ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags FOTL , Freeman on the Land , Rob Menard

Reply
Old 3rd March 2013, 01:30 PM   #361
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,665
Originally Posted by LordEd View Post
Back to the topic of 'it doesn't work'... this thread was created asking for evidence of it working. Hundreds of pages later, no evidence has been provided.

Plenty of evidence of it not working has been found. It is a good way to get arrested for minor infractions. The Canadian hockey analogy would be to get a 2-min tripping penalty and wind up getting a misconduct for arguing with the ref. (I don't know soccer/football well enough to translate, maybe a hand ball becoming a red card?)
Decent hockey analogy, but the best analysis of the standard freemen arguments is found in Meads v. Meads. Oh and the fact that every court has rejected freemen legal arguments every time they have been attempted should be a excellent indication that this legal theory is bogus.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 08:11 AM   #362
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Roberts winning friends and influencing people over on FB
Heres his latest post
Quote:
NOTICE: You may post on my wall ONCE per topic. I do not want my wall used for spamming of opinion. If you have previously posted concerning some topic, and then within a week you post the same thing or something similar, you will be removed from my FB friends.
As you can imagine , its going down really well with people.

Robs latest comment starts with
Quote:
When you are a guest in someone's house you follow their rules; if you do not like it, leave.
Haven't we been telling him to do that if he doesn't consent to societies rules for years?
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 11:26 AM   #363
LordEd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 409
I don't quite get why I can't just run down pedestrians with my car. I didn't consent to this common law, human rights, or God.

Survival of the fittest, and I don't consent to that either. It's just violating my rights.
LordEd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 12:47 PM   #364
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,492
Originally Posted by LordEd View Post
I don't quite get why I can't just run down pedestrians with my car. I didn't consent to this common law, human rights, or God.

Survival of the fittest, and I don't consent to that either. It's just violating my rights.


I tried several times to get an answer to the "God's Law" problem from some earlier FoTL types who used to post here. It seemed to me that, for an atheist, there's no reason to obey any such laws, if the FoTL beliefs are true. None of them would ever respond to this though.

They didn't seem to want to explain why they can arbitrarily apply their religiously determined laws to me, but why I can't arbitrarily apply my democratically determined statute laws to them.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 01:32 PM   #365
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
...Is this the comedy tour, or what?
It might be if only he'd get some new material.

The old "Police are revenue collectors for a corporation" is so old and silly it doesn't even raise a smile anymore.

Anyone with a fully functioning BS detector can see how stupid such a claim is.

Anyway, on another matter... before more of his Facebook claims go "missing" again...


Last edited by ComfySlippers; 4th March 2013 at 01:44 PM.
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 02:09 PM   #366
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Yes, the "suck it JB" comment will go down in my file when I put together my defence of Roberts legal action.
It sure looks like he's goading and attacking me on the internet in a place where I have no chance of defending myself.

Last edited by jargon buster; 4th March 2013 at 02:16 PM.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 02:31 PM   #367
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
And for the lurking idiots who are incapable of distinguishing between a private home, where one has the right to make rules and eject people who refuse to follow them, and public property where no such right exists, I am referring to private property and someones home. This position is not transferable to a geographical area such as a country which you do not own as your private property.
Just because "someone" says its not transferable doesn't make it so.
Think of Canada as a big house where everyone has a say what happens there and they all make the rules.
Now if one person doesn't want to follow the rules of the big house then its exactly the same as the scenario of an individuals home.

There is no difference at all.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 04:01 PM   #368
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Quote:
Just because "someone" says its not transferable doesn't make it so.
Think of Canada as a big house where everyone has a say what happens there and they all make the rules

Now if one person doesn't want to follow the rules of the big house then its exactly the same as the scenario of an individuals home
The difference, as I would see it, with your example is that you're talking about "members" of the family home; not "guests" in the family home

Additionally just because something *isn't* transferable doesn't mean that "someone" saying that it *is* makes it so

I mean the converse can also be true right?

Last edited by RPMcMurphy38; 4th March 2013 at 04:26 PM.
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 04:39 PM   #369
LordEd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 409
Ah, so you're saying the parents are clear to beat the children inside the house then?
LordEd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 04:44 PM   #370
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
I can't actually see those words in my post Ed sorry

If pressed for my view on the above metaphore though I would say in the "UK House" that it seems to be the case that they think they are "clear to beat the kids though"

Hope that helps

Last edited by RPMcMurphy38; 4th March 2013 at 04:48 PM.
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 06:23 PM   #371
Boot2TheHead
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
The difference, as I would see it, with your example is that you're talking about "members" of the family home; not "guests" in the family home
Not to get lost in the metaphor, but both members and guests ought to respect the rules of the house anyway so the distinction is pointless.

Anyway, in this analogy, family members would be citizens; guests would be visiting foreigners. We would have to come up with a third entity to stand in for Freemen. Hmm, who'd be someone who lives in the house, eats the house's food, uses the electricity and heating and water, but say they're not family members?

Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Additionally just because something *isn't* transferable doesn't mean that "someone" saying that it *is* makes it so
Maybe not but that's apparently the entirety of his objection. So far the analogy stands.

Last edited by Boot2TheHead; 4th March 2013 at 06:24 PM.
Boot2TheHead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 06:40 PM   #372
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Quote:
Hmm, who'd be someone who lives in the house, eats the house's food, uses the electricity and heating and water, but say they're not family members?
lol credit where it's due that is funny
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 08:21 PM   #373
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,492
Originally Posted by Boot2TheHead View Post
Hmm, who'd be someone who lives in the house, eats the house's food, uses the electricity and heating and water, but say they're not family members?


So, Quebec then.

__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2013, 11:40 PM   #374
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
lol credit where it's due that is funny
I see your way of conceding a point when it gets rebutted is to either agree with the rebuttal or make a joke about it.

I hope you don't think that we haven't noticed your acceptance of being wrong.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 06:32 AM   #375
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,492
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Assuming we don't, by some miracle, get back onto topic of "Why it doesn't work" (no predefined conclusion there obviously)


See, you're really great at accusing us of having "predefined conclusions", while ignoring the fact that you yourself have lots of predefined conclusions about us, like the assumption that we've prematurely concluded that FoTL doesn't work.

This isn't a premature conclusion, it isn't one we had coming into this discussion from the very beginning. It's a conclusion we've reached after considering the literally decades of examples of FoTL-type thought completely failing to accomplish the goals the FotL-types have set out for themselves. Exactly how much evidence do you expect us to accumulate before we're allowed to conclude "It Doesn't Work", and then provide explanations of why it doesn't work?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 07:43 AM   #376
LordEd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 409
Do you have a case where a judge has dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction because the assured did not consent? A transcript would be ideal.

I can quickly find cases where it didn't works. Meads v. Meads. Lance thatcher. Dean is/was in jail, so no success there. The taser video is another favorite.

Please present your evidence. Not a person explaining, but proof of a result.
LordEd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 09:37 AM   #377
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Hello RP, back again?
Do you want to just clarify your position on which statutes you agree with and those you disagree?
I have a feeling your disagreement is linked with a requirement of you parting with money but I may be wrong.
You started with the seatbelt laws and their unfairness due to the driver being the only victim, once it was pointed out to you that there were other victims you seemed to agree.
Do you still believe the seatbelt laws to be unjust?
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 09:48 AM   #378
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,690
...and have you figured out how laws can change yet?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:11 AM   #379
LordEd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 409
One of the freeman beliefs is that they are not a 'person' under the definition of various laws (such as tax or vehicle laws). However, when it comes to other statute laws that provide protections or benefits to the freeman (copyright protection, medical-related), they are able to gain benefit even though these statutes are also specific to a 'person'.

So, the questions are:
1. Do you subscribe to this non-person theory.
2. If so, how often can you change whether you are or are not a person. Is it a one-time deal and you should not be subject-to AND not beneficiary of any statute, or is it something you can turn on/off when convenient?

Edit: Looks like I'm asking similar questions to JB at the same time.

Last edited by LordEd; 5th March 2013 at 11:12 AM.
LordEd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:12 AM   #380
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
*raises hand*

What do you think of this here "Freeman on the Land" business?

Cool or fool?

lol pretty good ... if there was a "like" button I'd be compelled to click it

Right here's a starter for ten ... likely to be shot down with a barrage of "snark" but I'll give it a shot

Re your question ... I think "cool" and I did genuinely come here looking for another side to the story than that presented in freeman videos

Why do I say "cool" Because I believe the theory to be sound. However "the powers that be" ignore any points that are undeniably sound simply because they are given free range to initiate force

Note this is different to "Does it work?" My first question is "Should it work"
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:16 AM   #381
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by LordEd View Post
1. Do you subscribe to this non-person theory
Hi LordEd ... fantastic question. My answer would be a HUGE no ... I do not subscribe to it. It's absolutely ridiculous. And when I hear kids spouting it I physically cringe

Answer 2 coming ... I'm trying to keep up with some of the residual tongue lashing

Sincerely ... great question. That's exacatly the kind of stuff that I came here looking for
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:19 AM   #382
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Note this is different to "Does it work?" My first question is "Should it work"
That's really clumsily phrased ... appologies. I was rushing

I'm actually asking "Do *you* think *any* of the FMOTL ideas are theoretically sound; is there a difference between something being theoretically sound and practically workable?"

Last edited by RPMcMurphy38; 5th March 2013 at 11:25 AM.
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:26 AM   #383
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Re your question ... I think "cool" and I did genuinely come here looking for another side to the story than that presented in freeman videos

Why do I say "cool" Because I believe the theory to be sound. However "the powers that be" ignore any points that are undeniably sound simply because they are given free range to initiate force

Note this is different to "Does it work?" My first question is "Should it work"

Forward-ish motion


Here's a couple of threads I'd recommend you look at, regarding the fotl way:

Examples of Freeman success stories

Rob Menard's FOTL Claims (part one)



ETA - Rob Menard posted in both of these threads before he was banned; it's interesting reading his responses to queries.

Last edited by Ape of Good Hope; 5th March 2013 at 11:28 AM.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:37 AM   #384
solzhenitsyn
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
That's really clumsily phrased ... appologies. I was rushing

I'm actually asking "Do *you* think *any* of the FMOTL ideas are theoretically sound; is there a difference between something being theoretically sound and practically workable?"
At least we've now all agreed that it does not work.

With that settled, I'm very curious to hear how you imagine such a society or community, built around "FMOTL principles" could possibly work? Let's work our way through some of the (I think obvious) problems together (sincerely.)
solzhenitsyn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:39 AM   #385
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by LordEd View Post
If so, how often can you change whether you are or are not a person. Is it a one-time deal and you should not be subject-to AND not beneficiary of any statute, or is it something you can turn on/off when convenient?
Well if I did subscribe to the Non Person idea in 1 I could probably comment on this but I don't

This does raise a good question for me though

"Societies" do have a well defined meaning in law ... sometimes for things like tax purposes etc. My personal position is you should be allowed to not be a part of society due to my believing all interaction should be voluntary to be legal ... e.g. all contracts (including the so called "social contract" should be legal) My understanding is that obviously, if you opt out (which in this case *should* be a one off) you aren't entitled to benefits

I would say that was common sense for one society to impose their laws on someone no longer a part of that society

Interestingly there is a parallel with this when, e.g. Anthony Hopkins became an American citizen (and gave up his British Citizenship). In laws about this there is a one off opportunity to "re-join" too

Interesting hey! I'd like to sxplore this in more detail if you'd be happy
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:44 AM   #386
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
Here's a couple of threads I'd recommend you look at, regarding the fotl way:
Thanks Ape ... I'll take a look at those

(How long before I can stop appending "sincerely" )
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:51 AM   #387
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn View Post
At least we've now all agreed that it does not work
Hey Solz ... Thanks for your question. I'll get to this shortly as my initial view on this seemed to cause some confusion which lead to the "pile on"!

I'll get back to you when I've given it the considered response it deserves as I think your question is key

Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn View Post
With that settled, I'm very curious to hear how you imagine such a society or community, built around "FMOTL principles" could possibly work? Let's work our way through some of the (I think obvious) problems together (sincerely.)
I really think this forum needs a "like" button

Last edited by RPMcMurphy38; 5th March 2013 at 11:53 AM.
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 12:08 PM   #388
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
At least we've now all agreed that it does not work.
Agreed solz, Im glad we dont have to go through all the de-bunking all over again.

So RP, how would a society of freemen deal with someone who didnt consent to the rules of freeman valley*?

*Im sure you are aware of freeman valley

Last edited by jargon buster; 5th March 2013 at 12:09 PM.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 12:11 PM   #389
Jon.
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Well if I did subscribe to the Non Person idea in 1 I could probably comment on this but I don't

This does raise a good question for me though

"Societies" do have a well defined meaning in law ... sometimes for things like tax purposes etc. My personal position is you should be allowed to not be a part of society due to my believing all interaction should be voluntary to be legal ... e.g. all contracts (including the so called "social contract" should be legal) My understanding is that obviously, if you opt out (which in this case *should* be a one off) you aren't entitled to benefits

I would say that was common sense for one society to impose their laws on someone no longer a part of that society
[highlighting mine]

See, here's where the freemen start to get themselves all muddled up and into trouble. Sometimes the same word is used for two different (sometimes, very different) things, and "society" is an example of that. Yes, there are legal entities called "societies" which operate under certain rules including a requirements regarding membership. Those rules generally do include the right to opt out, or cancel one's membership. HOWEVER, "society" also refers to a very different thing, meaning the sum total of all the people who live and function in a certain area (or something like that, I'll leave the precise definition to sociologists or anthropologists). That kind of society is not regulated by the Societies Act (or whatever statute governs the legal entities in a particular jurisdiction) and opting out of it takes a very different form from opting out of, say, your local sports club (which is probably run under the Societies Act). When you start to conflate the two ideas, as you did above, it's called equivocation and it's the freemen's favourite logical fallacy.

If you don't agree that equivocation is a logical fallacy, ask yourself whether the next time you hear about a traffic jam, you picture sticky stuff made from fruit slowing up all the cars.
Jon. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 12:25 PM   #390
LordEd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 409
Quote:
My personal position is you should be allowed to not be a part of society due to my believing all interaction should be voluntary to be legal
I am using 'society' in non-legal specific terms. I am using it with the ideas of a country being a society, and that people born within are, by default, part of that society.

If you are not part of a society, should you be required to follow the rules, laws, and normal social practices and protocols of that society while you are physically within their geographic boundaries?

Simply put, can you 'opt-out' without moving?
LordEd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 12:30 PM   #391
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Jon. View Post
If you don't agree that equivocation is a logical fallacy, ask yourself whether the next time you hear about a traffic jam, you picture sticky stuff made from fruit slowing up all the cars.
As someone who suffers from synesthesia I cannot see your point here

Seriously though you make a good point but I am confused about one part of it.

There's been three really good questions asked ... questions I do ask myself and I really want to get into them

Because I think they're important questions (to "society" not just myself) I want to do them justice; especially now a few people have shown a similar interest

Bear with me I will get back to you
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 12:39 PM   #392
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by LordEd View Post
If you are not part of a society, should you be required to follow the rules, laws, and normal social practices and protocols of that society while you are physically within their geographic boundaries?

Simply put, can you 'opt-out' without moving?
Hi again Lord

You're hitting the nail bang on the head ... *my* short answer is 100% yes you can opt out (or should be able to opt out) without moving and I believe I can conclusively "prove" this

Like any scientifically scrutinised proof nothing would give me greater pleasure than to release it for such perusal

I think it's important ... actually vital ... to get other people's opinions. And I'm going to give it a go if you'd be willing to look it over

This was the problem I had (as I percieve it at least). The above was my goal and ... be honest ... was that ever going to happen if the general theme of a forum is "Why x doesn't work" or even worse, "Why x will *never* work", or "Why x will never work anywhere" or "Why x will never work anywhere at any time" ... do you understand (not legalese ) my point?
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 01:00 PM   #393
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
My understanding is that obviously, if you opt out (which in this case *should* be a one off) you aren't entitled to benefits
Let's take an example of two freeman who have opted out of society in as literal a sense as possible, and have moved to, well, Freeman Valley is as good a place as any..

So you you and I are both FMOTL. I live upstream from you on the only water source that we can 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?

How would/could such a conflict be resolved by two Freeman who do not accept society?

Norm
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 01:00 PM   #394
LordEd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 409
I reason things by breaking out very small portions for careful analysis. Iceland is irrelevant.

You state:

Quote:
My understanding is that obviously, if you opt out (which in this case *should* be a one off) you aren't entitled to benefits
and you say

Quote:
*my* short answer is 100% yes you can opt out (or should be able to opt out) without moving and I believe I can conclusively "prove" this
Now lets talk about the benefits of society. Over time, modern societies have created vast pools of resources. Many of these have been subsidized in one form or another through government/taxes. For example, (in many countries), healthcare, clean water, sanitation, Internet backbones, and roads.

If you are a guest of a society, some of these things are extended as a courtesy, but there is a presumption that the guest will eventually return home, or, if they like it enough, make formal application to join.

You are saying that there should be able to be a process where you can exit the society without leaving the boundaries. However, the resources above are near impossible to avoid on a normal day.

How do you opt-out, remain physically, yet not be a drain on the society maintaining these resources?
LordEd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 01:58 PM   #395
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
e.g. Anthony Hopkins became an American citizen (and gave up his British Citizenship).
Wrong, he has dual citizenship.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 02:58 PM   #396
JLord
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
*my* short answer is 100% yes you can opt out (or should be able to opt out) without moving
That's a pretty important distinction between "can opt out" and "should be able to opt out." One is a philosophical question that can be reasonably debated, the other only has one correct answer and is not a matter of opinion. So I think you should clarify which position you take because it would save a lot of confusion.

Last edited by JLord; 5th March 2013 at 03:02 PM.
JLord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 03:20 PM   #397
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
If you fully opted out and contributed nothing to the infrastructure by way of taxes would you be allowed to walk the streets or would you have to swing from lamp post to lamp post? Come to think of it, you wouldn't have helped to pay for the lamp posts either.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 03:25 PM   #398
LightinDarkness
Master Poster
 
LightinDarkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
My personal position is you should be allowed to not be a part of society due to my believing all interaction should be voluntary to be legal ... e.g. all contracts (including the so called "social contract" should be legal) My understanding is that obviously, if you opt out (which in this case *should* be a one off) you aren't entitled to benefits
The problem, of course, is that your decisions do not take place in a vacuum and it is impossible for you to simply opt out of society and not enjoy all the de facto benefits you get simply by living near it. I truly do not understand why it is so hard for people to get this. Let me illustrate by example:

Lets say you decide to go be your own little freeman and opt out of society. What happens when your house catches on fire? We can't simply let it burn itself out - fire spreads, it costs those of us who want to be in society a ton of time and money to prevent fire spreading to our homes that surround you than it does to simply put the fire out in your own house. As such, you automatically get fire protection whether you want to be in society or not. And its not just fire protection. Same with police protection (otherwise criminals would stand on your property line and could shoot people), military protection (otherwise your yard could be a launching point for a foreign invasion), etc.

Why is this concept so hard for freeman and those who support this BS to understand? We teach this in political science 101 in my university - and if its political science 101 then its not a hard concept. Its called the theory of public goods. Societies produce several types of goods:

Private goods: excludable, rivalrouus (example: ipad, your shoe)
Public goods: non-excludable, non-rivalrous (example: fire protection, defense)
Quasi-private: excludable, non-rivalrous (example: JREF forums, toll roads)
Quasi-public: non-excludable, rivalrous (example: public fisheries, lumber)

rivalrous = consumption of the good by person A does not prevent consumption from someone else (Person B to Person Infinity).
excludable = different groups of people cant be prevented from using the good.

So summing it all up, THIS FAILS BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY YOU CANT OPT OUT OF SOCIETY AND NOT BENEFIT FROM PUBLIC GOODS. So please lets stop it, its silly. Freeman seem to believe they can live in a world where all goods are private good or quasi-private. NOT reality. Never has been. So long as there are public and quasi-public goods, YOU CANNOT OPT OUT OF SOCIETY.

Last edited by LightinDarkness; 5th March 2013 at 03:29 PM.
LightinDarkness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2013, 11:31 PM   #399
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by LordEd View Post
Those would be distractions. The hardest thing to do when discussion freeman beliefs is to stay on-topic and get a clear, testable statement of belief.

We are at "you should be able to opt out of society while physically remaining". The last post from me is a few basic case tests which may expand, clarify, or change it depending on your response.

It is a slow process that I follow. Other posters will probably ask/work differently.
I am quite happy to withdraw from this discussion until such time as RPMcMurphy38 actually responds to this post, and the debate on this issue reaches a conclusion. But I will follow it with interest, and formally withdraw my earlier question on water rights until such time that issue is resolved.

THEN, we can get to the issue of how Freeman can exist peacefully without laws.

Norm
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2013, 01:42 AM   #400
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,690
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
YOU CANNOT OPT OUT OF SOCIETY.

Apart from by leaving the jurisdiction, of course.

It would be interesting to see how long FOTLers would survive in a society without the rule of law.

Going back a few hundred years, people used to be declated to be outside the law. It was involuntary, compulsory, and done as a punishment.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 6th March 2013 at 01:46 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.