Love Letter to WestJet Employees

[scirefacias]

Embarassment/shame/guilt are fairly low-level control routines, and they're more or less inhibitory of self-development. I am not at all embarassed at returning questions for questions, as turnabout is fair play. Do you expect me to give you answers for your questions? Like, how is that a quid pro quo? You give me an unanswered question, and I give you an answer? Where's my answer in return?

If it is called Canadian Society, why is gc.ca registered to Government of Canada and not Canadian Society?
Please show me anything registered to this "Canadian Society." Please show me its business address.

I am nowhere near as smart as the hamster; it does not spin, nor does it toil; it fats itself on the Land contently. That I could be as bright as a hamster; alas, I am not, I am a man. If you yourself as as bright as the hamster, consider yourself lucky! If I am so dull, thick and slow, is my lot not bad enough without you telling me how witless I am? Further, if I am that dull, thick and slow, will your comments not lack traction in my mental firmament? Will I not pass them by with a simple "duhhh, what he say?"

As to arguing about pieces of paper, I did once have an argument about them with an elementary school teacher. She insisted that the paper had only two dimensions. I insisted that it had three, albeit that one was very, ah, thin. Indeed, I argued that this meant there were no 2d shapes, except in contemplation, as any circle drawn on paper (ignoring the impossibility of equidistance from the center) will have a depth, that is, the depth created by the impression of ink onto the paper---or even absent any impression altering the depth of the paper, the ink would sit atop the paper. At the right zoom, it would appear as a veritable fortress, ten miles high, as it were, relative to some very, very tiny pyramid. No drugs involved, I must say.

As to black or white, well, psychedelics probably help with acquiring knowledge re: fluidity of colour perception/boundaries of objects, etc.

In general, one may not defeat an argument, call it X, by stating "The Speaker of X is on drugs!!!" Well, perhaps very stupid people may be convinced by suchlike; "The Speaker of X is a Y" is not cricket.

Now, throughout history there have been many Ys offered for a given X:

-Drug User
-Woman
-Witch
-Homosexual
-Catholic
-Protestant
-Pervert
-Deviant
-Snake-Handler
-Canadian

Congratulations on adopting an American-style argument laterly employed in re: healthcare. "You can't listen to him! He's a Canadian! Of course a Soviet Canuckistani is in favor of national healthcare, he's been programmed to love it by his Soviet Canuckistani Doctors!" "You can't listen to him! He's a drug user! Of course a drug user is in favor of freedom, he's been programmed to love it by his drugs!"

ROSENCRANTZ

I understand you not, my lord.

HAMLET

I am glad of it: a knavish speech sleeps in a
foolish ear.

ROSENCRANTZ

My lord, you must tell us where the body is, and go
with us to the king.

HAMLET

The body is with the king, but the king is not with
the body. The king is a thing--

GUILDENSTERN

A thing, my lord!

HAMLET

Of nothing: bring me to him. Hide fox, and all after.

[Cat Driver]

scirefacias what type of work do you do to earn the money one needs to pay for things?.

[scirefacias]

Excellent, i' faith; of the chameleon's dish: I eat
the air, promise-crammed: you cannot feed capons so.

[Cat Driver]

So....

...freeman and freeloader are the same?

[scirefacias]

"Quemadmoaum theatrum, cum commune fit, recte tamen dici poteft, ejus effe eum locum quem quifque occuparit."

I have already told you that I'm the son of a wealthy london merchant and that my father supports me out of his mercantile concern's pelf.

Or if you prefer I have a bun leg from serving in a War and collect a disability pension from the Military.

Or if you prefer I am a former executive coasting on a golden parachute.

Or if you prefer I am a cashier at a grocery store.

What I don't get is why it matters; if you want to dismiss a speaker's statements, you may simply assert that they are not true. This "Oh, well you don't work/do work/work a certain sort of job/X and therefore no wonder you think so strangely" is not really a refutation of the thinking.

And if you're just asking for kicks, well, nothing. Why would I do anything?
Doing things is what allows for war to continue, you know.

Who is John Galt?

[Rockie]

You're a liar scirefacias. But I forget I'm not talking to a normal person. It's likely you had mental health issues before, but the drugs have no doubt caused serious damage beyond what you already suffered from. You should do yourself a favour and check yourself into a facility where they may be able to help you. Don't worry, you won't have to pay for it.

[bmc]

scirefacias...are you a bum?

[Jastapilot]

In all my life I've never seen bullshit piled so high. And I occasionally follow Canadian politics.

[scirefacias]

So, in watching typics attempt to rebut the freeman arguments and those of that flavor, I've noticed two general trends, neither of which bode well for the Maffes derailing the Freedom Train.

(I) Call it bullshit.
(II) Insult the speaker, as though if you attach certain tokens to the speaker, what he says may be legitimately ignored.

Further, a concise answer is very simple: "You are wrong. Government is not made possible by consent; it is made possible by force. If you do not obey us and our Railroad Company's Military, we will put our boots onto your neck. There's no shame in us being honest, is there?"

Subjection under a body of merely positive law is either by force or by consent. You people sure do beat around the bush. Why not simply claim that your military's ability to enact violence is what "necessitates" compliance with your society's "law"? Of course, that's not a very pretty picture, is it?

So, you don't believe government is made possible by the consent of the governed; fair enough.
I do, as do many others.

What do I do? I produce carbon dioxide, and I dress cabbages up as people, and I hold Parliaments with those liveried cabbages.

[sarg]

i administrate my own affairs well enough. did you know a post masters money order is still backed by gold? hmmm....

You've stated that a couple of times, so educate and provide a link to current document stating that fact.

Again a direct question asked and no answer.

[iflyforpie]

bump

27 pages in just over a month and you think it needs a bump?

[Amateur Turbines]

This has seriously been derailed.......

I'm curious, what do you think the chances are of freemen being able to board ANY commercial air carrier in Canada without gov't issued ID? Or do you really care? I get the idea that most actual freemen do not travel that much do to the difficulty associated. Any word from Rob concerning this issue?

[Hedley]

A real free man wouldn't need the assistance of a Boeing
to get him somewhere, he would just use the force of his
personality to will himself someplace else, because petty
laws of physics don't apply to free men

This reminds me - what is Charles Manson up to these
days? Did he ever get out on parole?

[Jastapilot]

So, in watching typics attempt to rebut the freeman arguments and those of that flavor, I've noticed two general trends, neither of which bode well for the Maffes derailing the Freedom Train.

(I) Call it bullshit.
(II) Insult the speaker, as though if you attach certain tokens to the speaker, what he says may be legitimately ignored.

Further, a concise answer is very simple: "You are wrong. Government is not made possible by consent; it is made possible by force. If you do not obey us and our Railroad Company's Military, we will put our boots onto your neck. There's no shame in us being honest, is there?"

Subjection under a body of merely positive law is either by force or by consent. You people sure do beat around the bush. Why not simply claim that your military's ability to enact violence is what "necessitates" compliance with your society's "law"? Of course, that's not a very pretty picture, is it?

So, you don't believe government is made possible by the consent of the governed; fair enough.
I do, as do many others.

What do I do? I produce carbon dioxide, and I dress cabbages up as people, and I hold Parliaments with those liveried cabbages.

If you can't even answer a simple question like "how do you acquire income?", and you answer the way you have, I call it like I see it. Bullshit. You're nothing more than a drain on the system. A welfare case who likes to use big words.

[. ._]

bump

27 pages in just over a month and you think it needs a bump?

heh heh heh

Nice to see someone got my little joke.

[Anti-Ice]

OMFG

A new all time record for weirdness on Avcanada has now been set. I made it to page 6, then read 26 and 27. I'm kind of surprised it took this long for such a prophet to appear amidst us haha.

I agree with some of the Freeperson's ideas. I ultimately believe this to be a convoluted small economy ponzi-style scheme. Exploiting the latest generation of hippies and anti-establishment types.

If you ever succeed, let me know...income tax and vehicle licensing costs are driving me nuts!

Weird shit.

If buddy wants to enjoy travelling at close to the speed of sound and be served pretzels he should probably learn to play by the rules. Any loophole he found will be quickly closed. I can't wait to read about ol' Rob Freedude's lawsuit against CATSA...

"No Mr. Security Guard, that is a stone masons mortar knife, I require it in my duty as religous leader (and mason) of my peoples. I will not be issued a boarding pass either, you must gift it to me."



**Hey Cat Driver** Maybe I could come work for you at that wage. Nice post man I was rolling laughing!!

[Brewguy]

Perhaps I missed it ... but I don't recall anyone responding to this:

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.

[Rotten Apple #1]

Who is John Galt?

Well, Scirefacias, as you know, that would be the character from Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. (Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was a friend and a professed adherent to her philosophy of philosophical objectivism, though many of her fans would say he strayed.)

So, other than seeing if we're paying attention, what does Atlas Shrugged have to do with the discussion?

[iflyforpie]

[scirefacias]

"If you can't even answer a simple question like "how do you acquire income?", and you answer the way you have, I call it like I see it. Bullshit."

Ah, OK, so what was meant is that my answer to the question of how I acquire income was bullshit/nonsensical, not the general thesis that government under a body of positive law is by consent? Well, fair enough. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. In a philosophical discussion, asking what one participant does for a living is more or less irrelevant, unless you're a 'tard who thinks it's acceptable to ignore arguments based on properties not of those arguments but of the speaker of those arguments.

Conceptually, it is possible for the same words to be spoken by Bill Gates, Alan Greenspan, John Galt, whatever name you like, so the name of the speaker or any of the properties of that speaker are really not what go to the truth or falsity of the argument.

"You're nothing more than a drain on the system."

Ah, and I suppose you are one of those Amazing Creatures who beats friction? Entropy doesn't win you over in the Long Run? We're all a drain on "the system"; many are simply too dull to realize it.

To carry the metaphor further, those who provide for smooth flows of capital within that system (I dare not say the system, for the system does not deal in monopoly money) of capital are not drains but pipes. Now, what's a drain for? A storm drain, for example, serves to quickly remove excess in the event that roads are being flooded. I would say that the roads were flooded circa 1933 with the abrogation of gold clauses, and you're free to disagree; however, at this point, working as a good little pipe is counter-productive and supports corporatism/fascism/unhipness/malaise.

Thus, anyone who is willing to take on the work of losing, that is, draining, the corporo-industrial excess is actually paying a lot more than one who works as a good little pipe; it costs a lot to win, but even more to lose, as when one loses, one loses not only what one loses but what one could, theoretically, have won.

And in my view air travel over land is unlawful as it is destructive of quiet enjoyment of the men, women and other creatures upon that land. I think we could all do well by giving up airplanes, 'cept for the air forces. Of course, spoiled little kiddies used to playing with toys at the expense of others probably won't ever consent to that; thus, they may consent to living like spoiled children, but in so doing they will pay through the nose to support those of us who want to live in the world they have destroyed with their electro-mechanical devices. It seems like a fair compromise, no?

Pro-industrial-children get to pay for those who abhor industrialism and who believe it is the rape of the natural world and its way of life. Those who abhor industrialism should be compensated for the loss of their natural lives; I think this is a great pretext for a guaranteed national income, personally...

"If you ever succeed, let me know...income tax and vehicle licensing costs are driving me nuts!"

Well, it's certain that this "free man" stuff isn't just cracked out nonsense; go to any municipal corporation/city and ask "do you grant freedom of the city?" And they will say yes, and, perhaps no longer, but historically those were called freedmen of the city, if they were free by grant, and freemen of the city, if they were free by birth.

And, contemporarily, what with the demise of all things hoary and their entrustment to the masses, one may declare himself free, deliver the letters to MP, MLA, Registrar (head notary) of Court and be done with it; from thence on, one may wear a crown in Court and one may refer to oneself as free and unbounden under municipal, provincial or federal statute. And it is not a matter of having a good enough jobbie to support oneself prior to such a declaration; freedom is our natural condition, and the laws of men and their knavish tricks may only occlude freedom; it cannot be destroyed.

As for the question about constitution acts, IMO there is confusion amongst the "freeman community", as it were; some believe in certain statutes, such as the criminal code, as they think portions may be of use to them. Typically they're the "online research" types, not the "law library" research types. IF, for example, one goes into BC Reports I, though it was published not under royal authority but under that of the law society, one will find that Jervis's Acts relating to Justices of the Peace are still in Force in British Columbia; that is, confederation did not derogate from the English Law except insofar as such derogations are made explicit.

[Jastapilot]

ok, one last time, and I'll even be more specific:

In 20 words or less, tell us all how you acquire money to 'buy stuff', for example, like plane tickets, weed and what-not. I wish you good luck.

[tehmastermonk]

Perhaps I missed it ... but I don't recall anyone responding to this:

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?

[sarg]

umm ever hear of hte bill of rights?

Yes, it's an American Document not Canadian.

In Canada it's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It within Part I of the Constitution Act 1982.

B. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982) [HTML] [PDF]

[Jastapilot]

Hey mastermonk, since I'm following this thread again, and since your lil buddy has stopped posting, let me ask you the same thing. I really am curious as how you guys survive out there in the big world, being free men, and somehow acquiring an income to buy stuff. If I ever decide to join you, I need to know the day to day stuff, not mental masturbation on a forum:

"In 20 words or less, tell us all how you acquire money to 'buy stuff', for example, like plane tickets, weed and what-not. I wish you good luck."

[scirefacias]

"Yes, it's an American Document not Canadian."

Is it?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDo ... 0090725/en
Canadian Bill of Rights
1960, c. 44

"Preamble

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;

And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:"

"the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions." The Family is very important.

As to the Charter of 1982's "guarantee", look at how it is phrased:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
...
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

The Bill of Rights 1960 says

"1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;"

And for the Vulgar question about money, only twenty words? I recall tehmastermonk saying he was a carpenter or something; I am nothing like that. In less than twenty, quoth TS Eliot: minor poets borrow, major poets steal.