Whether the left is or is not effective has no relevance on this freeman nonsense.I cant see much of the left challenging the establishment. Instead of building a working class movement they have substituted it for an anti bnp movement.
The freeman movement does give many people more rights while we are waiting for the left to get its head out of the sand
Man stands up for freedom of speach
- Thread starter CUMBRIANDRAGON
- Start date
True it does not matter what you call yourself. But plenty of people have used info on tpuc.org to defend themselves against court actions,bailiffs ,on the spot fines etc.
Maybe we should laugh at these deluded people defending themselves with this freeman thing .Why cant they just accept fines etc.
I dont want top get into the play ground thing my politics are better than your politics .Its about opening your mind and just see wether any of it can help you.
Like my mate said he cant be botherd with the whole freeman thing but its good for on the spot fines and parking tickets
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Anybody can "dodge" fines that they would otherwise have had to pay by a bit of knowledge of the law.
What it doesn't require is believing that going into a witness box with four borders means they've legally isolated you from the rest of the world, or equivalent delusional cock
What it doesn't require is believing that going into a witness box with four borders means they've legally isolated you from the rest of the world, or equivalent delusional cock
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
I quite like it as an approach. There is no reason why arguing from principles shouldn't be effective if done in a suitably reasonable manner.
The level of intellectual pseudo marxist bullshit being spouted by some on this thread is probably equilivant to much of the bilderberg conspiroloon lizard worship that may be flitting around the edges of this fellow's supporters.
The level of intellectual pseudo marxist bullshit being spouted by some on this thread is probably equilivant to much of the bilderberg conspiroloon lizard worship that may be flitting around the edges of this fellow's supporters.
The thing is, when it comes to people doing minor antisocial stuff, and then claiming that they used their magical "freeman" status to get away with it, all that I suspect that they are doing is just playing with the bureaucracy.
It's like if you can be arsed to dispute parking and speeding fines by requesting details of the order creating the yellow line / 20mph zone / whatever, and THEN asking to see proof that the camera that took the picture was duly certified in accordance with the ........ etc etc.
You will often end up "winning" by boring your opponent to death. They can't be bothered. Its easier to let the 1 in 1000 awkward customer go than dig out the proof. It doesn't mean that they have recognised the power of your "freeman" status.
As someone else said, try robbing a bank and see if it works then.
I say again though - its one of those things that works provided only a few people do it. Like lots of "cheating" stuff - pushing into queues only saves you time if most people actually queue. Otherwise you don't have a queue at all, you have a scrum, or a fight.
Not paying your taxes works too, provided enough people DO pay theirs for you to free ride on the services everyone else pays for.
It strikes me as a fairly selfish way for someone who is basically a loser to feel a sense of petty power, for a while.
Giles..
It's like if you can be arsed to dispute parking and speeding fines by requesting details of the order creating the yellow line / 20mph zone / whatever, and THEN asking to see proof that the camera that took the picture was duly certified in accordance with the ........ etc etc.
You will often end up "winning" by boring your opponent to death. They can't be bothered. Its easier to let the 1 in 1000 awkward customer go than dig out the proof. It doesn't mean that they have recognised the power of your "freeman" status.
As someone else said, try robbing a bank and see if it works then.
I say again though - its one of those things that works provided only a few people do it. Like lots of "cheating" stuff - pushing into queues only saves you time if most people actually queue. Otherwise you don't have a queue at all, you have a scrum, or a fight.
Not paying your taxes works too, provided enough people DO pay theirs for you to free ride on the services everyone else pays for.
It strikes me as a fairly selfish way for someone who is basically a loser to feel a sense of petty power, for a while.
Giles..
Indeed arguing from principles should always be effective, so in this spirit can you please explain:
- How Thomas Hobbes used Natural Law theory to argue that in state of nature people formed social contracts?
- How Common Law relates to Natural Law, what a Natural Law is, what grants Natural Law it's power, and how you can account for varying social interpreations of what the Natural Law is.
- Why we should be following this Freeman idea an expousing indivdual freedom (such as not paying TV Licences for the benifet of a non-profit channel, not paying road tax for the upkeep of our roads) rather then campaigning for a government that rules consent of the goverened?
Come on now if you accuse people of Pseudo Intellectual Marxism what's your well reasoned explanation of why this will lead to a better society as currently Marx' Dialectical Materialism seems to be beating John Harris’ freeman website in terms of useful campaigning paradigm.
Spot on, it teaches individuals to obfuscate relationships with bureaucracies not in itself a useless skill. Unfortunately it wraps it up in a lot of half-baked Natural law theory. John Harris seems historicaly unaware of the philosophical roots for the ideas, which is really a bit sad as he obviously thinks this is some amazing truth he has discovered. When natural law theories go back to ancient Greece.
So what if the majority of our laws are social contract between corporate entities and people. Rousseau could have told you that in the 1700s. It’s called society and it represents the agreements we collectively form with each other.
Quite a large amount of statute law represents the consensual view of the majority. There are statue laws that protect people from exploitation. My redundancy entitlement is a statutory right, if my employer turns around as says sorry I’m a freeman I’m not paying up, I’d be pissed.
The point is not that we should remove all ability to create social contracts and law’s as a society, but rather we should stop law being used by a minority to exploit society.
You need a more sophisticated form of analysis to determine why it is some statue law is created to exploit people.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Moon23
Those are some good points and I think to pursue this Freeman idea exclusively would be a dead end. having said that, plenty of people may be following dead ends, so we have to be careful to take any logs out of our eyes before talking about specks in the eyes of others.
I've learned a fair bit from checking out some of this info. It highlights facets of the illigitimacy and manipulations of government which hadn't occured to me before. For that alone, I appreciate the work of TPUC. They don't have all the answers by any stretch. Links to those who do are warmly appreciated.
Those are some good points and I think to pursue this Freeman idea exclusively would be a dead end. having said that, plenty of people may be following dead ends, so we have to be careful to take any logs out of our eyes before talking about specks in the eyes of others.
I've learned a fair bit from checking out some of this info. It highlights facets of the illigitimacy and manipulations of government which hadn't occured to me before. For that alone, I appreciate the work of TPUC. They don't have all the answers by any stretch. Links to those who do are warmly appreciated.
Taff I agree there is some useful knowledge on thier site, anyone wise enough can pick out the usefull points or find them made elsewhere. The problem is the claim to truth implies an exclusivity that could close some people off. The fact people on here refer to his 'followers' says it all. It takes on the tenor of a cult. One could rewrite a lot of this relating to history and philosophy and legal advice to make a usefull resource at the moment its a risk. Sadly you cant get all the answer from any URL
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Not in Birmingham town centre it isn't.
Are you trying to take a superior intellectual line with me son?
Doesn't make any sense to begin with. But as you obviously believe you know the answer, why are you asking me the question?
What the fuck are you talking about? Is this what passes for communication in some "institution" that you are currently studying at?
.
Since you can not even express whether natural law is an "a" a "the" or just " " how the fuck can you expect anyone to understand what you are on about?
?
Is almost gibberish. Come back to me once you have removed your head from your innards and can actually express yourself and maybe a worthwhile discussion can be had.
Incidentally, I think you might potentially have the germs of a few interesting ideas fighting to get out, which I am sure it would be a pleasure to discuss.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
and associated videos.
Care to show us any videos of Dialectical Marxism being used to good campaigning effect in Brum in the last couple of weeks? Unless, that is, all campaigning is by definition part of the dialectic.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
untethered
For industry & decency
Man makes a nuisance of himself and gets arrested for breach of the peace to the total lack of surprise of everyone beside himself.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
What's this "four corners" stuff? It appears to be about the internal coherence of legal documents. What's that got to do with a perspex court?
Do a google for it, it's funny - for instance, some of them think that if you draw a box around your signature, it means it doesn't count BY LAW
though that was admittedly on David Icke's site.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/four-corners-rule.htm
seems pretty straightforward .
Taking a mis-interpretation of something from a David Icke forum and then claiming that the thing itself is bunkum is nonsensical.
seems pretty straightforward .
Taking a mis-interpretation of something from a David Icke forum and then claiming that the thing itself is bunkum is nonsensical.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Yep, seems straightforward to me too. So what has is the significance with this
It's totally irrelevant.
It seems to me that these "believers" in the whole "freeman" / common law / maritime law / etc conspiracy are always playing "word games".
They wibble on (even while being handcuffed and dragged to a waiting police car) about how what they were doing is illegal but not unlawful, or vice-versa or something, and about the difference between them being a person or a human being (no mention of lizards!) and saying things like "I don't stand under your rules" when a cop asked "do you understand me" and ranting at the arresting officer "I haven't contracted with you".
They seem to think that saying certain "magic words" will cause everyone to step back and say "Oh yes, you are different to everyone else, because you have Said You Are A Free Man".
Anyone up for robbing a bank armed only with a declaration of freeman status?
Hmmmmm.....
Giles..
They wibble on (even while being handcuffed and dragged to a waiting police car) about how what they were doing is illegal but not unlawful, or vice-versa or something, and about the difference between them being a person or a human being (no mention of lizards!) and saying things like "I don't stand under your rules" when a cop asked "do you understand me" and ranting at the arresting officer "I haven't contracted with you".
They seem to think that saying certain "magic words" will cause everyone to step back and say "Oh yes, you are different to everyone else, because you have Said You Are A Free Man".
Anyone up for robbing a bank armed only with a declaration of freeman status?
Hmmmmm.....
Giles..
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Look, if someone is trying to arrest you for causing a public nuisance the approach that was taken in that video is probably bang on the mark in terms of how to get off.
As you can not hear what is being said your opinions are pretty how can we say... deficient.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
untethered
For industry & decency
Was it successful before or after the point at which the chap was bundled into the police car in handcuffs?
I'm sure you could try a little harder to understand. If not then perhaps you could enlighten my as to the principled arguments for this freeman thing.
I'm not a member of any educational establishement, i'm a working man.
I'm none the wiser. Cases get dropped at court all the time.
Of course by taking circumstantial events as evidence is a trait of adherents of conspiracy theories.
Similar threads
