FREEMAN ON THE LAND

Post Reply New Topic

i have looked at such information in the past, and have gained nothing from it. it is pointless, and i am not going to waste my time.

a pragmatic look at reality proves to us that it is a pointless waste of time. you yourself prove it in your inability to provide any evidence of this nonsense benefiting anybody in any way. i myself have witnessed first hand the abject futility of attempts to use this manner of approach in the real world.

i am not being ignorant. i did not ask you for any demonstration. i simply asked for a single, real world example. which you could not provide. perhaps the discussion is now concluded, unless you want to continue with yet more pointless sophistry.

also, you might wish to consider that your self-righteous and indignant communication style might be one of the primary factors in the difficulties you are encountering on the forum. using such language as "you lot" "you people" and telling people who are trying to engage with you that "they will not ALLOW themselves to BE CONVINCED" by you isn't particularly constructive, now, is it?

Then that is your own choice to consent to authoritarian rule "right or wrong" and not question it. That's fine, coz it is your choice. Just repect the fact that others do not wish to live under the boot of corporatism. I have provided examples. Personal, functional and, dare I say academic examples. My job of providing the information is done. It is you who refuses to look at it. Do you think youtube videos are created and hense only apply in some ethereal realm? Don't make me laugh.

And you think going round and round in circles asking for information over and over even after it has been produced, but because you aren't satisfied, is THAT "constructive"?

Like I have said to the others, the information is there, when you gather up the courage to actually look at the information, then I'll be waiting.

Namaste.

i don't consent to authoritarian rule and not question it. i regularly question it. it's one of my favourite pass-times.

you have provided no examples, other than a youtube video of a guy talking. the request was for real, concrete examples of FREEMEN using their knowledge to live out-with the confines of the state and it's system of statute law. you provided NOTHING.



see above, i did not ask for information, i asked for examples.

i could easily go to a conspiracy website like david icke and find endless youtube videos and people talking about their experiences being led out of court by guards after refusing to confirm their name to judges etc.

my point is, it doesn't work. at worst, it might even land you in a locked psychiatric ward or a jail cell, and the courts might dispose of you in a rather more severe way as a result of doing this.




likely won't be anytime soon. from my perspective, it's quite simply pointless sophistry.

ta.

You don't see examples because you don't want to see examples. two of the videos I posted were narrated cameraphone videos of a magistrates court case being abandoned by the magistrate because of a failure to gain juristiction. Oh YEA, you would know that if you actually looked.

Grow up and stop clutching onto this strawman you have that people have to be accountable for information. Be a man (or woman, whichever you are) and take a look and stop having childish tantrums coz I'm asking you to do your own research and hense your own thinking.

Psst! Peebo! Stop replying, it's a TRAP!! ! You can never get that time back...

Good advice. Time is best spent learning.

The freeman concept is completely incompatible with any definition of state sovereignty. Try it and you will most likely just be held in contempt of court, the international definition of sovereignty gives the state an absolute monopoly over the usage of legitimate force over a geographic area, not the citizen. The citizen has the right to disestablish that authority, but not as an individual entity (that is the British definition BTW). As to the UK, they are a parliamentary democracy with sovereignty of the parliament and of the crown. They both draw power from constitutional conventions. Note, conventions are not documents so do not obfuscate. You can however feel free as you like to stand your ground and either be shouted down by the collective silence of your fellow citizens or shot with beanbag rounds by soldiers of Her Majesty.

@Adam

No one is going to go through your videos it is just a blatant attempt at proof by intimidation. They will, and will be justified in doing so, simply put as much effort into their rebuttals as you did in linking off.

You are not teaching, you are shouting people down, interesting position for a person who places the individual at a place higher than any authority.

I am not claiming to teach. Or have you not noticed my repeated requests for people to teach THEMSELVES?

But you are, you are suggesting we learn something, that is the basis of teaching. The suggestion, is for us to learn about a position you hold to, that is a proposition and propositions must be defended. This statement above, is a blatant attempt to escape a burden of proof; which sits with the person making a particular claim. If you want to claim that the your position is correct or posit that someone's position is wrong, refute it, but don't expect people to be happy with a fallacy and a call for a google search.

I can imagine it now, a science based system, like your RBE; with every journal article written with the steps of an experiment and the conclusion, 'discover the answer for yourself....'

I heard about this concept in 2009 in the political chat rooms I frequented. It did not make much sense because while in the confines of the courtroom (at least in the US) a Judge is GOD and therefore has automatic jurisdiction and sole authority in said court.

Oh, so I'm asking people to look at the material for themselves to enable them to learn this for themselves as a smokescreen am I? Pull the other one it has bells on.



I'm sorry I mistook this courtroom for a discussion forum. lol Why the hell do you think I ask people to lok into this for themselves? Because that is the only way you will see for yourself. This whole defense and burden of proof fallacy is the main ammunition used by the intellectually lazy. Those who wish to sit on discussion forums and demand that everyone do the donkey work for them while doing NO thinking for themselves whatsoever. How utterly sad.



Did I start this thread? Hmmmmmm, no I don't think I did, so maybe if there IS such thing as a "burden of proof" it lies with the individual who started the thread. And wait a minute, he's provided NO empirical evidence to his original supposition that the "freeman" position is "nonsense".



How hypocritical for you to talk of fallacy when you have just made one yourself. An appeal-to-mockery fallacy. Yes, I'm aware that you will try and wriggle out of it by claiming that it was an observation, just as most posters like you do. You are a law unto yourself, aren't you? You get your jollies on feeling superior and actually acting like a monarch does. One rule for you another for everyone else. However that rationalle wouldn't get ME off the hook if I were to say it to you, so you don't get that luxury either I'm afraid.

What's the matter, are you really THAT lazy to not be bothered to objectively look at information that has the potential to change your currently held information. I can't imagine what it must be like to be THAT defensive against knowledge and have to act extremely indignant and superior as a rsult to hide your laziness to do your own thinking. It really is quite sad.

No, special pleading is an attempt to shift a burden of proof.



No, the burden sits with the person making a proposition. The OP is a position that we ought not to accept something, that position has a burden of proof. Your proposition is that we ought to accept something, a position you advocated here and in other threads. You also have a burden of proof. So far you have just argued in isolation to the arguments being made and expected everyone else to be silent, google an answer and accept a proof by intimidation. Neither myself or anyone else things that this is a viable argument for you to take in defense of your position. FYI, I gave you some evidence to doubt your position, you still have spent the majority of a page posting in response to my second post and ignoring my first. I cannot understand why you, being so passionate about an issue have taken such a turn... when we first interacted in the other thread, you were very polite.



An appeal to mockery entails no logical point, it is a subset of an appeal to emotion. I made a reduction to the absurd argument in order to display a contradiction in your world-view which is perfectly valid in a popular discussion.

Sorry, you're gonna have to give up on that accusation. Coz it doesn't stick I'm afraid.



*Points to the OP* Go get your proof then.



Nope, sorry, wrong again. My only proposition is that you look for yourself. Sorry if that is too much to ask.



I haven't asked silence of anyone. In fact I await an extremely vocal contribution from as many people as possible once they know what they're talking about. So yea, sorry, wrong again.



Can be bothered to do our own research? lol



Well i don't think that "think" is a good enough position on anything, do you? Don't you think that KNOW is better?



Just as I suspected, one rule for you, another for others. Shall I carry on ignoring your post there and claim that you have given yourself the "burden of proof" and that no answer you provide will be "satisfactory" and hesne continually accuse you "dodging questions" because I have deliberately decided that none of your answers are good enough for me? You haven't called Peebo out for that, so I take it, that is a good practise to have.



I thought you would try to wriggle out of it.

Maybe we shoud get back to the issue at hand instead of quibbling.

I asked for point-by-point refutations of the information in the videos I posted here. I fulfilled my "burden of proof". Whether that is good enough for you or not is too damn bad.

Just one question, is a "burden of proof" ONLY and I repeat ONLY fulfilled when I have, through what seems to be implied ENNNNNDLESS debating, successfully changed the mind of the individual who I am engaging? If that is the case, then I think you really need to rethink this whole thing. Because you ALL have YOUR OWN "burden of proof" that you have not yet delivered to me.

If the refutations cannot be provided, then I can assume it cannot, or will not be done. Either way it just shows a lack of ability to do so in those who post here.

I am afraid not, you posted hours of video and challenged people to refute them point by point. By whatever definition you use, that is called a proof by intimidation. People linked you off into rational wiki and other places and you did not refute them point by point. Expecting people to accept the action on the one hand and insisting in a bellicose manner that you have no obligation to do the same is special pleading.



Research into what? The issue is one of state sovereignty, something I have a pretty decent understanding of already; I studied philosophy as an undergrad but all of my post-grad work was on international relations.



You could, but my post was not a proof by intimidation, please stop equivocating between two things which are not the same. So far your effort has just been an exercise in obscurantism.



Oh man, here comes the cherry picking. My argument showed logical contradiction between two views that you are advocating, it is not fallacious to evaluate a position in this way.



Proof by intimidation.

At this point I will not be responding to your posts any further, there is very little value in continuing unless something changes in your posting style.