Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

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. 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 Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Legal name fraud[edit]

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)

Another Reddit comment[edit]

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? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Most likely freemen on the land don't obey it. But they wouldn't dream of driving without due care and attention, or in a dangerous or careless way, right? Kiko4564 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Nasa non-story[edit]

Should [1] be passed on to the freemen? ('Wide eyed innocence') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A destination ?[edit]

Would [2] be a suitable place for them to go to? Anna Livia (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No because the land borders both Egypt and Sudan. Therefore no one can create an independent Kingdom (or any other type of country) of Bir Tawil without the consent of both countries. On top of that, Egypt de facto administers the territory anyway so anyone claiming it doesn't control it. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Freemen and outlawry[edit]

How do the two concepts inter-relate - the one being self-applied and the other a state-applied sanction? — Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]

Surely the 'principles of Freemandom' work both ways - they do not wish to pay taxes, so they cannot make use of the public roads, the law courts if someone decides to do 'things that are against the law' against them (this #is# a concept-for-discussion, not a suggestion for action) etc? Anna Livia (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to say that things should work that way, but only up to a point. For example, if they choose not to pay their road tax, then letting them drive (or ride their bicycle or motorcycle or any other vehicle save for a vehicle approved for use on a footpath) should be a no-no. But they should still be allowed to use the footpath. As for the law courts, they should be restricted to filing cases under common law only, that means no trying to sue anyone for breaching a statute e.g. harassing them contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and no reporting any criminal offences (except those under common law) to the Police e.g. committing a common assault against them contrary to the Criminal Justice Act, or reporting anti-social behaviour contrary to the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing and Crime Act 2014. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
'Road tax' will only apply to those vehicles to which are so covered - and bikes on footpaths are an illegal nuisance (UK legislation - which may or may not include the Channel Islands (with a nod at the situation on Sark) and Isle of Man).
What is the status of 'outlawry as a legal concept' in the US ([3] may apply) and attainder (both were abolished in the UK in the 19th century). Anna Livia (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
True but if they refuse to consent to the law, why should they have the rights afforded by it? I'd be tempted to say bringing it back, but only in part would be sensible. Kiko4564 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If freemen don't want to pay taxes, pay mortgages or pay bills; freemen have the choice of leaving their home country and never return[edit]

If you do not want to pay any bills yet use public services, you can just leave. Not so much "love it or leave it" speech but rather "Mooch, get out of my house". --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. If one doesn't want to pay taxes, then they should (in my opinion) be deprived of the ability to use public services, if they won't pay their mortgage then (in my opinion) they should be taken to court and made to pay by them (even if under protest and duress), but repossession should be abolished, or at least require that the defaultor be given a reasonable chance to pay their debt, as it can lead to people being needlessly thrown out of their home when most freemen will pay if given the chance (even if under protest and duress), and if they won't pay their bills, then they should (in my opinion) have their utilities switched off. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Gnosticism[edit]

Am I suffering from a pareidolia, or this has a strong whiff of Gnostic shit? The whole "Sheeple are bound by some stupid laws made by a Big Bad Someone, but this is a scam! Perform a correct ritual (the one I can teach you for a (small) token of gratitude), and you're free and can do as you please, while these morons will envy you". Only this is applied to legal laws and government instead of natural laws and gods. And result is exactly the same. — Unsigned, by: 5.128.33.17 / talk / contribs

This is known to be bullshit. I doubt that even the likes of David Robinson (who claims that "Lawful Rebellion" works in any court of law) could say that his antics would actually work in any court of law. Kiko4564 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)