Talk:Freeman on the land

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)



Tonguetwister question[edit]

Freeman on the land wish to exist outwith the law: but can they actually live without the law? Anna Livia (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Livia That's a good question, but I disagree with it. I'm afraid that you used the wrong words, the correct term for someone who "wish to exist outwith the law" is an Anarchist, not a FMOTL. Thanks. Is that what you meant? Harry Potter (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
But there is also 'outlawry' (which status has been legally abolished in the mid-19th in the UK along with attainder/corruption of the blood: I don't know the status in the US, or in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands). Anna Livia (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Freeman in fact suggestion[edit]

Take an abandoned town 'somewhere in America' and offer it (with sufficient surrounding land) to the freemens and adapt 'free port legislation' to designate the town outside the local legal system - and they have to pay tolls for using the roads, water/sewage and other resources from elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Another disproof of the argument[edit]

Those who spawn spam/phishing 'emails, phonecalls etc' activities and place 'dubious adverts' ('Earn a second income', 'One simple trick...', 'This is a message from Microsoft/HMRC/PayPal etc', 'You too can become a published author' etc) have not moved in on the field as even they think it is too dubious to monetarise. Anna Livia (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Of course they do! Scammers like to use methods which actually work and bring in money. This is widely debunked as bullshit, so why bother? That said you are right to a degree, but I'd argue that this isn't an actual disproof of the argument, only proof that this is widely debunked as bullshit. Harry Potter (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
As the saying goes - follow the money, those who take taxes, and the makers of quick bucks (as provided by punters of little sense). Anna Livia (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Magna Carta[edit]

Would this be appropriate here? Anna Livia (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Livia I'd say yes. Go ahead, be bold, and add it. Harry Potter (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating[edit]

Are there more recent figures than 'as of 2015' and 'as of 2013' - and the David Icke link no longer works - I have better rabbit-holes to explore. Anna Livia (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Admiralty Court[edit]

Are the Footlers 'all at sea' as to what the AC actually does? Anna Livia (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)