The Freeman Movement and England - Page 46

Pure Argent · 11th February 2010, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

My apologies though. I'm unsure as to how to use the format option. I had other things to do with my time. If you'd care for a quick tip I'll try on the next one. Please still respond and bring your proof of claim or retract.

Thanks for being willing to do it - it'll make your posts much easier to read, as well as easier to quote. As is, we have to go in and copy-paste the parts we want to respond to. The quote software on this site doesn't quote quotes (if you can follow that).

Anyway, here's how I do it (in spoilers to avoid cluttering the thread for those who already know:

Hope this helps.

remirol · 11th February 2010, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement.

Pleas come outside it's nice here. Leave your chains at the door though please. Offer of contract!

But then he will be compelling me to do something. I do not contract with any of your peace officers. Thus Freeman society has no rules at all.

LightinDarkness · 11th February 2010, 03:49 PM

So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235

What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post.

It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work.

You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said.

Paul · 11th February 2010, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement.

For someone obsessed with common law and the alleged superiority of ancient justice, you don't know much.

Quote:

penal statute A statute that creates a criminal offence or provides for any penalty (e.g. a forfeiture) enforceable in civil proceedings. It is subject to strict construction

"penal statute" The Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement. Michael Kennedy. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press http://www.oxfordreference.com/views...try=t239.e2288

Quote:

...Early constables were responsible for delivering warrants, surveying lands, and even regulating weights and measures...

...The office of sheriff, an ancient law-enforcement position first established in Anglo-Saxon England before the Norman Conquest of 1066...

...Sheriffs in colonial America served process papers, maintained law and order, collected taxes, and maintained jails prior to the Revolution...

...The demand for more and better policing resulted from the massive social and political unrest in the colonies, which led to an increase in crime in the second half of the eighteenth century...

Mitchel Roth "Police" The Oxford Companion to American Law. Kermit L. Hall, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t122.e0695>

Rolfe · 11th February 2010, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Holy crap, is that Hugh Laurie?

If that's what I'm almost sure it is, yes.

If you haven't seen that series, you have a treat in store. Then at the very end, you cry.

Rolfe.

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Why don't you look at a dictionary if you honestly don't know the meanings of the word "right", AA?

I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong. I will not cause harm or loss to anyone. Statute from the bog standard, non law dictionary.com is as follows:

1. LawHow can it be as it contradicts itself below. See HERE.. a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document.
b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed.

2. International Law. an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international HEREagreement Hang on did you use the word agreement, Mr.com? Where is the agreement? If I don't agree then I am not boundas a treaty.
3. a permanent rule Ahhh! There we are, it's just a rule. Thank goodness it's not a law.established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.

The law dictionaries can just as easliy be rubbished! See Blacks and it talks about the link between Statute and Person. Person=corporation. Me=human being, a man, not a corporate entity!

If you want to be carry on!

Rogue1stclass · 11th February 2010, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement.

Pleas come outside it's nice here. Leave your chains at the door though please. Offer of contract!

I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like.

I get it.

carlitos · 11th February 2010, 04:32 PM

Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world.

carlitos · 11th February 2010, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rogue1stclass

I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like.

I get it.

Like "smoking a big fatty by a peace officer or drinking in the park. (Or not paying bills)

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by remirol

But then he will be compelling me to do something. I do not contract with any of your peace officers. Thus Freeman society has no rules at all.

What you don't comprehend is the word, society!

The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss.

I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Rogue1stclass

I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like.

I get it.

No you don't get it, read my previous post!

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world.

Yes you can ask!

dudalb · 11th February 2010, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world.

I want to know what he is smoking when he posts. It must be some really strong sh--.

TSR · 11th February 2010, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

.
And how, exactly, does leaving this "new society" differ from leaving the current one?
.

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235

What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post.

It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work.

You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said.

So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here.

Go!

Pure Argent · 11th February 2010, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

What you don't comprehend is the word, society!

The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss.

I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!

So, in short, you are going to attempt to make a new society in which only the laws you like apply.

Redtail · 11th February 2010, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Who's telling you you cannot leave?

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by TSR

.
And how, exactly, does leaving this "new society" differ from leaving the current one?
.

Because the one your mind exists in is one I don't agree with! I may find another though that I do and like and choose to go there!

Fiona · 11th February 2010, 04:43 PM

Why did you look up "law" instead of "right"? Are you getting ahead of yourself a bit?

The only relevant part of your response is "I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong.". That is indeed one meaning of the word "right". But it is a little vague. If you are talking about your personal conception of morality then it doesn't matter: since that is internal. But as we normally use the word in this sense there is an implication of some level of action or of refraining from action.

Since you have already referred to some bad consequences which have arisen from what you object to (genocide and that sort of thing) it seems that your personal morality is just like everybody else's: that is, it is prescriptive. I am aware that is an unpopular view with many who are apt to argue that morals are subjective/relative: but that is for another thread. Suffice to say that wherever you stand on that you have judged some actions by other people to be wrong: and so your judgement is not for yourself alone (though your action may be)

But in other posts in this thread (and indeed in this one) you talk about "your rights". What rights would those be? They are clearly not defined by distinguishing them from "wrongs" because "my wrongs" only makes sense in english in the context of a Victoria bodice ripper. What you seem to mean is the kind of right which is enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Such rights are in fact the obverse of duties. You cannot actually have such a right unless other people have a duty to uphold it. It simply does not exist without that.

To get around that you have also traded on the ambiguity of "might is right" but I am not going there because you need to tease out what your argument actually is on this front first.

Can you now please say what you actually mean?

Fiona · 11th February 2010, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

What you don't comprehend is the word, society!

The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss.

I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!

As I pointed out before:you assert you are not free to leave. I disagree. Nobdy is stopping you.

carlitos · 11th February 2010, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

Yes you can ask!

Arthur Asky, what is your age and education level and / or profession? I am only asking out of curiosity; I have held a few jobs where your belief system would have gotten me fired. Thanks much!

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

So, in short, you are going to attempt to make a new society in which only the laws you like apply.

Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own.

Have a great day eh!

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Why did you look up "law" instead of "right"? Are you getting ahead of yourself a bit?

The only relevant part of your response is "I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong.". That is indeed one meaning of the word "right". But it is a little vague. If you are talking about your personal conception of morality then it doesn't matter: since that is internal. But as we normally use the word in this sense there is an implication of some level of action or of refraining from action.

Since you have already referred to some bad consequences which have arisen from what you object to (genocide and that sort of thing) it seems that your personal morality is just like everybody else's: that is, it is prescriptive. I am aware that is an unpopular view with many who are apt to argue that morals are subjective/relative: but that is for another thread. Suffice to say that wherever you stand on that you have judged some actions by other people to be wrong: and so your judgement is not for yourself alone (though your action may be)

But in other posts in this thread (and indeed in this one) you talk about "your rights". What rights would those be? They are clearly not defined by distinguishing them from "wrongs" because "my wrongs" only makes sense in english in the context of a Victoria bodice ripper. What you seem to mean is the kind of right which is enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Such rights are in fact the obverse of duties. You cannot actually have such a right unless other people have a duty to uphold it. It simply does not exist without that.

To get around that you have also traded on the ambiguity of "might is right" but I am not going there because you need to tease out what your argument actually is on this front first.

Can you now please say what you actually mean?

I think it was quoted for someone else.

Be back later!

LightinDarkness · 11th February 2010, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here.

Go!

Yozhik, what have you said here that has not been debunked by numerous people? JREF members have been doing a fine job debunking you, but I'll join in if I catch something not covered else where. I will begin citing logical fallacies that you use in every post so you can see the difference between real fallacies and you googling the subject and copying and pasting it to try to refute evidence that has debunked you.

LightinDarkness · 11th February 2010, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Arthur Asky, what is your age and education level and / or profession? I am only asking out of curiosity; I have held a few jobs where your belief system would have gotten me fired. Thanks much!

Late teens or early twenties, and either lives with parents or is on public welfare. He spends ALL DAY on here and the David Icke sites, he can't possibly have a job...any job good enough to require use of a computer all day wouldn't let you get away with posting that much.

twinstead · 11th February 2010, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own.

Have a great day eh!

Uh, you kind of didn't answer the question, but your delightful parry was entertaining enough; carry on.

tsig · 11th February 2010, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sledge

Could you start formatting your replies correctly? This "red text in a quote box" thing is really not easy to read.

Not only that but it makes replying very difficult.

TSR · 11th February 2010, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

Because the one your mind exists in is one I don't agree with! I may find another though that I do and like and choose to go there!

.
And how, precisely, would one leave your "new society?"
.

Pure Argent · 11th February 2010, 06:19 PM

Arthur Asky, I never got a response to this post. As it contains a lot of rather important points, would you mind giving me your thoughts on it?

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

"Might makes right" equals "the death of innocents"... really? Is that what you think? Does might not also equal the strength to defend yourself from the totalitarian aggressor? To free the slaves? To break the chains, to defend those who cannot defend themselves? You have a very simplistic view of might.

You may assert that you have not stolen anything, Arthur, and I can't prove that you have, for the simple fact that I don't know how far into the whole Freeman nonsense you have gone. If you are merely contemplating it on forums such as this one, then you have stolen nothing; however, the entire Freeman system is one based upon theft.
You dwell in your home, purchased from the government, being watched over by a police force, employed by the government, and brought electricity, heat and water, which are regulated by the government. Your food is purified to standards which the government enforces. You are not run down in the streets because of rules, enforced by the government, on the operation of motor vehicles. Virtually every single positive thing about your society - even things so small that you never noticed them, such as having your trash taken away every week - comes from the government. Unless you are living on your own in a completely self-sustaining home, you benefit from the rules which the government enforces. And Freeman principles declare that you can continue this without having to put something back in. By simply declaring yourself a "sovereign", you believe that you can eliminate everything that you owe to your society and yet continue to benefit.
If you have truly become a Freeman and progressed to the point where you are no longer paying taxes or other bills, then you are stealing. Your taxes pay for the maintenance of roads, and you have ceased paying them - yet you continue to benefit from well-maintained roads. Your taxes pay for the salaries of the police force, and you have ceased paying them - yet you expect someone to do something if someone wrongs you. Your taxes pay for the maintenance of medical facilities, and you have ceased paying them - yet if you get into a car accident and are taken to the hospital, you expect treatment.
Simply declaring yourself to be debt-free is not enough. As long as you live in your area, you benefit from these rules, and you are expected to pay for these benefits. If you do not wish to have to pay, then remove yourself from society in its entirety. Go out into the Nevada deserts somewhere and live off of cactus juice and lizards. Until such time as you do this, if you are not paying for the benefits which you enjoy, you are stealing. The people around you continue to grant you the benefits in faith that you have paid for them. Police will attempt to save you if you are ever taken hostage. Medics will attempt to save your life if you are ever in a car accident. Your food remains purified, your roads paved - all of it in good faith that you are upholding your end of the bargain. If you are not, then you have not only stolen from society, you have committed fraud against those around you.

tsig · 11th February 2010, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235

What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post.

It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work.

You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said.

I liked this post:

"Given that Freeman on the Land ideology is based on law, it is therefore illogical to demand evidence of the 'legal basis' of the ideology."

Pure Argent · 11th February 2010, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

I liked this post:

"Given that Freeman on the Land ideology is based on law, it is therefore illogical to demand evidence of the 'legal basis' of the ideology."

Actually, under misguided Freeman beliefs, that post actually makes sense. They make a distinction between "lawful" - supported by divine law - and "legal" - created by humans. What they fail to realize is that there actually is no such distinction.

tsig · 11th February 2010, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong. I will not cause harm or loss to anyone. Statute from the bog standard, non law dictionary.com is as follows:

1. LawHow can it be as it contradicts itself below. See HERE.. a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document.
b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed.

2. International Law. an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international HEREagreement Hang on did you use the word agreement, Mr.com? Where is the agreement? If I don't agree then I am not boundas a treaty.
3. a permanent rule Ahhh! There we are, it's just a rule. Thank goodness it's not a law.established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.

The law dictionaries can just as easliy be rubbished! See Blacks and it talks about the link between Statute and Person. Person=corporation. Me=human being, a man, not a corporate entity!

If you want to be carry on!

Are you quoting yourself or are you engaged in some sort of personal dialogue?

tsig · 11th February 2010, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

What you don't comprehend is the word, society!

The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave.

Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore.

Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss.

I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!

And when all the laws are down will you call on your creator to protect you when a stronger one comes?

tsig · 11th February 2010, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here.

Go!

LiD never contracted with you so how can you presume to give him orders? If FOTL's can't live their own doctrine how can you expect anyone else to believe it?

tsig · 11th February 2010, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own.

Have a great day eh!

As soon as there is more than one then we have to have rules.

Pure Argent · 11th February 2010, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong. I will not cause harm or loss to anyone. Statute from the bog standard, non law dictionary.com is as follows:

1. LawHow can it be as it contradicts itself below. See HERE.. a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document.
b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed.

2. International Law. an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international HEREagreement Hang on did you use the word agreement, Mr.com? Where is the agreement? If I don't agree then I am not boundas a treaty.
3. a permanent rule Ahhh! There we are, it's just a rule. Thank goodness it's not a law.established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.

The law dictionaries can just as easliy be rubbished! See Blacks and it talks about the link between Statute and Person. Person=corporation. Me=human being, a man, not a corporate entity!

If you want to be carry on!

Does anyone else notice that he's comparing three different definitions of the word "law" in order to try and disprove it?

fromdownunder · 11th February 2010, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Does anyone else notice that he's comparing three different definitions of the word "law" in order to try and disprove it?

It's more than that. FMOTL redefine the Common Law, every time they need to defend a point, and do not even realise or understand that Common Law was (and actually still is) continually upheld or redefined every time some form of Statute Law does not cover particular circumstances.

They have absolutely no idea what Common Law actually is, or what it means in the context of Judicial history, and simply make stuff up when it suits them.

And then they turn around and start quoting Statute Law when the need to. Sorry for the shouting - AND THEY STILL LOSE EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I think it comes down to one very simple thing, and if Arthur Asky can cite one simple example of where a member of the FMOTL movement has won ONE case in court based on FMOTL principles and the law they "believe in", the topic deserves further examination. (BTW Arthur, is this your real name or your strawman name, and please explain the difference.)

If not, it is all bluster and wind. The ball is in your court Arthur. One example of a FMOTL'er winning a Court Case. Because anything else you say is simply the stuff I use to make my roses grow.

Norm

Arthur Asky · 11th February 2010, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Does anyone else notice that he's comparing three different definitions of the word "law" in order to try and disprove it?

No, no! Just the word law is all! Statute makes no law and only has the force of law by the consensual agreement of those who wish to be governed.

jsfisher · 11th February 2010, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

No, no! Just the word law is all! Statute makes no law and only has the force of law by the consensual agreement of those who wish to be governed.

Where, exactly, was your consent required?

Pure Argent · 11th February 2010, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Arthur Asky

No, no! Just the word law is all!

But the word "law" has multiple definitions.

Quote:

Statute makes no law

Can you explain the difference between "statute" and "law" in Freeman systems?

11th February 2010, 03:47 PM	#1801
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky My apologies though. I'm unsure as to how to use the format option. I had other things to do with my time. If you'd care for a quick tip I'll try on the next one. Please still respond and bring your proof of claim or retract. Thanks for being willing to do it - it'll make your posts much easier to read, as well as easier to quote. As is, we have to go in and copy-paste the parts we want to respond to. The quote software on this site doesn't quote quotes (if you can follow that). Anyway, here's how I do it (in spoilers to avoid cluttering the thread for those who already know: Originally Posted by Person Sentence one Sentence two When you quote this post, it would appear as [quote="Person"]Sentence one Sentence two[/quote] in the post screen. To break it up, insert more [/quote] and [quote] tags, like so. [quote="Person"]Sentence one[/quote] Response [quote]Sentence two[/quote] Response Which would appear as Originally Posted by Person Sentence one Response Quote: Sentence two Response Hope this helps.
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

11th February 2010, 03:47 PM	#1802
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Etlanna, Jawja Posts: 7,555	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement. Pleas come outside it's nice here. Leave your chains at the door though please. Offer of contract! But then he will be compelling me to do something. I do not contract with any of your peace officers. Thus Freeman society has no rules at all.
	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

11th February 2010, 03:58 PM	#1804
Paul Master Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,973	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement. For someone obsessed with common law and the alleged superiority of ancient justice, you don't know much. Quote: penal statute A statute that creates a criminal offence or provides for any penalty (e.g. a forfeiture) enforceable in civil proceedings. It is subject to strict construction "penal statute" The Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement. Michael Kennedy. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press http://www.oxfordreference.com/views...try=t239.e2288 Quote: ...Early constables were responsible for delivering warrants, surveying lands, and even regulating weights and measures... ...The office of sheriff, an ancient law-enforcement position first established in Anglo-Saxon England before the Norman Conquest of 1066... ...Sheriffs in colonial America served process papers, maintained law and order, collected taxes, and maintained jails prior to the Revolution... ...The demand for more and better policing resulted from the massive social and political unrest in the colonies, which led to an increase in crime in the second half of the eighteenth century... Mitchel Roth "Police" The Oxford Companion to American Law. Kermit L. Hall, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t122.e0695>
	__________________ operationclambake badastronomy thebugle Last edited by Paul; 11th February 2010 at 04:01 PM. Reason: layout

11th February 2010, 04:04 PM	#1805
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,328	Originally Posted by Pure_Argent Holy crap, is that Hugh Laurie? If that's what I'm almost sure it is, yes. If you haven't seen that series, you have a treat in store. Then at the very end, you cry. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

11th February 2010, 04:20 PM	#1806
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by Fiona Why don't you look at a dictionary if you honestly don't know the meanings of the word "right", AA? I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong. I will not cause harm or loss to anyone. Statute from the bog standard, non law dictionary.com is as follows: 1. LawHow can it be as it contradicts itself below. See HERE.. a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document. b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed. 2. International Law. an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international HEREagreement Hang on did you use the word agreement, Mr.com? Where is the agreement? If I don't agree then I am not boundas a treaty. 3. a permanent rule Ahhh! There we are, it's just a rule. Thank goodness it's not a law.established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs. The law dictionaries can just as easliy be rubbished! See Blacks and it talks about the link between Statute and Person. Person=corporation. Me=human being, a man, not a corporate entity! If you want to be carry on!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 03:49 PM	#1803
LightinDarkness Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,555	So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235 What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post. It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work. You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said.

11th February 2010, 04:29 PM	#1807
Rogue1stclass Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 842	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky A peace officer. Who is unconcerned with Statute as he or she is all about remedy not financial movement. Pleas come outside it's nice here. Leave your chains at the door though please. Offer of contract! I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like. I get it.
Rogue1stclass Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 842

11th February 2010, 04:32 PM	#1808
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,540	Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world.

11th February 2010, 04:35 PM	#1809
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,540	right Originally Posted by Rogue1stclass I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like. I get it. Like "smoking a big fatty by a peace officer or drinking in the park. (Or not paying bills)

11th February 2010, 04:37 PM	#1810
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by remirol But then he will be compelling me to do something. I do not contract with any of your peace officers. Thus Freeman society has no rules at all. What you don't comprehend is the word, society! The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave. Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore. Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss. I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 04:38 PM	#1811
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by Rogue1stclass I see. So basically, your problem with the current system is that you aren't in charge. Given your way, you'd set up a system functionally identical to the one currently in place, but with a few tweaks here and there. We'd all still be bound to the law, but only the laws you like. I get it. No you don't get it, read my previous post!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 04:39 PM	#1812
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by carlitos Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world. Yes you can ask!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 04:40 PM	#1813
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,843	Originally Posted by carlitos Would it be rude to ask arthur asky's age and occupation? I'm just curious how things are going in the real world. I want to know what he is smoking when he posts. It must be some really strong sh--.

11th February 2010, 04:40 PM	#1814
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave. . And how, exactly, does leaving this "new society" differ from leaving the current one? .
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

11th February 2010, 04:42 PM	#1815
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by LightinDarkness So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235 What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post. It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work. You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said. So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here. Go!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 04:42 PM	#1816
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky What you don't comprehend is the word, society! The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave. Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore. Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss. I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law! So, in short, you are going to attempt to make a new society in which only the laws you like apply.
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

11th February 2010, 04:43 PM	#1817
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,308	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore. Who's telling you you cannot leave?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,308	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

11th February 2010, 04:43 PM	#1818
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by TSR . And how, exactly, does leaving this "new society" differ from leaving the current one? . Because the one your mind exists in is one I don't agree with! I may find another though that I do and like and choose to go there!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 04:43 PM	#1819
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Why did you look up "law" instead of "right"? Are you getting ahead of yourself a bit? The only relevant part of your response is "I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong.". That is indeed one meaning of the word "right". But it is a little vague. If you are talking about your personal conception of morality then it doesn't matter: since that is internal. But as we normally use the word in this sense there is an implication of some level of action or of refraining from action. Since you have already referred to some bad consequences which have arisen from what you object to (genocide and that sort of thing) it seems that your personal morality is just like everybody else's: that is, it is prescriptive. I am aware that is an unpopular view with many who are apt to argue that morals are subjective/relative: but that is for another thread. Suffice to say that wherever you stand on that you have judged some actions by other people to be wrong: and so your judgement is not for yourself alone (though your action may be) But in other posts in this thread (and indeed in this one) you talk about "your rights". What rights would those be? They are clearly not defined by distinguishing them from "wrongs" because "my wrongs" only makes sense in english in the context of a Victoria bodice ripper. What you seem to mean is the kind of right which is enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Such rights are in fact the obverse of duties. You cannot actually have such a right unless other people have a duty to uphold it. It simply does not exist without that. To get around that you have also traded on the ambiguity of "might is right" but I am not going there because you need to tease out what your argument actually is on this front first. Can you now please say what you actually mean?
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Last edited by Fiona; 11th February 2010 at 04:46 PM.

11th February 2010, 04:45 PM	#1820
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky What you don't comprehend is the word, society! The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave. Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore. Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss. I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law! As I pointed out before:you assert you are not free to leave. I disagree. Nobdy is stopping you.
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

11th February 2010, 04:51 PM	#1821
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,540	okay, then Originally Posted by Arthur Asky Yes you can ask! Arthur Asky, what is your age and education level and / or profession? I am only asking out of curiosity; I have held a few jobs where your belief system would have gotten me fired. Thanks much!

11th February 2010, 04:57 PM	#1822
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by Pure_Argent So, in short, you are going to attempt to make a new society in which only the laws you like apply. Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own. Have a great day eh!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 04:59 PM	#1823
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66	Originally Posted by Fiona Why did you look up "law" instead of "right"? Are you getting ahead of yourself a bit? The only relevant part of your response is "I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong.". That is indeed one meaning of the word "right". But it is a little vague. If you are talking about your personal conception of morality then it doesn't matter: since that is internal. But as we normally use the word in this sense there is an implication of some level of action or of refraining from action. Since you have already referred to some bad consequences which have arisen from what you object to (genocide and that sort of thing) it seems that your personal morality is just like everybody else's: that is, it is prescriptive. I am aware that is an unpopular view with many who are apt to argue that morals are subjective/relative: but that is for another thread. Suffice to say that wherever you stand on that you have judged some actions by other people to be wrong: and so your judgement is not for yourself alone (though your action may be) But in other posts in this thread (and indeed in this one) you talk about "your rights". What rights would those be? They are clearly not defined by distinguishing them from "wrongs" because "my wrongs" only makes sense in english in the context of a Victoria bodice ripper. What you seem to mean is the kind of right which is enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Such rights are in fact the obverse of duties. You cannot actually have such a right unless other people have a duty to uphold it. It simply does not exist without that. To get around that you have also traded on the ambiguity of "might is right" but I am not going there because you need to tease out what your argument actually is on this front first. Can you now please say what you actually mean? I think it was quoted for someone else. Be back later!
Arthur Asky Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 66

11th February 2010, 05:07 PM	#1824
LightinDarkness Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,555	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here. Go! Yozhik, what have you said here that has not been debunked by numerous people? JREF members have been doing a fine job debunking you, but I'll join in if I catch something not covered else where. I will begin citing logical fallacies that you use in every post so you can see the difference between real fallacies and you googling the subject and copying and pasting it to try to refute evidence that has debunked you.

11th February 2010, 05:08 PM	#1825
LightinDarkness Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,555	Originally Posted by carlitos Arthur Asky, what is your age and education level and / or profession? I am only asking out of curiosity; I have held a few jobs where your belief system would have gotten me fired. Thanks much! Late teens or early twenties, and either lives with parents or is on public welfare. He spends ALL DAY on here and the David Icke sites, he can't possibly have a job...any job good enough to require use of a computer all day wouldn't let you get away with posting that much.

11th February 2010, 05:12 PM	#1826
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,576	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own. Have a great day eh! Uh, you kind of didn't answer the question, but your delightful parry was entertaining enough; carry on.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison Last edited by twinstead; 11th February 2010 at 05:14 PM.

11th February 2010, 05:30 PM	#1827
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by Sledge Could you start formatting your replies correctly? This "red text in a quote box" thing is really not easy to read. Not only that but it makes replying very difficult.

11th February 2010, 05:37 PM	#1828
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky Because the one your mind exists in is one I don't agree with! I may find another though that I do and like and choose to go there! . And how, precisely, would one leave your "new society?" .
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

11th February 2010, 06:19 PM	#1829
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Arthur Asky, I never got a response to this post. As it contains a lot of rather important points, would you mind giving me your thoughts on it? Originally Posted by Pure_Argent "Might makes right" equals "the death of innocents"... really? Is that what you think? Does might not also equal the strength to defend yourself from the totalitarian aggressor? To free the slaves? To break the chains, to defend those who cannot defend themselves? You have a very simplistic view of might. You may assert that you have not stolen anything, Arthur, and I can't prove that you have, for the simple fact that I don't know how far into the whole Freeman nonsense you have gone. If you are merely contemplating it on forums such as this one, then you have stolen nothing; however, the entire Freeman system is one based upon theft. You dwell in your home, purchased from the government, being watched over by a police force, employed by the government, and brought electricity, heat and water, which are regulated by the government. Your food is purified to standards which the government enforces. You are not run down in the streets because of rules, enforced by the government, on the operation of motor vehicles. Virtually every single positive thing about your society - even things so small that you never noticed them, such as having your trash taken away every week - comes from the government. Unless you are living on your own in a completely self-sustaining home, you benefit from the rules which the government enforces. And Freeman principles declare that you can continue this without having to put something back in. By simply declaring yourself a "sovereign", you believe that you can eliminate everything that you owe to your society and yet continue to benefit. If you have truly become a Freeman and progressed to the point where you are no longer paying taxes or other bills, then you are stealing. Your taxes pay for the maintenance of roads, and you have ceased paying them - yet you continue to benefit from well-maintained roads. Your taxes pay for the salaries of the police force, and you have ceased paying them - yet you expect someone to do something if someone wrongs you. Your taxes pay for the maintenance of medical facilities, and you have ceased paying them - yet if you get into a car accident and are taken to the hospital, you expect treatment. Simply declaring yourself to be debt-free is not enough. As long as you live in your area, you benefit from these rules, and you are expected to pay for these benefits. If you do not wish to have to pay, then remove yourself from society in its entirety. Go out into the Nevada deserts somewhere and live off of cactus juice and lizards. Until such time as you do this, if you are not paying for the benefits which you enjoy, you are stealing. The people around you continue to grant you the benefits in faith that you have paid for them. Police will attempt to save you if you are ever taken hostage. Medics will attempt to save your life if you are ever in a car accident. Your food remains purified, your roads paved - all of it in good faith that you are upholding your end of the bargain. If you are not, then you have not only stolen from society, you have committed fraud against those around you.
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

11th February 2010, 06:20 PM	#1830
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by LightinDarkness So over at the DI forum I wanted to make another attempt at actually engaging Freemen. I made a detailed post outlining why the existence of Freemen would cause major public policy failures. Its all basic political science stuff to most JREFers - things like failure to allocate public goods and creating tragedies of the commons. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103235 What happens? You guessed it. Pages of personal insults, off topic rants, and Rob Menard propagandizing about the evils of society...none of which have absolutely anything to do with the original post. It really just goes to show that no matter how much of an honest attempt you make to discuss things with the brainwashed, it just isn't going to work. You also have Arthur Asky, who is yozhik over there, googling logical fallacies. His new method of attack on the DI forum when hes confronted with evidence he can't refute is pulling up logical fallacies and calling everything you type a fallacy based on what sounds good, even when they have NO actual relationship to what was said. I liked this post: "Given that Freeman on the Land ideology is based on law, it is therefore illogical to demand evidence of the 'legal basis' of the ideology."

11th February 2010, 06:27 PM	#1831
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Originally Posted by tsig I liked this post: "Given that Freeman on the Land ideology is based on law, it is therefore illogical to demand evidence of the 'legal basis' of the ideology." Actually, under misguided Freeman beliefs, that post actually makes sense. They make a distinction between "lawful" - supported by divine law - and "legal" - created by humans. What they fail to realize is that there actually is no such distinction.
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

11th February 2010, 06:28 PM	#1832
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky I don't need the words of Samuel Johnson or whoever to tell me what's right or wrong. I will not cause harm or loss to anyone. Statute from the bog standard, non law dictionary.com is as follows: 1. LawHow can it be as it contradicts itself below. See HERE.. a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document. b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed. 2. International Law. an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international HEREagreement Hang on did you use the word agreement, Mr.com? Where is the agreement? If I don't agree then I am not boundas a treaty. 3. a permanent rule Ahhh! There we are, it's just a rule. Thank goodness it's not a law.established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs. The law dictionaries can just as easliy be rubbished! See Blacks and it talks about the link between Statute and Person. Person=corporation. Me=human being, a man, not a corporate entity! If you want to be carry on! Are you quoting yourself or are you engaged in some sort of personal dialogue?

11th February 2010, 06:33 PM	#1833
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky What you don't comprehend is the word, society! The Statutes in place now are ones which some people agree with and others don't. In a new society like the ones some freemen are trying to create will be common law at the core. Surrounding it will be agreements one of thses is that officers of the peace will keep the peace. If you don't agree then you can leave. Currently you are told you cannot leave and are still subject to authority that you did not consent to or want anymore. Now, if you are subject then you are A subject. I am no-ones subject. Only answerable to my creator or the cosmic accident that made me so long as I do not cause harm or loss. I am not the subject of another human being, as equality is paramount in law! And when all the laws are down will you call on your creator to protect you when a stronger one comes?

11th February 2010, 06:36 PM	#1834
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky So Lightindarkness, over on the Icke site, I care not for. Please refute anything or everything I have said here. Go! LiD never contracted with you so how can you presume to give him orders? If FOTL's can't live their own doctrine how can you expect anyone else to believe it?

11th February 2010, 06:40 PM	#1835
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by Arthur Asky Not me a the moment but I like my own company. You can though if you like, join others. If you don't, their is no compulsion. Or form your own. Have a great day eh! As soon as there is more than one then we have to have rules.