Freemen on the land are growing exponentially

[oilyfan]

Or that's what this nut who is the "leader" of the movement is saying...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Can...349/story.html

Discuss

[burn_this_city]

Paging Tower.

[Bob]

It's like arrogance and stupidity all wrapped up. How efficient.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Or that's what this nut who is the "leader" of the movement is saying...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Can...349/story.html

Discuss

He is probably correct. There is most certainly exponential growth there.

100^1

[puckluck]

Stewart Bell, National Post · Friday, Oct. 29, 2010
HAMILTON, ONT. • When Mika Rasila got pulled over by Niagara police in January for driving his white Pontiac Montana without licence plates, he was ready with a defence: he doesn’t need plates because he’s a Freeman on the Land.
A Freeman on the Land, he explained in a letter he tried to hand the patrol officer through the window, is someone who has revoked his consent to be governed. He has opted out of Canada so the laws don’t apply to him.
It didn’t work.

This is pretty comical. If you want to opt out of Canadian laws good for you, just get the hell out of this country.

[photon]

Ok here's one interesting thing that I think could actually be a discussion rather than just silliness.

One of the basic premises of this whole movement, once you strip away all the legal silliness and mumbo jumbo of contracts and admiralty and names IN ALL UPPER CASE, is that they didn't consent to be governed. The idea that they didn't agree to have Canada (or whoever) govern and set the laws and all that stuff, so they simply opt-out.

That's not the way it works of course, but I think it's an interesting point at least. You can always say "well leave then" but there really isn't anywhere else to go where you basically don't have the same thing in a different form.

Now I don't really see any strength behind the argument, you were born into this society and the society is what it is, too bad. Kind of like arguing that you didn't choose to be born a human, so you opt out of humanity and become a cat.

But I can at least see the idea, someone didn't choose to be born into Canada, so should they be subject to its laws?

[mikey_the_redneck]

I'm no government cheerleader....

...but I don't see how someone can live under those conditions. The constant battle would not be worth it.

[FlameOn]

So these are anarchists? Seems to me he is just crazy or plain stupid. These liberatarian types really need some sense knocked into them.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So these are anarchists?

I don't think they are anarchists, they hire their own police force, establish their own system of laws, etc.. Or least ostensibly that's what they are about.

The fact that in the story one of them found this while looking for a "solution" to their student loans though says something.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by photon

But I can at least see the idea, someone didn't choose to be born into Canada, so should they be subject to its laws?

Well I hope they are growing all their food and not using any government currency to buy any goods.

Also hope they are living in a teepee and not using the Natural Gas we produce, but instead making a fire out of sticks and stones to keep warm and to cook on.

So much hypocrisy from a freeman or whatever they call themselves. They only want the good benefits of society, but don't want the bad ones.

Edit: What the hell is a bad benefit? Anyways..you get my point.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I'm no government cheerleader....

...but I don't see how someone can live under those conditions. The constant battle would not be worth it.

What kind of conditions?

[photon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Well I hope they are growing all their food and not using any government currency to buy any goods.

Also hope they are living in a teepee and not using the Natural Gas we produce, but instead making a fire out of sticks and stones to keep warm and to cook on.

So much hypocrisy from a freeman or whatever they call themselves. They only want the good benefits of society, but don't want the bad ones.

Edit: What the hell is a bad benefit? Anyways..you get my point.

By bad benefit you mean an obligation

But yeah what if they did all that? Basically went out, bought some land, and lived on a compound and did their own thing?

They'd still be subject to Canadian law though, so that doesn't get them anywhere.

I'm more focused on the basic idea of not consenting to being part of a society (or any society).

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

What kind of conditions?

The conditions of being a "free-man".

I just don't think most police officers and gov. administrations are going to take that status seriously. You would constantly be battling the system.
Not worth the headache imo.

LOL that article is pretty sensationalist. I love how they link 9/11 truth to radical freeman who are potential extremists, and by extension, must be domestic terrorists.

Love the association to the Oath Keepers......what a crap article.

[Hemi-Cuda]

you want to be a freeman on the land? you don't get a much better country to do that in than Canada, just go out in the woods somewhere and really live off the land. if that's too hard and you can't live without your Tim Horton's, then suck it up princess and play by the same rules that everyone else does

this does make sense though as to why i've seen a couple of cars around Calgary driving around without plates

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think they are anarchists, they hire their own police force, establish their own system of laws, etc.. Or least ostensibly that's what they are about.

The fact that in the story one of them found this while looking for a "solution" to their student loans though says something.

This reminds me of that episode of family guy where Peter establishes his own country. I didn't think anyone was actually batty enough to do it.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by photon

By bad benefit you mean an obligation

But yeah what if they did all that? Basically went out, bought some land, and lived on a compound and did their own thing?

They'd still be subject to Canadian law though, so that doesn't get them anywhere.

I'm more focused on the basic idea of not consenting to being part of a society (or any society).

Then I would have no problem with them doing that. But, really, how are they going to be able to afford all that and set up an education system and health care system?

That would be a huge failure IMO even if it was allowed. I guarantee you 99% of the freemen people would be filing for welfare after the first month and kissing the hands and feet of society and the government.

I understand where they are coming from, but it's insane for them to think they can opt out of society or even if it was allowed that they could survive without society.

They have no problem using the cars, gas, natural gas, and all the other goods society creates, but they don't want to pay registration fees, insurance and taxes, and be subject to laws unless it benefits them?

Untill I see them out in Kananaskis country in a teepee riding a donkey and hunting for their food with a slingshot I can't take them seriously.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by photon

Ok here's one interesting thing that I think could actually be a discussion rather than just silliness.

One of the basic premises of this whole movement, once you strip away all the legal silliness and mumbo jumbo of contracts and admiralty and names IN ALL UPPER CASE, is that they didn't consent to be governed. The idea that they didn't agree to have Canada (or whoever) govern and set the laws and all that stuff, so they simply opt-out.

That's not the way it works of course, but I think it's an interesting point at least. You can always say "well leave then" but there really isn't anywhere else to go where you basically don't have the same thing in a different form.

Now I don't really see any strength behind the argument, you were born into this society and the society is what it is, too bad. Kind of like arguing that you didn't choose to be born a human, so you opt out of humanity and become a cat.

But I can at least see the idea, someone didn't choose to be born into Canada, so should they be subject to its laws?

The basic problem with their argument is, it's not their land they drive on and not their roads. You can't drive on government built roads and then say I don't ascribe to the government so I don't need a license. If they want to go buy a plot of land and build roads on it and drive around there, they can do that no problem.

Opting out, ideally, should be an option. But practically, it's not as in order for society to function it must govern everyone. The opt out idea in government is best used as leverage over government, as in government stems from the people, so people's rights should be of paramount importance to the government.

[flylock shox]

They are bordering on becoming a loose cult. Basically a random assortment of paranoiacs, schizophrenics, and the personality disordered latching on to a common idea that allows them all the benefits of civilized society with none of the social obligations including respect for the rule of law.

If you'd like to see one in action, look no further than your nearest Tax Court of Canada, where you can pop in to the public gallery and watch as one of them argues why he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court because he has no contract with it, and the judge has no authority over him. You can probably identify such cases from the court list, where one of the parties is listed in rather eccentric fashion as "David the PLENIPOTENTIARY of TRUTH," or some such rubbish.

And it would not surprise me to find they're growing - there's an abundance of high-functioning but reasoning-impaired individuals just dying to latch onto a theory that confirms their base suspicions and allows them to indulge their selfish impulses. Now they've found each other.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

By bad benefit you mean an obligation

But yeah what if they did all that? Basically went out, bought some land, and lived on a compound and did their own thing?

Isn't this simliar to what those people in Waco, Texas did?

We all saw how that ended up.....

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by photon

Ok here's one interesting thing that I think could actually be a discussion rather than just silliness.

One of the basic premises of this whole movement, once you strip away all the legal silliness and mumbo jumbo of contracts and admiralty and names IN ALL UPPER CASE, is that they didn't consent to be governed. The idea that they didn't agree to have Canada (or whoever) govern and set the laws and all that stuff, so they simply opt-out.

That's not the way it works of course, but I think it's an interesting point at least. You can always say "well leave then" but there really isn't anywhere else to go where you basically don't have the same thing in a different form.

Now I don't really see any strength behind the argument, you were born into this society and the society is what it is, too bad. Kind of like arguing that you didn't choose to be born a human, so you opt out of humanity and become a cat.

But I can at least see the idea, someone didn't choose to be born into Canada, so should they be subject to its laws?

They have the option of moving up north and living in a tent, but as for as I can see they wish to use the goverment roads, water, power education etc but don't want to pay for it.