The Freeman Movement and England

[Carll68]

Originally Posted by grndslm

And, yes I'm comparing Amish buggies to traveling in a car. The latter is FAR SAFER, so why would we need licenses and not the Amish??

Well.. the Amish aren't really apart of American society. They might live here, but they don't submit to statutory law. They submit to God's Law and Common Law.

Uh-Hum...and what if the Amish wanted to drive a car?

Hmmmmm?

What is we wanted to live in an Amish community and drive a horse drawn cart?

Hmmmmm?

Feel stupid yet?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Thank you for proving that Lawful Rebellion most definitely has its place.

And I don't think it. I know it.

Why don't you call and just figure it out yourself...

This isn't about me. This is about YOU, claiming that pieces of paper are going to protect anyone. That people OBVIOUSLY have the "Right" to do something, just because it's written down. YOU made that claim and stated that I was full of it and then listed some Supreme Court cases, did you not??

So why don't you call ANY Miss. Gov't Agency and tell me the name of one person who says I have the right to carry an unconcealed weapon without a permit??

I don't understand why you just don't settle it instead of talking about things you're unaware of...

It's blatantly obvious that virtually everything our government does is unconstitutional. And your idea is, to sit back and take it?? .. or to lawfully rebel? Which one?

The only person flailing is yourself and j-busted.

Call THE MAN and ask him if Mississippians can carry an UNCONCEALED GUN without a permit.

Look up the definitions of a "state" in a law dictionary.

Look to this thread, where Buster was officially busted for the FIRST time...
http://freemen.freeforums.org/statute-t50.html

What was I wrong about, again???

THE CITY OF LONDON is a corporation. That's the person's name.
It *is* a corporation.

A body politic, a state, a corporation... all refer to the same thing -- a collective group of people. It has NOTHING to do with fictitious walls. Or you're at least not speaking in legalese anymore, and you're speaking modern English. We're gonna have to use a law dictionary here, however, since that's what we're talking about, right??

Lawful Rebellion is only lawful when the revolution succeeds otherwise the rebels tend to die early.

[Jake Dale]

Originally Posted by Jake Dale

so let's get back to this consent issue grndslm.

what do your policies, rules, etc. have to do with me?

bump

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Prove that Missisippians have the right to carry an unconcealed gun without a permit, even tho it's written down in two different Constitutions... and then you will have your answer.

That's "rallying against my peers"??

Do you people really speak English, or what?

My attitude, eh??

So that means you side with j-buster on which of his posts?? ... in regards to his attitude over mine?? Point them out for us.

You only side with him to prove my point, that MOST of you are sheeple, just like Americans. In fact, I'd say this group is far more sheepish than any Mississippians I've ever met.

You're NOT going to find an answer in a TITLE, like "Freeman". OK? I have previously said this, and I will say it repeatedly until you stop asking it.

You have to assert your reality in order to "become free".

If your reality is that you are invincible because you have a title, then I'm sorry I've been wasting my time here. You're not grasping the concept that you're not FREE because you're a FREEMAN.

You're FREE because you ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS!!

Are you braindead, or what??? Nobody ever taught you how to research? It took me less than 3 seconds to find this link...

the city of london is a corporation

The answer is right under your noses.

Do you know what a municipality is??

Good, then being a freeman is no use at all.

[Stacey Grove]

I asked:

Quote:

What about those that cover consumption taxes?
How do you avoid paying taxes on your spending?
Or do you (conveniently) consent to those laws?

grndslm quoted me and replied:

Quote:

You are talking about the Law of the Sea, not the Law of the Land.

In that case, you must do as the captain says or jump overboard.

You didn't answer my question.
Do you consent to paying consumption taxes or not?

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Carll68

Uh-Hum...and what if the Amish wanted to drive a car?

Hmmmmm?

Then they wouldn't be Amish anymore, **************.

Originally Posted by Carll68

What is we wanted to live in an Amish community and drive a horse drawn cart?

Hmmmmm?

Then you would be Amish.

Originally Posted by Carll68

Feel stupid yet?

Not one iota. **************.

Originally Posted by tsig

Lawful Rebellion is only lawful when the revolution succeeds otherwise the rebels tend to die early.

"Today is a good day to die."

It could be better, but I'm happy with the life I've lived up until now.

Originally Posted by tsig

Good, then being a freeman is no use at all.

Pretty much. It's an identifier to get people thinking critically about larger topics. Like, "Who am I?"; "What do all these words mean?"; "What are all these contracts that I have been accepting, but not reading, questioning, & understanding?"; "Why can the government take my property if I don't pay taxes. Isn't it my property??; etcetera.

What does "being a freeman" mean to you?

To me, it's not just claiming, "I am a freeman."

It is asserting many things that you understand... like you don't need to ask anybody for permission if you have the "right" to do it... like the fact that you're a Child of God, and the fact that the government official swears oaths to protect your freedom of religion, etc.

Really... the topic of "being a freeman" is so wide, that's why we have so my sub-forums!!

You are misunderstanding that "being a freeman" is simply saying, "I AM A FREEMAN!" That doesn't give you the knowledge to understand the systems of law & money that we actually use.

Edited, breach of rule 0.

Posted By:Locknar

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

I asked:


grndslm quoted me and replied:

You didn't answer my question.
Do you consent to paying consumption taxes or not?

If I want the benefit of the captain's services/goods, I will accept his offer.

Also, I have absolutely NO issue with paying sales tax. Not one issue whatsoever. So, yes... I consent to paying sales tax.

I don't consent to paying property tax, income tax, social security, medicare, etc., however.

In my ideal world... sales tax would be the only tax around. Mabe a "heavier", excise tax on some products... but that's still just sales tax. All the rest are fraudulent.

Originally Posted by Jake Dale

bump

I don't understand the question.

What policies or rules are you referring to?? In what reference is this hypothetical situation framed??

[Stacey Grove]

Originally Posted by grndslm

If I want the benefit of the captain's services/goods, I will accept his offer.

Also, I have absolutely NO issue with paying sales tax. Not one issue whatsoever. So, yes... I consent to paying sales tax.

I don't consent to paying property tax, income tax, social security, medicare, etc., however.

Don't worry, I knew you would consent to paying taxes on your spending.
You don't have much choice do you?
You see, if your arguments were correct it would be possible to spend and not pay tax instead of just having the choice of whether to spend or not.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Stacey Grove

Don't worry, I knew you would consent to paying taxes on your spending.
You don't have much choice do you?
You see, if your arguments were correct it would be possible to spend and not pay tax instead of just having the choice of whether to spend or not.

Like I said.. only sales tax is fair tax, IMHO. Tax should come from the register.... anywhere else and that's double taxation.

I took my motorized bicycle to a welder a couple months back and they didn't charge me sales tax. So it's not impossible.

Honestly, Freemen are supposed to be completely self-sufficient, of their own affairs, "sui juris". Not too many people can pull that off, while managing not to use the Federal Reserve's private credit.

[Carll68]

I feel silly having to explain the simplest of things to you...HOWEVER..that was not the argument you were making (if one is Amish or not). Yet, your reply states "Then you would be Amish" and "Then they would not be Amish".

WRONG

First, The argument you were making is that the Amish can drive horse drawn carts without licenses because they are not part of American society, because they do not submit to statutory law, that they submit to Gods law.

Next, My question was and is....what if I decided to go to an Amish community and drive a horse drawn Cart? I am not Amish (As you foolishly claimed I would be)..but, yet, I do not need a license. Why is this?

Finally, what if an Amish individual decided to go against there parents wishes and drive a car? Could they legally without a license? As soon as they drove the car..would they no longer be Amish?

The reason is that this has nothing to do with God's law, not submitting or any other idiocy you present... and everything to do with the fact that you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO DRIVE A HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE, but DO NEED ONE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE!

This is preposterous that you don't even understand your own logic, and debate against another argument entirely.

If you don't feel stupid yet, you should.

[Jake Dale]

Originally Posted by grndslm

I don't understand the question.

What policies or rules are you referring to?? In what reference is this hypothetical situation framed??

what does, whatever you consent to, have to do with me or anyone else?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Then they wouldn't be Amish anymore, **************.

Then you would be Amish.

Not one iota. **************.

"Today is a good day to die."

It could be better, but I'm happy with the life I've lived up until now.

Pretty much. It's an identifier to get people thinking critically about larger topics. Like, "Who am I?"; "What do all these words mean?"; "What are all these contracts that I have been accepting, but not reading, questioning, & understanding?"; "Why can the government take my property if I don't pay taxes. Isn't it my property??; etcetera.

What does "being a freeman" mean to you?

To me, it's not just claiming, "I am a freeman."

It is asserting many things that you understand... like you don't need to ask anybody for permission if you have the "right" to do it... like the fact that you're a Child of God, and the fact that the government official swears oaths to protect your freedom of religion, etc.

Really... the topic of "being a freeman" is so wide, that's why we have so my sub-forums!!

You are misunderstanding that "being a freeman" is simply saying, "I AM A FREEMAN!" That doesn't give you the knowledge to understand the systems of law & money that we actually use.

Edited, breach of rule 0.

Posted By:Locknar

As a freeman why would I need someone else to protect my freedom? If freedom depends on another then they can always revoke the freedom whenever they want so you're not really free.

[cocana]

Originally Posted by grndslm

the city of london is a corporation

The answer is right under your noses.

Do you know what a municipality is??

Oh brilliant I've looked at your "research". Clearly another friend from across the Atlantic who doesn't appreciate that American English and English are not always the same.

You guys use the word "corporation" in the same way as we use the word "company". What you don't seem to appreciate, however, is that when we use the word "corporation" it doesn't adopt the US meaning unless we are in fact referring to one of your corporations or, say, a Japanese one for example. An English "corporation" is not the same animal; a "company" is the same as your "corporation" here. We have corporations which run councils and the like; this does not mean that they are profit making institutions operating for the benefit of their shareholders.

Quality "research" there, grndslm. What further stunners can you enlighten us with?!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Carll68

I feel silly having to explain the simplest of things to you...HOWEVER..that was not the argument you were making (if one is Amish or not). Yet, your reply states "Then you would be Amish" and "Then they would not be Amish".

WRONG

First, The argument you were making is that the Amish can drive horse drawn carts without licenses because they are not part of American society, because they do not submit to statutory law, that they submit to Gods law.

Next, My question was and is....what if I decided to go to an Amish community and drive a horse drawn Cart? I am not Amish (As you foolishly claimed I would be)..but, yet, I do not need a license. Why is this?

Finally, what if an Amish individual decided to go against there parents wishes and drive a car? Could they legally without a license? As soon as they drove the car..would they no longer be Amish?

The reason is that this has nothing to do with God's law, not submitting or any other idiocy you present... and everything to do with the fact that you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO DRIVE A HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE, but DO NEED ONE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE!

This is preposterous that you don't even understand your own logic, and debate against another argument entirely.

If you don't feel stupid yet, you should.

Not true in Mass.

It is unlawful to operate, or permit another to operate, a horse drawn carriage unless the owner of has obtained a license from the Department. Additionally, the driver of a carriage must hold a valid certificate of competency to operate a horse drawn carriage granted by an inspector of the Department. All license and certificate applications can be obtained via the link below.

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/a...age_driver.pdf

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Like I said.. only sales tax is fair tax, IMHO. Tax should come from the register.... anywhere else and that's double taxation.

Yep, I have seen this proposed before and on the face of it, it seems a good idea.

You, the individual, receive your income in full and untaxed. You, the individual, chose where and upon what to spend your income. All taxes are effectively levied at the point of sale, but the key point is you, the individual, get to choose what to spend your income on, all of it.

As an intellectual exercise, it works.

In reality, it breaks down. First of all, in such a scenario, sales taxes would have to balloon rapidly to make up for the missing income taxes.

Secondly, government tax revenues would be entirely at the whim of market forces. In a recession such as we are currently experiencing, people would stuff their mattresses rather than spend, leading to a collapse of revenue, and a consequent collapse of state provided services.

Therefore, a compromise position is best, where state revenue is comprised of two components. Sales tax and direct income tax establishing a baseline of revenue which the state has a sufficient source of funds to provide basic services like roads, health, and so forth.

The current system did not happen by accident, you know.

One might quibble about tax codes in place all over the world, but ultimately, like all of these things it is a compromise that best fits, and all one will be left with are quibbles.

If you really want to exclude yourself from this de facto arrangement, feel free.

Stop using roads, health services, welfare, voting rights, electricity, gas, education (clearly, you have already done this), shops, etc.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Carll68

I feel silly having to explain the simplest of things to you...HOWEVER..that was not the argument you were making (if one is Amish or not). Yet, your reply states "Then you would be Amish" and "Then they would not be Amish".

WRONG

Amish are not allowed to drive cars!!! It's against their religion. They're not allowed to have cell phones. If they did either one, they would cease to be Amish. They must use taxi cabs and pay the driver... but they cannot drive themselves.

Originally Posted by Carll68

First, The argument you were making is that the Amish can drive horse drawn carts without licenses because they are not part of American society, because they do not submit to statutory law, that they submit to Gods law.

Regardless of what a statute says, the Amish have the freedom of religion, which includes the freedom from "modern day hassles, technology". Ohio is one state I've been to where Amish are only asked to have an orange triangle. My brother and I still almost smashed into the rear of one when going over a hill.

The government can't do anything about it, but they could at least ACT like they're maintaining some control by making a statute that goes along with Common Law.

Originally Posted by Carll68

Next, My question was and is....what if I decided to go to an Amish community and drive a horse drawn Cart? I am not Amish (As you foolishly claimed I would be)..but, yet, I do not need a license. Why is this?

I repeat... the government can at least ACT like they're maintaining some control by making a statute that goes along with Common Law.

Originally Posted by Carll68

Finally, what if an Amish individual decided to go against there parents wishes and drive a car? Could they legally without a license? As soon as they drove the car..would they no longer be Amish?

They would no longer be Amish if they're driving the car.

As long as I'm punching you in the face, I'm not a Christian now, am I?

Originally Posted by Carll68

The reason is that this has nothing to do with God's law, not submitting or any other idiocy you present... and everything to do with the fact that you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO DRIVE A HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE, but DO NEED ONE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE!

What state? Define License. Define Drive. Define Operate. Define Motor Vehicle.

Originally Posted by Carll68

This is preposterous that you don't even understand your own logic, and debate against another argument entirely.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. Like everyone else, you're jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Carll68

If you don't feel stupid yet, you should.

Just curious...

Why can you repeatedly use the word "stupid", yet I can't use the word "nincompoop"??

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Jake Dale

what does, whatever you consent to, have to do with me or anyone else?

Who said that it did??

Originally Posted by tsig

As a freeman why would I need someone else to protect my freedom? If freedom depends on another then they can always revoke the freedom whenever they want so you're not really free.

You're not depending on another. It's a fact that the guy swore an oath to protect your rights and the rest of the state's & country's Constitutions. You use it as a tool if need be. The only entity you should be relying / trust on... is God, of course.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Why can you repeatedly use the word "stupid", yet I can't use the word "nincompoop"??

There is a saying:
"Stupid is as stupid does."

If the shoe fits, you get to wear it.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by cocana

Oh brilliant I've looked at your "research". Clearly another friend from across the Atlantic who doesn't appreciate that American English and English are not always the same.

You guys use the word "corporation" in the same way as we use the word "company". What you don't seem to appreciate, however, is that when we use the word "corporation" it doesn't adopt the US meaning unless we are in fact referring to one of your corporations or, say, a Japanese one for example.

Last time I checked... American Law Dictionaries have "locked in" the same "British Law" terms. Perhaps corporation doesn't mean the same thing to the Avg. Joe in London, but to a lawyer... it means the same thing... a legal fiction with separate privileges & duties from its members.. along with limited liability.

Originally Posted by cocana

An English "corporation" is not the same animal; a "company" is the same as your "corporation" here. We have corporations which run councils and the like; this does not mean that they are profit making institutions operating for the benefit of their shareholders.

Quality "research" there, grndslm. What further stunners can you enlighten us with?!

Well... do you know what the definition of a "person" is??

A person is a corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, etc.

If you knew that... you would obviously know that a person and a man are not the same animals... far more different than the difference between a company and a corporation.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by abaddon

There is a saying:
"Stupid is as stupid does."

If the shoe fits, you get to wear it.

I'm just curious, why the subjectivity??

Why is equality not important to the mods?

If you think that a post violates the Membership Agreement, you should report it rather than introducing Forum Management discussion into threads outside of Forum Management. If you want to raise an issue of Forum Management, please do so in the appropriate sub-forum.

Posted By:LashL

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by tsig

Not true in Mass.

It is unlawful to operate, or permit another to operate, a horse drawn carriage unless the owner of has obtained a license from the Department. Additionally, the driver of a carriage must hold a valid certificate of competency to operate a horse drawn carriage granted by an inspector of the Department. All license and certificate applications can be obtained via the link below.

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/a...age_driver.pdf

It is NOT unlawful to operate anything, provided that you're not injuring someone or damaging someone's property, or committing fraud by acting as if you were a licensed cab/truck driver. Otherwise, it's merely illegal for the members of that society who consent.

How could you get pulled over on a horse & buggy anyway???

Taillights out? Speeding? Cut someone off?? You're... ... BLACK??

Gimme a break.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by grndslm

I'm just curious, why the subjectivity??

Why is equality not important to the mods?

I reiterate:

If you really want to exclude yourself from this de facto arrangement, feel free.

Stop using roads, health services, welfare, voting rights, electricity, gas, education (clearly, you have already done this), shops, etc.

And your answer is....?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

The Law states.. I have the freedom of religion. Does it not?? If I'm following God's Law, then what makes you think I'm above it??

It is not my intention to be snarky or quarrelsome (at least in this post), but what precisely do you mean when you say " I'm following God's Law"?

[Carll68]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Amish are not allowed to drive cars!!! It's against their religion. They're not allowed to have cell phones. If they did either one, they would cease to be Amish. They must use taxi cabs and pay the driver... but they cannot drive themselves.

Regardless of what a statute says, the Amish have the freedom of religion, which includes the freedom from "modern day hassles, technology". Ohio is one state I've been to where Amish are only asked to have an orange triangle. My brother and I still almost smashed into the rear of one when going over a hill.

The government can't do anything about it, but they could at least ACT like they're maintaining some control by making a statute that goes along with Common Law.

I repeat... the government can at least ACT like they're maintaining some control by making a statute that goes along with Common Law.

They would no longer be Amish if they're driving the car.

As long as I'm punching you in the face, I'm not a Christian now, am I?

What state? Define License. Define Drive. Define Operate. Define Motor Vehicle.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. Like everyone else, you're jumping to conclusions.

Just curious...

Why can you repeatedly use the word "stupid", yet I can't use the word "nincompoop"??

I can only explain something to you so many times before it is a lost cause. Your logic, just like your entire FOTL argument, is nonsense.

You state if they drive cars, they are no longer Amish. This is of course a fabrication. Driving a car does not make them relinquish their Amish beliefs, but it does make them get a license. Do you think that an Amish person has never driven a car..ever? look into rumschpringen.

The Muslim faith decalres murdering innocents unjust..but that did not stop 9/11......where they no longer of Muslim faith?

Your logic is idiotic.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Well... do you know what the definition of a "person" is??

A person is a corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, etc.

If you knew that... you would obviously know that a person and a man are not the same animals... far more different than the difference between a company and a corporation.

If you knew what the definition of "person" is you would know that it includes these in addition to natural persons.

ETA: definitions from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary 7th ed (2006):

Quote:

PERSON. Even before the passage of the Interpretation Act 1889 (c.63) it was considered that prima facie the word "person", in a public statute, included a corporation as well as a natural person.

And Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary 12th ed (2001):

Quote:

Person. 1. a human being capable of rights, also called a natural person.
2. A corporation or legal person i.e. an artificial person (see the Interpretation Act 1978 s.5 Sch 1).

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

It is not my intention to be snarky or quarrelsome (at least in this post), but what precisely do you mean when you say " I'm following God's Law"?

Do you really think you will get a cogent answer to that question?

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Yep, I have seen this proposed before and on the face of it, it seems a good idea.

You, the individual, receive your income in full and untaxed. You, the individual, chose where and upon what to spend your income. All taxes are effectively levied at the point of sale, but the key point is you, the individual, get to choose what to spend your income on, all of it.

It's the only logical solution to the problems of taxation.

Originally Posted by abaddon

As an intellectual exercise, it works.

In reality, it breaks down. First of all, in such a scenario, sales taxes would have to balloon rapidly to make up for the missing income taxes.

It really wouldn't be all that different when you factor in the excise taxes on things we should curb back from using.

If they need to "balloon rapidly", perhaps the alternate... "decrease spending" would be a swell idea?

Originally Posted by abaddon

Secondly, government tax revenues would be entirely at the whim of market forces. In a recession such as we are currently experiencing, people would stuff their mattresses rather than spend, leading to a collapse of revenue, and a consequent collapse of state provided services.

And...?? Government agents should only be working voluntarily anyway, not for pay. Anything more than $10,000 for a congressman is way too much. Cut spending there first. Stop building the military industrial complex and keep a good defense. Many solutions to decrease spending if you get down to it. It's not my fault that you can't think of them all by yourself.

Originally Posted by abaddon

Therefore, a compromise position is best, where state revenue is comprised of two components. Sales tax and direct income tax establishing a baseline of revenue which the state has a sufficient source of funds to provide basic services like roads, health, and so forth.

You're probly right. I've long thought that sales tax & property tax should be the two components. New Hampshire only has property tax, but they have a little sales tax that goes toward the county level. New Hampshire really is a model state in many aspects. That's why they've got the Free State Project.

Originally Posted by abaddon

The current system did not happen by accident, you know.

It came from putting us in a pot full of water and gradually turning the heat up. I realize.

Originally Posted by abaddon

One might quibble about tax codes in place all over the world, but ultimately, like all of these things it is a compromise that best fits, and all one will be left with are quibbles.

Like I've said before, look to Egypt as an example that quibbles are not all that we are left with.

Originally Posted by abaddon

If you really want to exclude yourself from this de facto arrangement, feel free.

Stop using roads, health services, welfare, voting rights, electricity, gas, education (clearly, you have already done this), shops, etc.

Electricity and gas are private corporations. I went to private schol... so clearly, I have not used a single thing from the government. We don't have universal health care either, so ... nope not using the government for jack.

Do you realize the number of Supreme Court cases that CLAIM the "de facto government" does NOT own the roads?? They were paid for by the people for all men's PUBLIC use. If you use the roads for PRIVATE, commercial gain, then you are required to have a license. Everybody here pays for the roads in the form of sales tax @ the gas pumps. They ADMIT that the roads belong to the people and we have the RIGHT to use them. The roads DO NOT belong to the government.

Soo.. let's see... what benefit do I get from the government?? POLICE FORCE. That's it. That's all I have ever seen of the government my entire life. I have been stopped 3 or 4 times for exercising my right to FREE TRAVEL, on foot, or on bicycle... and am harassed about stealing things. They think I stole somebody's clothes??? I'm never carrying anything. They just want to be as intrusive as they possibly can.

If Americans saw the benefits that other countries have, maybe Lawful Rebellion wouldn't be on my mind so much.... but I really, really, really dislike the way governments are run here.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

It is not my intention to be snarky or quarrelsome (at least in this post), but what precisely do you mean when you say " I'm following God's Law"?

Well... why on God's green earth... would we need a government, if we all acted like Christ Jesus taught us??

If we all loved the Lord God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds, and loved our neighbors as ourself... then there would be absolutely no need for government "protections". Wouldn't you agree?

The "protections" that I get from the government are not for my security, but for their job security!!

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by Carll68

I can only explain something to you so many times before it is a lost cause. Your logic, just like your entire FOTL argument, is nonsense.

You state if they drive cars, they are no longer Amish. This is of course a fabrication. Driving a car does not make them relinquish their Amish beliefs, but it does make them get a license. Do you think that an Amish person has never driven a car..ever? look into rumschpringen.

The Muslim faith decalres murdering innocents unjust..but that did not stop 9/11......where they no longer of Muslim faith?

Your logic is idiotic.

Or rather, the licencing authority doesn't give a flying **** whether they are Amish or not, merely that if they wish to operate a motor vehicle on public roads they have to pass a test, obtain a licence and pay the requisite taxation.

FOTLers get very confused because they seem to believe that their 'god' and it's supposed laws actually have some relevance outside of a church meeting. It doesn't.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Who said that it did??

You're not depending on another. It's a fact that the guy swore an oath to protect your rights and the rest of the state's & country's Constitutions. You use it as a tool if need be. The only entity you should be relying / trust on... is God, of course.

The constitutions are creations of men so you're submitting to them when you allow your rights to be circumscribed by a constitution.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Carll68

I can only explain something to you so many times before it is a lost cause. Your logic, just like your entire FOTL argument, is nonsense.

You state if they drive cars, they are no longer Amish. This is of course a fabrication. Driving a car does not make them relinquish their Amish beliefs, but it does make them get a license. Do you think that an Amish person has never driven a car..ever? look into rumschpringen.

I don't think you're aware of what the Amish belief really is.

Like I said... it is impossible for an Amish man to drive a car.

It is impossible for a Christian to punch somebody in the face.

It is impossible for a Luddite to use electricity.

It is impossible for a Christian Scientist to be punished if they don't take their child to the hospital.

They do, indeed, cease to be what they were... at that point.

These would be hypocritical beliefs, which are not beliefs at all. It's very similar to what you guys are asking for in wanting to be able to say, "I'm a Freeman... Let me go scott free." Being a Freeman has nothing (well, I dunno about nothing) to do with what you call yourself, but everything to do with how you act.

Originally Posted by Carll68

The Muslim faith decalres murdering innocents unjust..but that did not stop 9/11......where they no longer of Muslim faith?

That would be correct. You yourself say... "Muslim faith is A. Some people do not follow A." Yet you want us to believe that because they call themselves Muslims, they are of A.

Is that not correct??

Originally Posted by Carll68

Your logic is idiotic.

I'm sorry... but your logic is far more idiotic.

Muslim faith is A. People do not follow A. Yet, these people are still of A???

Gimme a break...

[jargon buster]

Quote:

A person is a corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, etc.

If you knew that... you would obviously know that a person and a man are not the same animals... far more different than the difference between a company and a corporation.

All human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

It is NOT unlawful to operate anything, provided that you're not injuring someone or damaging someone's property, or committing fraud by acting as if you were a licensed cab/truck driver. Otherwise, it's merely illegal for the members of that society who consent.

How could you get pulled over on a horse & buggy anyway???

Taillights out? Speeding? Cut someone off?? You're... ... BLACK??

Gimme a break.

Yes, you have to have a yellow blinking light on the back of your buggy at night and driving drunk is still driving drunk no matter the horsepower.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Mojo

If you knew what the definition of "person" is you would know that it includes these in addition to natural persons.

ETA: definitions from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary 7th ed (2006):

And Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary 12th ed (2001):

My dictionaries do not say the same thing.

If you get some older Law dictionaries... 1910s, 1930s/40s, 1950s/60s, etc... you can see how some very key terms have changed over time, but they haven't changed entirely... only enough to be deceptive to most.

I think in Bouvier's dictionary, it actually defines a human being as a monster... so keep that in mind as well. You can't just look at a definition in a law dictionary and think you've hit the end. You have to keep filling in terms with the inner-terms to get the true answer.

Also... dictionaries made in the 2000s are not the understanding that Americans had when creating the Constitution and MOST statutes. Webster's 1828 is a better idea if you want to understand terms during the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by grndslm

It's the only logical solution to the problems of taxation.

It really wouldn't be all that different when you factor in the excise taxes on things we should curb back from using.

If they need to "balloon rapidly", perhaps the alternate... "decrease spending" would be a swell idea?

And...?? Government agents should only be working voluntarily anyway, not for pay. Anything more than $10,000 for a congressman is way too much. Cut spending there first. Stop building the military industrial complex and keep a good defense. Many solutions to decrease spending if you get down to it. It's not my fault that you can't think of them all by yourself.

You're probly right. I've long thought that sales tax & property tax should be the two components. New Hampshire only has property tax, but they have a little sales tax that goes toward the county level. New Hampshire really is a model state in many aspects. That's why they've got the Free State Project.

It came from putting us in a pot full of water and gradually turning the heat up. I realize.

Like I've said before, look to Egypt as an example that quibbles are not all that we are left with.

Electricity and gas are private corporations. I went to private schol... so clearly, I have not used a single thing from the government. We don't have universal health care either, so ... nope not using the government for jack.

Do you realize the number of Supreme Court cases that CLAIM the "de facto government" does NOT own the roads?? They were paid for by the people for all men's PUBLIC use. If you use the roads for PRIVATE, commercial gain, then you are required to have a license. Everybody here pays for the roads in the form of sales tax @ the gas pumps. They ADMIT that the roads belong to the people and we have the RIGHT to use them. The roads DO NOT belong to the government.

Soo.. let's see... what benefit do I get from the government?? POLICE FORCE. That's it. That's all I have ever seen of the government my entire life. I have been stopped 3 or 4 times for exercising my right to FREE TRAVEL, on foot, or on bicycle... and am harassed about stealing things. They think I stole somebody's clothes??? I'm never carrying anything. They just want to be as intrusive as they possibly can.

If Americans saw the benefits that other countries have, maybe Lawful Rebellion wouldn't be on my mind so much.... but I really, really, really dislike the way governments are run here.

Brutal dictatorships, grinding poverty, arbitrary arrest. imprisonment and execution, Oh, where is this paradise??

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Or rather, the licencing authority doesn't give a flying **** whether they are Amish or not, merely that if they wish to operate a motor vehicle on public roads they have to pass a test, obtain a licence and pay the requisite taxation.

FOTLers get very confused because they seem to believe that their 'god' and it's supposed laws actually have some relevance outside of a church meeting. It doesn't.

Dude...

Christian Scientists...

CANNOT...

be punished...

for not taking their children...

to the hospital...

when they're sick.

That is LAW, which stems from our First Amendment right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION. It starts at the Constitution and is re-affirmed thru Supreme Court precedent.

I'm sorry if you just won't accept this, but it is the TRUTH.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscien...lm-300x240.jpg

All human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings.

I am not a person, for sure.

I don't like the term human being either.

I prefer the term "MAN", just as my country's founders referred to themselves as -- "MEN".

They never referred to themselves as human beings, because a human being is like a neanderthal to them.

Here's Bouvier's (1914 ed.) definition of a Monster --

MONSTER. An animal which has conformation contrary to the order of nature. 2 Dungl. Hum. Phys. 422.
It is said that a monster, although born of a woman in lawful wedlock, cannot inherit. Those who have, however, the essential parts of the human form, and have merely some defect of conformation, are capable of inheriting, if otherwise qualified; 2 Bla. Com. 246; 1 Beck,... yadda yadda
No living human birth, however much it may differ from human shape, can be lawfully destroyed. Traill, Med. Jur. 47... yadda yadda

You're not a person... you're a monster!!

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by tsig

Yes, you have to have a yellow blinking light on the back of your buggy at night and driving drunk is still driving drunk no matter the horsepower.

In Ohio, no lights are required. I made sure call and ask while I was there. We were staying near one of the largest Amish communities in the country (world?)...

Driving drunk is still driving drunk...
But it's not UNLAWFUL until you injure somebody or damage their property.

Speeding is still speeding...
Even if you're on a skateboard.

... AND...??

[LightinDarkness]

Originally Posted by grndslm

Electricity and gas are private corporations. I went to private schol... so clearly, I have not used a single thing from the government. We don't have universal health care either, so ... nope not using the government for jack.

This is why you have a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

Things like electricity are built upon a massive infrastructure bought by and paid for by tax dollars. The roads you drive on? Unless you drive on a Toll Road absolutely everywhere - and no one on the earth does this - then you are driving upon infrastructure bought and paid for by tax dollars. Even by simply living in your house you are benefiting from police and fire services paid for by tax dollars. By posting on the internet right now, no matter who owns the computer you are posting from or what type of internet your paying for, you are using a government network that was paid for by tax dollars that was invented for government research. All of these things have a cost that in large part your monthly payments never touched, and they all were invented because no one in the private sector had any incentive to do so.

You don't consent to pay taxes? Thats fine. Get off our roads, get off our internet, stop using our utilities, and move out to the middle of a forest somewhere that has no police or fire protection. All of these things are benefits for members of the society that come at a cost - if you decline to pay that cost, you don't get to benefit. Until you do that you are nothing but a freeloader and a leach.

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by tsig

Brutal dictatorships, grinding poverty, arbitrary arrest. imprisonment and execution, Oh, where is this paradise??

Sounds like home.