Talk:Freeman on the land

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon pseudolaw.svg

This Pseudolaw related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Goldenbrain.png
Editorial notes
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Contents

[edit] The problem is...

... 'we the general population' tend to think that having 'a general system of law accepted by all' (and 'be thou never so high the law is above thee') is A Good Thing - even if they disagree with particular bits of it (and possibly 'do not think much of the legislators') - and that the system the Freemen want or propose would be 'a tad chaotic.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] All IMG links are red linked

Reading through RW cover articles and noticed that all of the "img" links on the page are red. Looks like CarpetBot deleted all of the linked screenshot images on 11/4. -Said by 104.14.40.27

Sign your posts, BoN. Either click the pen icon at the top of the edit bar, or use four tildes like this: ~~~~ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Added a note to User talk:Carpetsmoker about his overenthusiastic botwork - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Can this quote be added?

As a "freeman on the land" I am a sovereign state, but I take umbrage with the diminishing term 'micro'-nation. This ain't your house anymore, it's my embassy; I don't have to pay rent and I changed the locks. I've annexed what's in your fridge. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If he's linking here I really doubt he is one - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Sources from reddit post

https://www.reddit.com/r/amibeingdetained/comments/4nl0a1/trackreddit/d4502zf/ FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Legal name fraud

Does this belong in this article? 94.1.147.255 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I think they do! Those are Freeman billboard ads afaik... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's probably Freeman, it's very Freeman ideas. But nobody can clearly identify them as being such. (This was also being discussed for the Wikipedia article.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
But let's say the signs powerfully point to it, what with them being SHORT TO THE POINT "DID YOU KNOW?" LEGAL INFO TIDSBITS IN ALLCAPS and so on. It's got pseudolaw written all over it... But confirmation is lacking I suppose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Definite pseudolaw, but the precise species is another matter - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
When I saw one I wondered if it was a warning against copyright infringement/fakery or a 'marketing of advertising space' campaign ('If you can see this, so can your clients'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This website has that billboard towards the top of the page, and proceeds to go into Freeman style pseudolaw. Admittedly, it could be that the website adopted the sign after they saw it. A Gloomy Axe (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(reset) The last link is non-working.

Reversing the logic as many people in the wikiverse are using pen-names are #they# operating legally? (Ditto Eleanor Hibbert and Lenin 'with 150 known pen-names') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Another Reddit comment

Pretty funny, though.

The call came in from another department. Customer wanted to pay his bill. All very routine, until I went to call up the account.

The other agent gave me the number and I ask for the name.

Transferer: Well, he told me his name was (forename), and then when I asked for the surname he got a bit weird.

Me: Huh. Here he is, (forename) (surname). Have you verified him?

Transferer: I'm not sure, he gave me his password which matches the two characters I can see (at this point I check and it also matches the characters visible to me), but I think you need a first name and a last name to properly verify.

Me: Eh, it's enough to verify him. Yeah, pass him through.

Conspiracy theorist (CT) comes on the line.

Me: Hello, is this (forename) (surname)?

CT: Yeah, that other guy was talking to me about some kind of law that says he has to verify me! What the hell law is he on about?

Me: That would be the Data Protection Act.

CT: And what law are you citing?

Me: The Data Protection Act.

CT: Yeah, that's not a real law.

Me: Uh, yes it is.

CT: No it isn't! It's an Act of Parliament, and Acts and Statutes are not laws! The only true, valid law is common law. Acts and Statutes are only valid if both parties agree to comply.

Me: That's... not how it works.

CT: Yes it is! You ought to do some fucking homework, lad, then you'll see that Acts and Statutes are not the same as laws. I've got a police handbook here, and it says absolutely nothing about data protection!

Me: (OK, let's not argue with a real-life YouTube comment any more) Right... anyway, Mr (surname), you want to pay your bill, is that right.

CT: Yes.

Me: Your current outstanding balance is (amount), do you want to pay all that today?

CT: Yes.

Me: (pulling up the payment system) Will you be paying by your own card?

CT: (in the exact tone of voice he's been using up to now) No, I'll be using someone else's.

Me: Is the cardholder present.

CT: I'm using my own card, mate, obviously. Why would I use someone else's?

(Note: People regularly make payments using other people's cards.)

Me: (So as well as law, this guy also doesn't understand how sarcasm works) OK, debit or credit card.

(I took the payment here, all very normal and reasonable)

Me: Right, that's all done and your balance is now at £0. I see...

CT: Thanks. Now when you get home, do a bit of homework and you'll see that Acts and Statutes aren't laws.

Me: They really are.

CT: No they're not! They're acts passed by paedophiles in Parliament which have no legal standing!

Me: (jaw drops) ...

CT: All those paedophiles get together and try to con us into accepting fake rules. Take my advice, do your homework and don't believe those paedophiles. Goodbye. (hangs up).

Imagine what daily life is like for these people. Do they obey traffic law, or is that another pedophilic anti-law? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools