Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Just because you think it's 'basic" does not mean that it's so.
Since words have meaning they need to be used correctly in the laws.
You non-answer is still not an answer it's a dodge.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Then shoot me... If I'm stealing your money by threat of force then shoot me...
- Thread starter sudden valley gunner
- Start date
Just because you think it's 'basic" does not mean that it's so.
Since words have meaning they need to be used correctly in the laws.
You non-answer is still not an answer it's a dodge.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Argumentum ad populum
"I know that's your preference, but you can't exercise ALL of your God given liberties because I don't see how that would 'work'"
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Just to be clear, it's been stated, under oath, that you give up ownership of your car when you license it. I have cited that.
JustaShooter
Regular Member
It may shock you to discover that not all statements made under oath are truthful or factual.
eye95
Well-known member
Plus, that is likely a conclusion of the witness or the poster, not a reflection of reality.
I strongly recommend ignoring anything that poster says about the law. He is encouraging lawbreaking that will get others into trouble. I have taken to calling that kind of posting "macbething."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
I strongly recommend ignoring anything that poster says about the law. He is encouraging lawbreaking that will get others into trouble. I have taken to calling that kind of posting "macbething."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I've said this a million times, but that entire approach to interpreting government and its laws misses the point.
Government does not need to create elaborate legal fictions to trick you into signing over, for instance, ownership of your car, so that they may, for instance, tax and regulate the usage of that car.
Government simply legislates the desired outcome, and points a gun in your face to ensure you comply. It's 100% "might makes right". Government operates, in this regard, with no more sophistication than that of an extortionate mafia.
Government does not care whether it has "tricked" you, and government does not care whether you believe you own your car. All government needs to do is pass a law declaring that you will pay to operate said car (with any – or no – justification at all), and to present more force in the enforcement of said law than you are willing to apply to its evasion.
The proof of this is the remarkable lack of success in court experienced by sovereign citizen and Freeman on the Land types.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
The government did, at one time, need to "create elaborate legal fictions" at one time. It did so in a way to make it as convenient as possible to comply. Once it had every one complying with getting a license, for instance, then the next generation gets a new set of somewhat convenient regulations and so forth. Then one day the regulations are not so convenient and nether is the ability to defend against them.
A good example of the government creating elaborate legal fictions is the reclassifying motor vehicle "crimes" to "civil infractions". They do this to make it cheaper to prosecute and easier to convict. However, civil infractions are civil in nature and require the application of civil rules. There's no cause for arrest or detainment in the civil rules. As far as I know, no state that has done this has been challenged. I am ready for that challenge here in La. I know of those ready for the same fight in Tx.
The lack of success and subsequent loss of liberty and property of the sovereign citizens and Freeman was due to them bringing their wild legal theories into court without so much as a cursory reading of the rules, or the law. Making up crap and bringing it before a judge will get a laugh at best. It will get you thrown in prison at worst.
I applaud Freedom1Man for taking the time to discover all of things he has. I've made the same discoveries myself. However, it should be a warning to anyone who decides to fight the status quo of the legal system. They play to win and they're merciless. Pick your battles and be extremely prepared. Sit in on court proceedings and watch. Get some books on rules and procedure. The court system is there for us to use, but we often have no clue as to how to use it. We should change that.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
Hey. Good idea. Maybe we can call rude, indignant posting "eyeing? Wadayathink?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Stealth, SVG, Marshaul,
I think we let ourselves get sidetracked sometimes; I think we should drive to the heart of the matter, or as close as possible more often.
For example, calling out Eye's quote above as argumentum ad populum was quite correct on Stealth's part, but it left unaddressed the false premises underlying his argument.
I would also argue some version or selections of the following.
One of the big lies/unstated false premises underlying statist arguments is consent of the governed. The governing classes, and many in the population, intend to rule you whether you consent or not. They buttress this with the assertion that government must extend to everyone.
And, of course, the whole business about "government is necessary".
Yet, I can not remember one of us saying people who believed government was necessary could not get together and set up a government for themselves. Nor, that their government could not defend them from say robbers and rapists and so forth, even if said robbers and rapists had not signed up for their government. Defense is defense, you know.
I'm fairly sure that genuinely consensual government with consensual "taxes" (more accurately called subscription payments) would work pretty well. They'd really be mutual defense societies.
Lets say my mutual defense society arrests a vagrant for mugging an old lady. But, the trial is conducted a little or a lot unfairly. I just cancel my membership and seek another or seek none at all. That not only starves that beast, but actively encourages it to deal very fairly.
Consent under the existing scheme is a lie. That there can only be one "government" is a false premise. That such a "government" must extend to everyone is a false premise. It is because government extends itself to everyone and is nonconsensual that government can get away with its tyrranies and horrors. The non-consensual nature of the current scheme causes the necessity for one government per territory. The instant things change to genuine consent of the governed, everything else starts to change, too.
As I am becoming fond of asking, "If I am your equal, how can you rule me without my consent?" Literally, the only way one can involuntarily rule another is if he thinks he is somehow better than him, considers him less than equal.
I think we'll do better to expose the false premises.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I would say there is only one important fiction underlying public acceptance of legislative fiat, and that is the fiction of "consent of the governed". That alone renders any further fictions redundant and unnecessary.
It's "OK" for government to arbitrarily dictate any outcome it desires – and enforce that outcome with absolutely no "authority" beyond that of superior force – because "we consent" to it doing so.
I'd say that is every bit as good an example of what I'm arguing.
I'd say that a given offense is substantially either and inherently of the nature as to be classified as a "crime" or a "civil infraction". Government has no right nor authority (beyond that deriving purely from super force) to decide that a definite (real) victim deserves no recognition, nor to conjure a "victim" of an act solely against the laws of government.
But government does not care about the meaning behind these words, or whether their justification is easily refuted with simple logic. Government simply demands, with a gun.
The change in question, anyway, doesn't serve as part of an elaborate ruse to achieve compliance, but is merely the government dictatorially modifying what is (as far as government need concern itself) nothing more than a bureaucratic classification, and solely for their own bureaucratic convenience, with absolutely nothing more than "FYTW" as a rationale.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I agree, people don't seem to understand that I am often just pointing out what the law says and what various court rulings have been.
I don't advise action other than that the law be followed. However before you can claim to be following the law you must, first, know the law.
+1 Get rid of the 16thA & 17thA not only do we have a chance but can restore the republic, limit the 14thA to voting as it was written to apply to and a whole lot of silly will either go away or be encouraged to do so. -Michael
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
To point out that you're on the correct path, one need only look at the criminal networks. Drug lords, mafias, etc and you will see other governments at work. They raise armies, police forces, they charge taxes, and more. Somethings people have to turn the world onto it's head before they can see what they are stepping in.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
The 16th Amendment did not grant any new powers/authority to congress. So if the authority/power was not there before the 16thA then it was not there afterwards.
Please study the subject before suggesting changes. Unintended Consequences are something you'd likely run into.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Good post. I know I get sidetracked all the time....I like the discussions, sometimes it tells so much more about the person than they intend.
A good example of what you are saying exists like Fman1 pointed out in the "underworld".
But also recently I just had a meeting/training with a guy that runs G2, a private internet security force. People pay them to make sure they are in compliance with each others rules (especially merchants and credit card vendors) so that the state stays out of it.
eye95
Well-known member
The People of the US (and, I submit, all of the posters here) are consenting to be governed. If you don't leave the country or actively change the government, you ARE consenting. That consent started when the government was formed or when your ancestors chose to come here or to stay here. Absent specific action on your part, you inherited that consent.
If you do not consent to be governed, leave, go find a deserted mountain top, or take very specific steps (such as our Founders did) to change out the government to which you do not consent. Absent that, you are just a bunch of keyboard commandos.
That is the only response folks saying that they don't consent to be governed deserve or will get from me.
Moving on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
If you do not consent to be governed, leave, go find a deserted mountain top, or take very specific steps (such as our Founders did) to change out the government to which you do not consent. Absent that, you are just a bunch of keyboard commandos.
That is the only response folks saying that they don't consent to be governed deserve or will get from me.
Moving on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Uh huh. And how you suppose we do that?
I'll point out to the forum that my consent – or lack thereof – is wholly mine to declare or deny. I see no reason why my right to decide and declare whether my consent exists ought to depend on any prior action on my part. (Need I take any special action to change hip hop music in order to declare my lack of consent to listen to it?)
I prefer it when folks at least admit they don't really need my consent to point a gun in my face and force my compliance. (For instance, some will agree that they can't get the consent of more than a majority, but contend that they only need that much, anyway.) Twisting things to pretend they have my consent – or that my withholding it is somehow irrelevant – is intellectually dishonest.
I promise you I would not pay a cent of taxes to our aggressive and corrupt government, nor would I comply with many of its odious prohibitions, were there not a constant threat of violent reprisal.
Do you really believe that represents consent?
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Thomas Jefferson might disagree.
"Can one generation of men, by any act of theirs, bind those which are to follow them? I say, by the laws of nature, there being between generation and generation, as between nation and nation, no other obligatory law."
"Every generation comes equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth which He made for their subsistence, unincumbered by their predecessors, who, like, them, were but tenants for life."
eye95
Well-known member
They can bind that next generation until they are of age to decide for themselves. At that point in time, if they do not consent to be governed, they should leave, go find a mountain top, or actively move to replace the government.
If the People, as somewhat cohesive unit, choose to be governed, than any tiny number who choose not to be governed are the ones who should get out of Dodge. They should not be able to live in the governed area, enjoying the fruits of that governance, but choosing not to be governed.
Have your cake. Or eat it. Choose.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>
On edit: I cited THREE options. There may be more. But the one dishonest option, the one that cannot morally be taken, is to live under the fruits of the governance, but claim that it is unjust and inapplicable because one "does not consent." Unless one is doing something to exercise that lack of consent, he has consented, regardless of the lip-service and foot-stamping he gives to non-consent.
Keyboard commandoism.
If the People, as somewhat cohesive unit, choose to be governed, than any tiny number who choose not to be governed are the ones who should get out of Dodge. They should not be able to live in the governed area, enjoying the fruits of that governance, but choosing not to be governed.
Have your cake. Or eat it. Choose.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>
On edit: I cited THREE options. There may be more. But the one dishonest option, the one that cannot morally be taken, is to live under the fruits of the governance, but claim that it is unjust and inapplicable because one "does not consent." Unless one is doing something to exercise that lack of consent, he has consented, regardless of the lip-service and foot-stamping he gives to non-consent.
Keyboard commandoism.
Last edited: