Freemen on the land are growing exponentially

[jammies]

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?

Why not? That's what I never understood about this "theory" - people that AREN'T born in Canada and who enter its sovereign territory are subject to Canadian law, so why would being born here get you some kind of exemption? It has nothing to do with "agreeing" to the laws of the nation, it has to do with that nation imposing its laws upon you within its territorial limits by force.

It might seem tyrannical, but really how else are things going to work? Law is ultimately upheld by violence, and the idea that "freemen on the land" can opt of a contract is flawed at its root because of this. The government doesn't care if you agree with the social contract, you either obey or suffer the consequences. In Canada, complying with the law and that contract isn't particularly onerous or oppressive, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore it when it's convenient for you to do so without the State bringing you back into compliance by any means it feels necessary.

[Devils'Advocate]

They could move to Somalia. No government (of any power). No laws. No social contract. Nothing to obey. And, bonus, there is no government to kick them out for illegally immigrating there....

[puckluck]

South America too. They would fit right in with the tribes there that have never had any contact with the outside world.

Now those are real freemen of the land.

[CaramonLS]

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?

That's all fine and dandy until you start interacting with people and places which adhere to rules and regulations.

Don't want to adhere to traffic stops? Stop driving.
Don't want to use gov't infrastructure? Shut off your power.

I honestly wonder if he gets sick if he uses government health care? Or calls the cops if someone broke into his house.

Better yet, if I was a criminal and broke into his place, could I claim that I am not subject to laws as I did not commit a crime against a citizen or on the property of someone from this country?

[photon]

Originally Posted by jammies

Why not? That's what I never understood about this "theory" - people that AREN'T born in Canada and who enter its sovereign territory are subject to Canadian law, so why would being born here get you some kind of exemption? It has nothing to do with "agreeing" to the laws of the nation, it has to do with that nation imposing its laws upon you within its territorial limits by force.

It might seem tyrannical, but really how else are things going to work? Law is ultimately upheld by violence, and the idea that "freemen on the land" can opt of a contract is flawed at its root because of this. The government doesn't care if you agree with the social contract, you either obey or suffer the consequences. In Canada, complying with the law and that contract isn't particularly onerous or oppressive, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore it when it's convenient for you to do so without the State bringing you back into compliance by any means it feels necessary.

Which for some of them is basically their point; it's not something they agreed to but something that is enforced on them, so they see it as some kind of emancipation or something.

I agree with what most of you are saying, they really don't have the courage of their convictions since they still reap the benefits of society, but I wasn't really thinking of it from that point of view.

More just a philosophical thing.

[frinkprof]

Thread title should be:

Freemen on the land are growing exponentially... more annoying and idiotic

[CaptainCrunch]

Saying that you choose to opt out of society or out of being governed is irrelevant.

By physically living in this country its implied, by using a road funded by the government its implied that he recognizes the system of government. By using Canadian currency to buy his car, its implied unless he paid for it with rocks.

Its equivalent to living in a neighbourhood but saying that while your physically there you don't consent to being part of that neighborhood. Since your using electricity, heat, schools, and physically sitting within that neighborhood, you've consented to being in that neighborhood.

Freemen on the Land are moron's with a Nancy Drew understanding of constitutional law, and a lower then ######ed perception of reality.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by photon

Which for some of them is basically their point; it's not something they agreed to but something that is enforced on them, so they see it as some kind of emancipation or something.

The idea that you can emancipate yourself by declaring yourself a "FOTL" is just dumb though - if they said "oh we understand the government has the power to rule us, so we're going to resist" that would be one thing, but instead it's "we deny the power of the government to rule us" which is just nonsense.

It's like telling a gun-toting mugger "Well you can't have my wallet 'cause I'm going to ignore you" amd expecting him to then say, "Well gee whillickers, ya got me there! I'll go rob someone else now." They are arrogating to themselves an equality of power with the government that simply doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by photon

I agree with what most of you are saying, they really don't have the courage of their convictions since they still reap the benefits of society, but I wasn't really thinking of it from that point of view.

Well I'm more concerned with the argument that you can opt out of being governed if you so desire. The idea you can get something for nothing has a much longer and more distinguished history.

[CrusaderPi]

This freeman thing reminds me of Canada's native question. Both groups live in Canada with all of our benefits, but claim not to be part of Canada. Or at least not subjected to all of the laws of Canada.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

This freeman thing reminds me of Canada's native question. Both groups live in Canada with all of our benefits, but claim not to be part of Canada. Or at least not subjected to all of the laws of Canada.

Well from a strictly historical perspective we Canadians live in their land. They never invited us and had bugger all choice in having their crap knicked.

Granted its a winner take all kind of world, but you can also see why they might be a tad pissed at us when we suggest we did them a favour what with the TB, pervert teachers substance abuse and poverty we gifted them with.

[Rathji]

Every time I real this thread title I think of this...

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by jammies

The idea that you can emancipate yourself by declaring yourself a "FOTL" is just dumb though - if they said "oh we understand the government has the power to rule us, so we're going to resist" that would be one thing, but instead it's "we deny the power of the government to rule us" which is just nonsense.

Aren't we supposed to rule the government? Not the government rules us? So essentially we have the power? Anyway, the guy seems a bit wierd but here in this country he can believe what he wants. If he get away with it then all the best. If he doesn't then he's in for a ride.

I was bored and said hello to this guy while in a Deny's. I ended up having coffee with him and he talked to me about law. He said he wasn't a lawyer but he loved reading about it and interpreting what it means. Why laws come to pass and what constitutes a law. He said something like this but it was a while ago so it's not exact. "In Canada we signed agreements as a country towards civil rights. We have these rights no matter what. When a law is made here called an Act it can't be a real law because it has violated these civil rights. Therefore it is an Act and not a true law and can never be ratified as a true law because it's in violation of these original agreements." It's one that stuck to me anyway.

When it comes to something like this guy here he seems like he is suffering from self entitlement syndrome. However, if enough people join his merry band of miscreants, would that also force change into our society as well? The people make the rules and the people can change them as well? However, I digress, I am talking completely from my rectum here.

[photon]

If you want some entertaining reading for a while, the conspiracy section of the JREF forums has a few threads on this (well a lot, but a few active ones).

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

. When a law is made here called an Act it can't be a real law because it has violated these civil rights.

I think you've quoted him fairly accurately based on what I've read before about their theories. What I would like to know is, what is the basis for the above quoted statement? Most freemen say something like this as though you can read it and its truth is self-evident once it's pointed out.
For me, as a lawyer, I have no idea why naming something an "Act" automatically violates its status as law.

I'm guessing it's some sort of semantic argument about laws only being laws if they are worded or passed in some particular fashion, but in my opinion that completely misapprehends the nature of the consent implied by social contract. As long as a government creates laws by the process dictated by the constitution accepted by the vast majority of people living within a political territory and as long as the government has the ability to enforce the laws it creates through coercion because in doing so it does not incite a revolt, the laws passed by that government are de facto legitimate regardless if a certain set of cranks may disagree.

[photon]

That's usually what it is, they have semantic (magical words) formulae based on their reading of Black's Law dictionary and highly selective choosing of past legal decisions and statements. EDIT: That's why they don't "drive their car", they "operate their conveyance".

I spent a while talking to a guy about stuff and when I brought up the idea of a social contract, he flipped out. He said social contracts don't exist because he didn't consent to be in one, and when I tried to explain social contracts exist regardless of consent (some form exists, even his precious common law), he said sociologists and anthropologists just came up with the term social contract to brainwash everyone into doing what the government says.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Aren't we supposed to rule the government? Not the government rules us? So essentially we have the power? Anyway, the guy seems a bit wierd but here in this country he can believe what he wants. If he get away with it then all the best. If he doesn't then he's in for a ride.

I was bored and said hello to this guy while in a Deny's. I ended up having coffee with him and he talked to me about law. He said he wasn't a lawyer but he loved reading about it and interpreting what it means. Why laws come to pass and what constitutes a law. He said something like this but it was a while ago so it's not exact. "In Canada we signed agreements as a country towards civil rights. We have these rights no matter what. When a law is made here called an Act it can't be a real law because it has violated these civil rights. Therefore it is an Act and not a true law and can never be ratified as a true law because it's in violation of these original agreements." It's one that stuck to me anyway.

When it comes to something like this guy here he seems like he is suffering from self entitlement syndrome. However, if enough people join his merry band of miscreants, would that also force change into our society as well? The people make the rules and the people can change them as well? However, I digress, I am talking completely from my rectum here.

Except that we give the government ruling power through proxy, we abrogate our responsibilities to rule this country through the vote, and all it means if you didn't vote is that you decided to take part in the process, but it does not mean that you chose not to allow the government to govern you.

And this guy is making interpretations through fundamental misunderstandings and interpretation through the study of chosen information and wrong information.

Your participation of this country and its right to govern you and set laws that you must live by is implied by continuing to live within its border. This guy was driving on a road that was probably paid for by the government so he was using a government service so his consent at that point becomes implied.

When he woke up in the morning and turned on his lights which was at some point delivered by a government agency it was implied.

And as far as the whole act contravening civil rights, I think he has it backwards if he talking about international agreements on civil rights.

Freeman on the land is a crackpot movement fueled by morons who create their basis by limiting or removing information that disagrees with their views.

Bottom line, this clown didn't show up in court to fight his ticket not as a protest, but because he knew that his argument would fall flat and be destroyed by people who actually have studied the law and know how it works.

[calumniate]

Their argument breaks down fairly quickly. If you're driving on a government built road with no license or insurance and hit somebody, boom you are subject to Canadian law. Personally I don't want to see anyone driving around with no plate. It just screams 'suspect' to me, and of course the cops will take issue with it.

[sclitheroe]

I don't quite get one thing about their movement - do they reject all forms governance, or do they reject specifically the governance of the government of Canada (and the US)?

[HPLovecraft]

Freeman on the Land? That makes it sound as if they're hermits growing their own food and hunting for meat. All they're doing is driving around in their SUVs on government roads without plates and trying to avoid paying taxes and student loans after being given government money.

They need to move somewhere up north and actually live like "freemen on the land." Or go to Somalia.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I don't quite get one thing about their movement - do they reject all forms governance, or do they reject specifically the governance of the government of Canada (and the US)?

They just reject the forms of governance they don't like, because they say they've set up their own policing system.