Freemen on the land are growing exponentially

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GomerPile

Not knowing much about the "Freeman" movement, are they able to charge you under the laws that you choose to be goverened by? So if someone were to say steal a certain value of tools from this schmo, sell them and give the money to a landlord who is out some cash. What is the freeman's course of action in a situation like that?

Just wondering.

I'm oversimplifying, but the movement boils down to:

They were born here because this is where their parents ####ed, so they never signed any explicit agreement to adhere to this countries laws, and can't expected to follow any as they do not consider themselves citizens of any countries. Following this crazy rationale, you can't own things, they just belong to their current possessor.

They are basically if hippies and libertarians had a baby and then abandoned it on a bus bench.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is what I don't get about Freeman, If they don't want to be part of the country then don't use any services provided by that country.

Philisophically I like the idea of being able to opt out of society. Citizenship should be a choice, a contract that you willfully enter into. Otherwise the governments only athority exists based on its ability to enforce its power through Police, Propaganda, and Military. I would perfer to think of a country of an area where a group of people have decided to follow a set of social norms for the greater good.

However Freeman think that they can opt out of any obligation to the government while still recieving all of the benefits.

How do you stop someone from benefiting from the social stability and security provided by the State's rule of law and military?

I guess you shoot them?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How do you stop someone from benefiting from the social stability and security provided by the State's rule of law and military?

I guess you shoot them?

Well they believe they aren't benefiting at all since A) we abolished the gold standard and therefore all money and property are owned by the people (hurr) and B) the Canadian government is operating in bankruptcy.

[fredr123]

After garnering media attention, the CPS are now consulting the Crown to see if there's anything they can do to intervene. After two years of insisting this was a civil matter. Hmmm...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by fredr123

After garnering media attention, the CPS are now consulting the Crown to see if there's anything they can do to intervene. After two years of insisting this was a civil matter. Hmmm...

Better late than never.........?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is what I don't get about Freeman, If they don't want to be part of the country then don't use any services provided by that country.

Philisophically I like the idea of being able to opt out of society. Citizenship should be a choice, a contract that you willfully enter into. Otherwise the governments only athority exists based on its ability to enforce its power through Police, Propaganda, and Military. I would perfer to think of a country of an area where a group of people have decided to follow a set of social norms for the greater good.

However Freeman think that they can opt out of any obligation to the government while still recieving all of the benefits.

The only thing to 'get' about the Freeman is that you have to be either mentally unwell, of substandard intelligence, or be looking to get something for nothing or a combination of all three to be one.

There's nothing of substance or of any meaning ideologically to talk about. It's just a bunch of stupid people inventing words and applications of statutes and laws with the intention of getting out of traffic tickets/avoiding taxes/ seizeing property illegally / seem special or important. Talking in their terminology is a trap, since you're navigating a world of law that exists and only has meaning in their own minds.

[photon]

Originally Posted by fredr123

After garnering media attention, the CPS are now consulting the Crown to see if there's anything they can do to intervene. After two years of insisting this was a civil matter. Hmmm...

Wait, she's let this go on for two years?

Something is not right with this, all she has to do is go to court or the landlord tenant mediation service, get a judgment, call a bailiff, and he's out. The only troublesome part could be getting a judgment if the judge/mediator isn't familiar with the FMoTL nonsense and it gets stalled while they work through the nonsense, but the articles haven't said anything along those lines.

Personally I'd rather not have police have the power to just boot anyone out of any property they want just based on the word of the landlord...

[oilyfan]

Yeah something does not sound right here

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How do you stop someone from benefiting from the social stability and security provided by the State's rule of law and military?

I guess you shoot them?

Does the Military provide us with any security? Geography probably provides us with more security than anything else. Rule of law is mostly provided by everyone agreeing not to harm eachother rather than through enforcement.

But if it at some point everyone found out that you had no state protection you might get people coming to invade your "country" at which point the state would not help you out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Does the Military provide us with any security? Geography probably provides us with more security than anything else. Rule of law is mostly provided by everyone agreeing not to harm eachother rather than through enforcement.

But if it at some point everyone found out that you had no state protection you might get people coming to invade your "country" at which point the state would not help you out.

The military as an arm of the government does a lot more then just provide security.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The military as an arm of the government does a lot more then just provide security.

shhhhh.......

[The Yen Man]

Its too bad we can't round these guys up and put them on an island to duke it out and fend for themselves for our entertainment. Or can we...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is what I don't get about Freeman, If they don't want to be part of the country then don't use any services provided by that country.

Philisophically I like the idea of being able to opt out of society. Citizenship should be a choice, a contract that you willfully enter into. Otherwise the governments only athority exists based on its ability to enforce its power through Police, Propaganda, and Military. I would perfer to think of a country of an area where a group of people have decided to follow a set of social norms for the greater good.

However Freeman think that they can opt out of any obligation to the government while still recieving all of the benefits.

You can't opt out of society, your a member of it as soon as you live within its border and use any government services.

The only way that you could opt out of society is if you were willing to pay unsubsidized prices for health care, police and fire protection, utilities, road ways, communications and in fact employment.

The only way you can opt out is if your a citizen of another country existing at the sufferance of the country that you reside in.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by photon

Wait, she's let this go on for two years?

Something is not right with this, all she has to do is go to court or the landlord tenant mediation service, get a judgment, call a bailiff, and he's out. The only troublesome part could be getting a judgment if the judge/mediator isn't familiar with the FMoTL nonsense and it gets stalled while they work through the nonsense, but the articles haven't said anything along those lines.

Personally I'd rather not have police have the power to just boot anyone out of any property they want just based on the word of the landlord...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ca...023/story.html

Calgary police say they will consult with the Crown on whether they can get involved in a two-year dispute between an Alberta pensioner and the man she says has claimed her rental property as a sovereign "embassy."

[19Yzerman19]

Since this has been bumped I just want to re-quote the following which is essentially the first and last word on this issue, and written by an AB justice, no less.

Originally Posted by Delgar

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2...bqb0571ed1.pdf

But though less useful, this is one of the funniest things I have read from any judge ever. It is absolutely worth the time.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...13oncj160.html

The best parts are in the footnotes.

The “internet”, also known as the “world-wide web” is a bi-polar electronic Leviathan that has erupted on the world scene in the past two decades. In its benevolent manifestations, it has enormously increased and expedited access to useful information of all sorts, increased global awareness of myriad events, facilitated family and commercial communication across national boundaries in the blink of an eye and helped topple dictators; it is probably fair to say that its advent is of no less significance than the invention of the printing press. However, just as the printing press has been put to odious use from time to time, the internet has its own Jekyll and Hyde nature: it is a near certainty that future generations will look back at these decades, obsessed as we are with the twin behemoths of “reality” television and the “ooh, look at me, I must tell the world what I had for breakfast”narcissism of social media and at the billions of hours thus lost to a near psychotropic electronic escape from any useful pursuit and wonder if Aldous Huxley only got a few details wrong in Brave New World. For the purposes of this case, the relevance of the internet is its un-policed “garbage in/garbage out” potential and its free-market-of-ideas potential to lure in otherwise pleasant and unsuspecting folk with all manner of absurdity and silliness.

[photon]

Originally Posted by fredr123

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ca...023/story.html

Wow, that's insane. She really needs to hire a property manager (and at this point a lawyer), what's happened to her is terrible but that's a perfect example of going into business not having any idea of what they're getting in to.

The whole "embassy" issue is completely irrelevant, that is not stopping her from going through the process that she should be going through to evict the tenant.

The police can't just step in and play judge.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd personally burn the fricken house down, it sounds like he's already wrecked it.

Yeah eat this flaming freeman on the can.

[Potty]

I work in the construction industry and hired a guy to do some subcontract work, who I didn't know at the time was a freeman. On the purchase order I sent him, it said he needed an active GST number in order for any payments to be processed, which he obviously didn't read.

Fast forward two years and he stops by the office every couple weeks to rant and rave and yell at me for not paying him and I tell him to give me the GST number per the purchase order he received and I'll cut him a cheque on the spot. He obviously won't do it because the government will immediately garnish the payment to cover unpaid taxes, so we go round and round in circles with no end in sight.

It's a pretty decent chunk of cash, like 3-4 months salary. I almost feel bad for the guy but then I look at the government deduction on my pay cheque to pay for all the services that he takes advantage of for free and I get over it haha.

[RougeUnderoos]

I just saw this story on the CFCN news (come back BARB!) and the woman was fretting over utility bills that she's on the hook for.

Now maybe I'm missing something really obvious here, but why can't (or doesn't) she just cancel them all? Why can't she just let this moron freeze in the dark?

It is a duplex, so maybe turning off the gas isn't feasible, but the electricity?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I just saw this story on the CFCN news (come back BARB!) and the woman was fretting over utility bills that she's on the hook for.

Now maybe I'm missing something really obvious here, but why can't (or doesn't) she just cancel them all? Why can't she just let this moron freeze in the dark?

It is a duplex, so maybe turning off the gas isn't feasible, but the electricity?

I'm not a landlord, but I seem to remember that being a no go in Canada. Didn't that one guy in Edmonton freeze to death when his utilities were cut? I think it was at that time I remember reading that in Canada tenants either have to be legally evicted or there has to be heat and electricity. You can't freeze them out of the house.