or have public education/health services. But I still think it's a step in the right direction, and I fully back those who are trying it.

You actively don't want to understand do you? You seem to me to just want to publicly demonstrate your alienation and confusion. No anarchist you.

 

[kyser_soze]

yes, this would mean that you couldn't claim benifits, or have a dustman empty your bins, or have public education/health services

Yeah, but neither would many other people.

 

[xes]

Yeah, but neither would many other people.

In my perfect sosciety everyone would have it for free. In a change over situation like this, then only those who opt out would have to pay for what they need.

 

[xes]

You actively don't want to understand do you? You seem to me to just want to publicly demonstrate your alienation and confusion. No anarchist you.

I'm not claiming to be an anarchist. And yes, I actively don't undestand the way we live, it makes no sense to me at all.

 

[8den]

In my perfect sosciety everyone would have it for free. In a change over situation like this, then only those who opt out would have to pay for what they need.

In your "perfect" society starvation and disease would be rampant.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not claiming to be an anarchist. And yes, I actively don't undestand the way we live, it makes no sense to me at all.

Maybe a small reason for that lack of understanding is the way that you choose to look at things, at society, how it functions and in whose interests?

The stuff you've posted on this threads highlights for me people like you are so often easily used by the powerful.

 

[sihhi]

...and you don't do that by denying or being used by those who want to destroy the hard-won social understanding that we're all utterly inter-dependent and reliant on each other. I'm an anarchist, i'm quite committed to the idea of a stateless society, but that doesn't mean i'll applaud any single thing that ever happens that's (on the surface) anti-govt.

It's not anti government, it's pro-monarchical government. If what is claimed was actually carried out, only those with British birth certificates (bye bye Irish-born!) would have loyalty to the Queen, and that's largely it.

Leaving aside for a moment, your personal comments about the Queen and her family, we need to reach agreement on the proper function of the Monarchy itself, and before saying anything else I believe that we can agree that this proper function has nothing at all to do with the cheap posturing that is being ‘permitted’ to Our Sovereign by the Thieves & Liars who are now holding Our Queen in absolute captivity and contempt.
I must suggest to you that the true function of the Sovereign is to act as the Chief Magistrate in our Society, with authority to ‘create’ and maintain the law, and with the duty & powers necessary to preserve and protect the security of both Our Country and Our People, under the Rule of Law. ...

The implied threat of abolishing the Monarchy is now being held over the head of the only lawful Sovereign by these worthless people, like a Sword of Damocles, and in consequence of this treason a very well educated and responsible elderly lady is being subjected to an abuse that is destroying our country; our security; our system of justice and our ways of life.

I must suggest to you that now is the time to avoid the creation of more robber-barons, and to rely upon the work of our ancestors who were prepared to die in the process of defeating their own robber-barons and who left us with the Structure of Freedom that is our Inheritance and that is guaranteed by the rule of Our Sovereign Lady, if we take all steps necessary to ensure that she is both allowed and encouraged to perform her lawful function as the Ultimate Defender. Of Our Liberties & Freedoms.

Oh yeah should you want more information bung the guys a fiver and you can find out more:

 

[ymu]

What if someone wanted to volunteer in a school but refushttp://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10946156ed to give their consent to be subject to a check on whether they were on the national register of sex offenders?

They boycott schools in protest..

 

[ymu]

In my perfect sosciety everyone would have it for free. In a change over situation like this, then only those who opt out would have to pay for what they need.

Not getting this xes. Have it for free, how? Free at the point of delivery of services, absolutely. But it still has to be paid for somehow. Whether through oil wealth or taxation, binmen and teachers and doctors and nurses need to be paid for their services.

 

[Blagsta]

You're in no position to judge who is capable of reasoned debate, when all you've done so far is call me thick or ignorant numerous times. *applauds the superior Blasta*

This proves my point even more.

 

[Blagsta]

I'd heard is said as common law, also as layman law and freeman law. It boils down to the same thing, be nice. if what I'm refering to is what you said, then fair enough.

No. Common law is law that is made through courts setting precedents.

 

[xes]

This proves my point even more.

no, it proves mine. (well, this reply does, which has added....what, exactly?)

 

[xes]

Not getting this xes. Have it for free, how? Free at the point of delivery of services, absolutely. But it still has to be paid for somehow. Whether through oil wealth or taxation, binmen and teachers and doctors and nurses need to be paid for their services.

Well, in my "utopia" people who have skills would carry on working, as it would be for the betterment of humanity, and not for greed. So if we're feeding ourselves and clothing ourselves, we'd also be able to look after ourselves ect.(it has to start somewhere) Ofcourse this isn't going to happen in our lifetime, change like this would take a long while for people to adjust. It'd pretty much be the same, only without goverment or money. To have a goverment implies that you are unable to look after yourself. Do you need to be governed? I don't.

 

[ExtraRefined]

Hmm. Since non-payment of CT leads to cuts in council services, I would say this guy is potentially encroaching on plenty of people's freedoms.

Ah yes, the freedom to spend other people's money on stuff for yourself. Only statist idiots would believe that this is "freedom"