Freeman-on-the-land idiocies

[butchersapron]

That's right, council tax goes on iphones for councillors.

 

[xes]

or second mortgages, or duck houses, or paying their nannies, or paying for their cars.....or 1000 pound "hammers"

 

[butchersapron]

This is exactly how the clever powerful people get to use you.

 

[Blagsta]

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

You're not very self aware.

 

[8den]

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.

Without government or money you wouldn't get a hammer

 

[Idris2002]

 

[ExtraRefined]

I have this pic on facebook with all my mates tagged. Except the "left-wing" one obviously.

 

[Giles]

Usually these people think that they have won when they turn up at a busy magistrates court hearing, and talk quasi-legal gibberish at the court, so the court (who probably have two dozen other cases to get through before lunch) give up and postpone it.

They will trumpet this as "victory" as if the state had handed them a magic "Freeman" ID card that from that day forth means that they can avoid paying taxes and fines, avoid insuring their car or the requirement to have a driving licence, and so on. While still taking full advantage of all the services that are provided with the tax that they don't want to pay.

I wouldn't mind if they bought a field in the middle of nowhere and lived on it self-sufficiently, using no state-provided services, or hardly any.

But these people to me want it both ways - to live in a civilised society with schools, health care, roads, etc, but not pay for it. How are they different to the rich guy with "offshore" bank accounts, and other such dodges?

Giles..

 

[xes]

Without government or money you wouldn't get a hammer

I have a hammer already (I have 3, does that make me a capitalist?)

 

[DotCommunist]

You aren't using any of them to hammer dem down though

 

[xes]

that would be causing harm

 

[Giles]

Why does so much of this "Freeman" stuff seem to revolve around bizarre semantics and behaviour, and the idea that by calling yourself a different name, or sitting down or standing up or whatever, you somehow magically exempt yourself from the law?

I am pretty sure that you could stand on your head in court, and it would still be the same you in the eyes of the law.

Can anyone prove me wrong, and point to an actual official legal text that says "if the defendant does not stand up when the judge walks in, he can do what the fuck he likes and all laws do not apply to him" or words to that effect?

Anyone?

Where does this idea come from?

Some of them also won't answer to their name (eg Fred Bloggs) but insist on referring to themselves as "Fred of the family Bloggs".

Does this make a difference?

I think I could stand there in court and say "I am Ming the Merciless, Mighty Emperor of Mars" and it would still be ME that got done for whatever it was.....

Giles..

 

[ymu]

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.

So we'd all carry on working for no remuneration/beer tokens, secure in the knowledge that we could have anything we wanted for free? It's a great idea, but how do you propose we get there?

 

[Jazzz]

Well there's two questions going on here.

1) Should we consent to such a system of government as we have now?

2) ARE we consenting to such a system of government as we have now?

people may think (1) but then that's their choice isn't it? xes might have a different one.

 

[butchersapron]

Neither of them questions are at issue here.

 

[Jazzz]

oh yes they are

 

[butchersapron]

No, they're not. They're two questions that you've raised that have little with with the original case. They are, in fact, parasites upon them.

That post is just awful on so many levels as well. Shall we do the logic one first?

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Well there's two questions going on here.

1) Should we consent to such a system of government as we have now?

2) ARE we consenting to such a system of government as we have now?

people may think (1) but then that's their choice isn't it? xes might have a different one.

Even if they are (they're not) who cares? Do you really think a state judicial system that's been developed over the course of 1000 years is going to crumble because some prick flaps his birth certificate in court?

 

[Jazzz]

Even if they are (they're not) who cares? Do you really think a state judicial system that's been developed over the course of 1000 years is going to crumble because some prick flaps his birth certificate in court?

The freemen are claiming to be following the law to the letter. What would be crumbling is fraud.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

The freemen are claiming to be following the law to the letter. What would be crumbling is fraud.

They can claim that they're farting fairies out their arse if they like, it doesn't mean they're doing anything significant.

 

[Jazzz]

They can claim that they're farting fairies out their arse if they like, it doesn't mean they're doing anything significant.

So you are arguing that (2) is 'no' then.

 

[butchersapron]

The freemen are claiming to be following the law to the letter. What would be crumbling is fraud.

Are they? No, it's not.

(THINKS: Is it worth it:?)

 

[butchersapron]

so you are arguing that (2) is 'no' then.

ha you trapped him now real good.

 

[butchersapron]

There are only 2 options there are no other options - you are either with us or you're bush living loon.

 

[Jazzz]

Are they? No, it's not.

(THINKS: Is it worth it:?)

we probably aren't going to reach a consensus on this one tonight

 

[butchersapron]

Not if you're going to talk shit no.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

So you are arguing that (2) is 'no' then.

Hang on. Hasn't the New World Order (NWO) guff you babble on about been going on since Babylonian times? But this 'fraudulent' version of the judiciary system has been carrying on for much less time. So presumably when/if this 'fraud' collapses due to someone flapping their birth certificate in court, the apparently true system of common law will reign supreme? But the NWO plan was, apparently, cooked up long before common law was ever thought of, it was brought in after the NWO plan was put into practice and common law was brought in by King Henry II. They're all connected by bloodlines aren't they? Don't these royal blood lines all interbreed to keep the blood line pure? So presumably common law is just another NWO ploy?

 

[Blagsta]

Well there's two questions going on here.

1) Should we consent to such a system of government as we have now?

2) ARE we consenting to such a system of government as we have now?

people may think (1) but then that's their choice isn't it? xes might have a different one.

Errrr...no.

 

[Blagsta]

The freemen are claiming to be following the law to the letter. What would be crumbling is fraud.

They might be claiming that. What they're actually doing is talking a load of old shite that any sane person can see through in 5 seconds flat.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

They are also a bunch of Divs for filming this in a magistrates court and then putting it on the internet. A criminal offence in its own right, I believe, and perfectly likely to result in a "contempt of court" verdict...