6 votes

The "Freeman" Delusion

I'm going to argue that the origin of the "freemen-on-the-land" and "sovereign citizen" movements is the following erroneous line of thought:

Premise (a) The government can't violate people's rights unless people have voluntarily ceded their rights to the government

Premise (b) People don't think they've ceded their rights to the government

Premise (c) The government does in fact violate people's rights

THEREFORE, people must have *unwittingly* ceded their rights to the government

The legal theories of the freemen are all about explaining how people have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government. The freemen claim that, behind the plain language of documents like drivers' license applications, there is an esoteric meaning which says that the applicant is ceding his rights to the government. The entire system of "admiralty law" which the freemen have cooked up consists of such invented esoteric interpretations of actual law, designed to explain how people have unwittingly surrendered their rights to the government in various ways.

This entire corpus of fantasy-law is motivated by the desire to explain how people have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government (with corresponding fantasy procedures for getting those rights back). And the belief that people have unwittingly ceded their rights to the government is based on the erroneous line of thinking I outlined above, which is erroneous because Premise (a) is false. The government *can* violate people's rights without them having waived those rights previously. We libertarians might think the government *shouldn't* do so, but the government absolutely is able to do so, and does so constantly. In the final analysis, then, freemanism rests on a confusion between what the law *is* and the what the law *should be*.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thanks.

Now that I have been blessed receiving my daily grammar I shall respond to your question.

=)

I don't believe I stated or questioned whether a fact can, in and of itself, determine whether a code or statute applies. I do not believe a fact, in and of itself, is capable of making a determination.

Perhaps a question:

What would you call a determination that is made without relying upon any facts?

Government is his God. You have blasphemed.

Discussion is pointless.

Free includes debt-free!

I see

So you think anyone who doesn't buy into freemanism is a statist? Well, we can add that to the loooong list of non sequiturs that constitute your worldview.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Nearly every comment you've made proves your a statist.

I did nothing but spout gibberish.

Free includes debt-free!

now that is a comment

i can get behin! Finally!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Can you give an example?

"I did nothing but spout gibberish"

LOL, yep, that's true.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

You're just trolling me right?

"I don't believe I stated or questioned whether a fact can, in and of itself, determine whether a code or statute applies. I do not believe a fact, in and of itself, is capable of making a determination."

Okay, then what does this mean?

If someone is claiming a code or statue applies they simply demand that it be proven not presumed by producing a competent witness willing to testify under oath or affirmation to first hand knowledge of something seen or heard to form a fact that can be relied upon a code or statute applies."

???

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

No

I am not trolling you. Yes, I have a sarcastic nature.

Let's work through this and figure out what these things are called:

What would you call a determination that is made without relying upon any facts?

What would you call a determination that is made which does rely upon facts?

No, you can explain this first

"If someone is claiming a code or statue applies they simply demand that it be proven not presumed by producing a competent witness willing to testify under oath or affirmation to first hand knowledge of something seen or heard to form a fact that can be relied upon a code or statute applies."

You don't need to ask me any questions in order to explain the meaning of your own statement.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Apparently I can't because you have already stated

it is not a complete sentence.

I desire to explain it and as soon as you answer:

What would you call a determination that is made without relying upon any facts?

What would you call a determination that is made which does rely upon facts?

I believe I can incorporate whatever those things are called into an explanation.

In answer to your questions

1. Artichoke

2. Armadillo

And now, allow me to rebut: no sooner had I called forth the marble-admiral than he turned on his heel like a horse which rears at the sight of the North star and showed me, in the plane of his two-pointed cocked hat, a region where I was to spend my life.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Ok.

If someone trespasses against me and the reason they provide for trespassing has anything to do with words on a piece of paper I would like to know:

1. What facts are relied upon to trespass against me?

Is it because there exists some mere words on a piece of paper or some other fact?

In the meantime I will be pondering over whether a determination to trespass against me is justified based on whether it is an Artichoke or Armadillo ...

First I have some questions for you...

1. What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen African swallow?

2. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? (round to the nearest 1/10th of a cord)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Answers

1. I do not know.
2. I do not know.

Great!

Now let me answer your questions...

"1. What facts are relied upon to trespass against me?"

Yes

Is it because there exists some mere words on a piece of paper or some other fact?

3.14 gallons per minute

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Can you explain

how those statements answer my questions?

In order to explain the meaning of my own statements...

...I'll need to ask you some more REALLY IMPORTANT and TOTALLY RELEVANT questions, m'kay?

1. If you eat a cake, are you in a house?

2. Since traveling and driving both involve vehicles, what is the circumference of a square?

3. What is the approximate age of my refrigerator?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Do you need to ask

some REALLY IMPORTANT and TOTALLY RELEVANT questions because the meaning of your statements was called into question or because you have determined you need to ask some REALLY IMPORTANT and TOTALLY RELEVANT questions for no reason?

Yes

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Great

.

I believe this to be a true statement

"Therefore, the business of "law" is one that is inherently immoral. But it is cloaked in the appearance of morality. The people who are vested in the business must lie to themselves and others in order to mentally turn what is inherently immoral into something THEY perceive as moral -- and especially something they want OTHERS to perceive as moral."

and will elaborate ...

The business of law is one that is inherently immoral because no author of any book of law possesses inherent authority to coerce or compel anyone by merely writing some words on a piece of paper, no regisrant (see definition below) receives a full and honest disclosure to presume consent of any governed is just, whether registered at birth or not, in some kinds of registration, especially birth registration, not all parties are consenting actors, and if one does not register or comply with mere words on a piece of paper they will be raped, pillaged, or plundered by thugs or courts of thuggery.

People who are vested in the business of law must convince an inherently free, sovereign, and independent people 1) law applies to them; 2) law is just; and, 3) compelling compliance to law is in their best interests.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

When reviewing the following definition consider that any voluntary act of registration occurs in a state which is a member of the United States. Who are the parties to a voluntary act of registration and what are the bundles of rights for each party after a thing has been registered?

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 2nd Edition

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 3rd Edition

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 4th Edition

REGISTRANT. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 5th Edition

Registrant. One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e.g., a trademark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration. --Black's Law 6th Edition.

registrant. One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 7th Edition.

registrant. One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 8th Edition.

registrant. (1890) One who registers; esp., one who registers something for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law upon official registration. --Black's Law 9th Edition.

revenge of the moonbats

chapter 25

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Whom shall administrators of justice blame

for their injustices?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. --Matthew 10:34-35

great

here's one for you:

"A sucker is born every minute" Pt Barnum

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You overlooked this one:

It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. -W. C. Fields

great quote for conmen and sociopaths

and I do think you're showing your true colors with this one!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Confirmed Hit!

Quote has struck a nerve. Fire another volley!

http://www.dailypaul.com/303372/how-are-any-rights-or-privil...

Sit boy! You do not have anything useful or of any merit to state ...

I will never be enslaved to your reality

...

Consistent logic and reason will dictate my understanding of law.

Read the driver's license application. I understand blah blah blah.. I consent to blah blah... I agree to abide by blah...

It is an offer to contract of which you have no obligation to obtain when not operating under regulated limited liability capacity.

When you show them your id they are saying yup he's under contract he consented.

Read the damn contracts dude. Consent of the Governed comes from you. The courts have even explicitly said "you are your own accuser". It is the contracts into personhood that enable code application. Otherwise they must have an accuser accepting liability for the accusation.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

...

Your attempt is to label people because they have beliefs separate from yours. Also, to attempt to marginalize a group described by a pattern not the least bit identical in nature. I see the same thing when people label each other "conspiracy theory". The idea that there is a so called "movement" is erroneous at best.

Once you understand what these bankers have done to us, then you won't be so hostile to anyone who disagrees with your unproven opinion. You can live a free life and there is no tricks to it. The people that understand the paperwork do it so that they can understand in the mind. I don't need the paperwork to be free. I have it in my mind.

It's not about you or your way of thinking. It's about free people being what they were born to be, free and independent. This includes leading a humble life. Don't discount people you have never met for information you have never heard.

It's a competence issue. Can you follow the money?

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Great

I live in the real world, where i don't get to frolic in the rose garden naked while my mom pays the internet bills.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein