This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.
tehmastermonk wrote:we reject anything that conflicts with the constitution, or the rule of LAW. not statute.
You do realize that the (Canadian) Constitution is a Statute, right? A Statute being a law that is made by an Act of Parliament being given Royal Ascent; in this case The Constitution Act.
umm ever hear of hte bill of rights?
I was merely pointing out the inconsistent way in which you pick and choose which laws you want to follow. If it benefits you you acknowledge it, if it doesn't benefit you, you claim it is not applicable to you.
You claim not to acknowledge Statute laws, yet point to a specific statute (the Constitution) as one of the things you do believe in. What's up with that?
Edit: Awesome, we're now at 29 pages!
Hey Mods, any chance of renaming this thread something more suited to such an Epic tale? "Troll Wars" perhaps?
"Jeez scirefacias, your name sake is "to cause to be known", and you're not really doing any of that here, just throwing around insults, accusing the rest of us of being mentally incompetent humans not capable of reaching your "level" of enlightment....."
Where did I use the terms "level" or "enlightenment"?
I've fairly even-handedly explained that there's no problem with consenting to government under a body of absurd and ugly positive law; there's no accounting for taste. That being said, that some may consent is no bar to those who do not consent proclaiming the ugliness of that which the mafs gains in exchange for its birthright.
"My initial impression of your acting abilities, is that your not very good at playing charades, your clues are supposed to lead us to the answer that was shown to you by the game's host(rob)..."
Is that a fact? Well, you know, Rob's an interesting fellow, and on a couple occaisons he proved himself a stand-up guy in terms of using language precisely. Rob's stuff more or less mirrors what has been my intuitive view since, oh, six years old or so. It's very nice to see the a-dolts coming on-line, too, but to suggest that Rob wrote Bracton, Glanvil, Blackstone's commentaries, etc. is rather silly. If any one book encompasses "that [which] was shown to [me] by the game's host", it is Andrew Horn's Speculum Justitiaorum, not any of Rob's works.
"you've come up with some posts that don't the freemen in a favourable light..."
this sentence no verb.
"Further more, I'd like you to expand on you thoughts on how religion fits in with the freeman ideals. I still find it hard to comprehend that something so intolerent as religious beliefs can fit with freeman thinking."
Well, they needn't. Ayn Rand's philosophy is more or less consonant with the freeman ethic, and it is avowedly atheist. Religious beliefs are probably better conceived as strong beliefs rather than intolerant beliefs. I may believe strongly that myself and my family should not drink Pepsi. We may call this a religious belief. That Pepsi is verboten within the walls of my home does not mean necessarily that I think the same should be true in everyone else's house. Now, that's certainly the dogmatic view of religion, "If we religiously forbid pepsi, everyone ought to!" That doesn't seem to be a very forward-looking view of religion or its little (or is that big?) brother politics.
"Historically, religious authorities were the government, and enforcing a rule of law that was quite violent, and with no room for individual intrepretation. Or am I incorrect in thinking you're part of a mainstream religious group, and you, and some others have started your own following?"
Well, not quite. Historically government was enacted by men who also fulfilled religious offices, probably as religious men were seen as more trustworthy and therefore fit to fulfill the office of government. I don't know that such makes sense; however, they were tasked with governing a largely illiterate population that to this day will worship shiny things, so I am not certain they did all that poorly. Enforcing the rule of law today is quite violent; people have simply learned to submit very quickly to all demands imposed by military---err, police---officers. Until Braidwood's report, in BC it was perfectly acceptable for an overweight skytrain cop to say 'Come here!' and, rather than give chase, taser someone who failed to comply.
I mention the TASER because it's a good indicator of how bad the masses have allowed things to get. You've allowed your guardians to take up cattle prods to be used against you whenever you fall out of line. And that's a cheeky view; the horrible truth is that TASER stands for Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle. You allow your guardian classes to carry electric rifles and to use them not only as a "safer" alternative to firearms but in order to enact restraint of noncompliant subjects. Does it work? Probably; it's the same technique used in the cattle industry, hyuck hyuck.
As to magna carta, it is, imo, a red herring. Montesquieu refers to Magna Carta as "merely an internal treaty between the King and his subjects." One interesting provision, again from Montesquieu, is that the clause forbidding a man's body be seized if he has sufficient moveables to satisfy a debt (for money) rather directly implies that all moveables are money--or something. I recommend Spirit of Laws if one has the time.
A statute is best thought of as a judgement of some court, typically a court with the power to legislate over its members.
It is entirely reasonable for a foreigners to read the statutes of a court whose officers might set upon him; he may then say "but your court pledged that you people would not disrespect free men and their religion and their free societies! Why are you tresspassing upon me?" This is possible without being subject under that statute. And, in general, any proposition may be argued six ways from Sunday, all Roads lead to Rome, &c &c.
"You are a bunch of whacked out morons! Trying to avoid conforming to our brainwashed society by creating your own, still makes you conformed!"
The issue is not conformity; to conform to what is good is probably our duty. The issue is conformity with things that are wrong, for example, conformity with national socialist dietary policy. All food is clean, and every free man may set his own diet. The issue is not hypnosis, which you call brainwashing; the issue is whether or not the hypnotic practice within a society is geared towards peace, love and abundance or towards insurability. It is non-controversial to say that Canada's Law today is far more about insurability of the subjects thereunder than it is about peace, love or abundance.
"I fail to see how Robs plan is unique from our modern society?"
Can you at least make your BS somewhat entertaining? As I said way early in this thread, the whole Freeman thing is a bunch of circular arguements put forth by a bunch of misfits. If you are going to waste all of this bandwidth perhaps ypu have the common decency to make your roundabout reasoning somewhat interesting.
Your prattish wankery is stale and you are not the smartest guy in the room, far from it.
It is a sad state of affairs when teh minutemonk is more entertaining than you with his delusions.
I want my freeloaders to be more entertaining Damnit!
"Can you at least make your BS somewhat entertaining? As I said way early in this thread, the whole Freeman thing is a bunch of circular arguements put forth by a bunch of misfits. If you are going to waste all of this bandwidth perhaps ypu have the common decency to make your roundabout reasoning somewhat interesting."
Gosh, Arguments of type X put forwrd by people of type Y!
What do you find interesting? Tell me what you want and I might do better!
"Pausing a moment, to take the pipe that Evangeline brought him,
And with a coal from the embers had lighted, he slowly continued:--
"Four days now are passed since the English ships at their anchors
Ride in the Gaspereau's mouth, with their cannon pointed against us.
What their design may be is unknown; but all are commanded
On the morrow to meet in the church, where his Majesty's mandate
Will be proclaimed as law in the land. Alas! in the mean time
Many surmises of evil alarm the hearts of the people." http://www.readbookonline.net/read/3207/12928/
"Just like all other elements of society, the "Truth Movement" has created factions, which, out of ego, serve to compete rather than unify. Furthermore, no holistic, logically derived, philosophical disposition is understood."
Most of my day is spent avoiding irrelevant questions.
On occaison, I bake bread.
Every now and again, I have a caucus race.
It is always amusing to see how the vulgar have now totally abandoned argument and instead focus solely on insults.
Here is a tip: If A asserts X, asserting facts about A is not material to a refutation of X. The easiest way to refute X is not to attack the speaker but to simply assert Not-X.
Of course, if A asserts "We are free", asserting not X is to assert that we are not free, which is probably why no counter-arguments have been offered; who wants to champion the proposition "we are not free! Freedom is dangerous and only trolls/the unemployed/cabbages believe in freedom!" Thus, one is either required to submit a torturously convoluted argument (e.g. you use hydroelectric power, and that's enabled by government, and therefore we pwn you/you use bank notes, and that's enabled by government, and therefore we pwn you/&c/&c) or to simply issue distraction as by insulting the speaker.
Further, people who name movies after german romance vocab. are prob. not in any position to speak of "holistic, logically derived, philosophical disposition."
"People who use a dead language for a user name probably aren't in a position to speak about anything. Reductio ad absurdum."
And what if I want to speak about nothing?
Further, Latin's not dead; it's just resting.
Lovely plumage. If we hadn't nailed it down, it'd nuzzle up to those bars and VOOM, everyone would be reading Cicero, Marcus A. and they'd be ungovernable.
Wow, namecalling!
What's frightening (or very pleasing, as it shows they're incapable of thought) is that a large cross-section of internet using a-dolts believe that insulting the speaker of an argument as a "troll" somehow obviates the need to deal with his argument.
So, to sum up:
Men and women are free.
Lots of the socialist children cannot conceive of how this is possible, as they rely on widespread coercive taxation to pay for the facets of industrialism that they deem "necessary", like freeways, medical care, bread, circuses.
Of course, as is often said, there is no accounting for taste...
However, forcing men and women to drink pepsi simply because you kiddies had your taste buds burned out by public schooling (which is being charitable---it is more likely that you are heredetarily tasteless) is not cricket.
So enjoy your Government Cheese; you have, however, failed to provide an argument that anyone is compelled to share your diet and in place thereof have offered insults and namecalling.
Why I think you're stupid and/or retarded, is because you complain a lot, but offer no solution as to how to organize 30M people in a way that would satisfy most. Not just YOU.
Well, I said I was gone from this discussion but I just had to come back.
Question for scirefacias. Even though I know I will never get an answer, (especially one that makes sense or is relevent), here goes:
You are constantly commenting on everyones arguments/replies as being strictly insults and therefore not actually a true argument, and yet the last few pages almost all of your so-called answers/replies have been nothing more than ridiculous poems which make no sense ans are completely irrelevent to the discussion. HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE ELSE????? To the rest of us, it just makes you look like you are avoiding the simple questions, and basically doing the 4 year old kid, fingers in the ear LALALALALA game.
If you want to "spread your light" as you put it earlier, why in hell will you just not answer a simple question, such as the one about your income. Maybe there is some on this forum who are truly interested in what you guys are doing, but they are getting a pretty bad picture/taste through your idiotic, non-sensical responses.
I will try again from a different angle, and it will be multiple choice, not essay. Please read carefully:
#1:I assume you eat food, where do you acquire food
A) Store
B) Grow everything yourself, including meats and such.
#2:If A) When you go into store, what do you give to clerk to "pay" for purchased items. (This could go for anything, not just food. Do you use:
A) Money, (meaning cash)
B) Bill of exchange (probably not as not many clerks would understand)
C) Other, and please provide simple explanation eg.credit card
#3:I am going to assume cash as you have stated something like that earlier so:
How do you acquire cash:
A) Job
B) Services rendered (could be carpentry, lawn mowing, sexual, I don't really care, just need to know.
C) Steal.
Now if you could please just answer the questions simply so that the rest of us can begin to get a true understanding of how you fellows do "business" on a daily basis. Perhaps if we knew, we could stop calling you freeloaders and actually get a better understanding of the freeman way.
"Why I think you're stupid and/or retarded, is because you complain a lot, but offer no solution as to how to organize 30M people in a way that would satisfy most. Not just YOU."
I don't see any reason to do such a thing.
If you're into that sort of activity, fine, go for it.
Not everyone is an apiarist. If you are, more power to you.
Some simply want to be left alone in peace.
And no, not on a desert island. The things that public school teaches the proles to associate with landmasses are merely corporations, that is, artificial persons, colleges, universities, call them what you will.
One does not need to have a solution before one points out a problem. Indeed, the first step to solving a problem is to identify it. The problem is rather well-identified in this thread: the proles have a merely negative world-view; that is, they know what it is not: it's not what the troll says; it's not what the idiot says; it's not what that guy says. It's...it's...we all know, but we can't say! It is an artificiality that lacks even an univocal name.
Again, those 30M you think are organized, into what society are they organized?
They're not. And, further, of those 30M, those who are non-workers and who've never worked and whose families have never worked tend to enjoy a very low quality of life. Presuming your society actually exists, it appears very unjust insofar as it saves all of the best food for workers---and these workers do not necessarily do anything good or helpful; indeed many of them use fossil fuels to do their jobs. Should people who poison the atmosphere get a better share of food than those who don't?
It depends on what one values. If the only way one can see to regiment so many people is to lie to them, one must either accept that lying is OK, develop a relativist "who knows what truth is anyway, maaan" epistemology (which is self-refuting) or accept that there is no right way to perform such a large engineering project ethically.
"Now if you could please just answer the questions simply so that the rest of us can begin to get a true understanding of how you fellows do "business" on a daily basis."
Totally irrelevant to a philosophical discussion.
Again, I already told you; I am the son of a wealthy merchant, and he's provided me with an annuity on which I draw.
The myopic focus on money/employment, that's the very issue here: philosophy plays second fiddle to socialist pro-work dogma.
Let the troll talk to himself for a while, and maybe he'll get bored and skulk away.
Ha ha ha!! Actually I am, I got exactly the response I was expecting, nothing but non-sensical jibberish It was fun trying anyways (Too much spare time yesterday!!) This time I am finished with this thread for sure. Have fun scirefuckface and all your retarded friends.
for those that have lost focus on what freemen want, ill remind you. we dont want to uninstall government, we simply want remedy. and as for these so-called "needs" i remind you
100 years ago we did not "need" electricity. we did not "need computers, or atm machines.
we got by just fine. and now look at us.... we "need" all these things. in fact if the main power grid for the country went down for 1 day over half the population would die within that time frame. we would have total anarchy.
see the shift? our needs are being shifted ever so slowly. pretty soon you will be so dependant on thinkgs you THINK you "need" that you will do anything. even harm your fellow neigbor, and thier children.
as it is now, you are so easily exploitable its sickening. thing is you dont even relally give 2 shits about your fellow man at al so long as no one touches your little creature comforts
you think you are good to go. what would you do if you actually had to make a stand in your life? or would you jsut simply let your government assume you are an idiot, and therefore entitle themselves to take your kids. oh but who cares, as long as they replace your kids with
a new pacifier of some sort, you can even get over that kind of loss.
keep your comforts, sell yourselves out if you like. pisses me off that those of us that actually do care about this country are paying the price for your irresponsibility.
yes. irresponsibility. you operate under limited liability because you dont dare be accountable for all that you do, and just incase your irresponsibility catches up to you, you will need welfare to feed your pathetic ass, and also a government to dump your problems on because you have no idea how to handle anything yourself exept suck on your soother after work.
its true. what happens when you all lose your soother? you cry. you dont ever do anything about it, just cry untill you find a new coping mechanism.
what would you all do if the government got sick and tired of you irresponsible public, and quit? what if the government just simply reefused to pacify you and started to tunr up the heat... and make your consequences more severe. what if they took away your limited liability
and made you pay out of your own pocket whenever you drink and drive?
what if you actually went to jail for beating your spouse? this is why you so adematly defend your governments system. because they change your shitty diapers for you. sad how grown adults act in crowds. sad how grown adults act when they are at a loss for words in a debate.
thats all fine and dandy..
but we freemen want remedy and a way to make sure the govt. stays in check. do do your history. every government that was un accountable to another became so corrupt that it even destroyed itself. sometimes even incurred divine judgement.
we freemen are people that dont want any power over anyone or any government. we do however want remedy and the power to call your nanny's to give an account. kkeep them in check since you general public dont seem to give a shit.
and dont go rambling on about how you love your country and go on about war stories.
that kind of patriotism is a virtue of the viscious. you love your country conditionaly. and your only condition is that they dont interfere with your pacifying techniques. you dont really give a shit about justice, freedom or equality at all unless you personaly are directly involved in an unjust transaction done against you. then all of a sudden you scream "no fair!" and cry.
all the while you were pre emptivley warned and didnt do anything. because at the time you still had your soother, welfare check, and responsible for nothing exept your own tiny corner, and cant even manage that most of the time, and need social workers to intervene
