Talk:Redemption movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


If we're going to have a web of articles on freeman on the land stuff, shouldn't we have a category for them? Maybe make it broad enough to include the sovereign citizen movement? I mean, they're both predicated on immunity to the law in one form or another.

I'm asking here because I'm not sure what to name such a category. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I have no idea what to call it either. There must be a good name for this rubbish - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually the concepts of Redemption movement, Sovereign citizen, Strawman theory and Tax protester seem to have a lot in common. Perhaps when we have named it we need an umbrella article which defines their similarities and differences (if any).--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 11:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
What do they have in common? "Law denial", "law rejection", "Rejection of government" - nothing snappy occurs to me. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 11:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Secessionists? ТyComplaints 15:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Well it's snappy, and quite descriptive in a way. But I rather think that when people read "secession" they would think of organized groups who want to leave one government or union and form their own societies. But these people really act as individuals - or at least so I understand. So "personal secessionists" - but then it's not snappy again.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 16:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I like "Law denial" as a subcat of "Denialism" underlies the mindset that conflicts with reality. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"Above the law"? "I am the law"? Тyrannosaurs 16:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
We'd definitely have to differentiate that from the general description of Pseudolaw, if there is one. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Mmmm. Actually, our existing Pseudolaw article does seem to cover most most of the bases.(though it's a bit US-centric.)--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone comes up with a neologism that's obviously the perfect thing, I would strongly suggest we not make one up. It's not like there's a burning need - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I note, btw, that Wikipedia hasn't put all this sort of thing into any reasonable sort of category either as yet - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


How is inflation factored into this argument?

What is the 'value' of all the services one gets from 'the government'/'the administration' (Roads, education, 'water and sewerage', Health and safety and other legislation, libraries...) and how much would one have to pay to get such services on one's own account? (This can be adapted to whatever country/state one is living in) (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

note from a noob[edit]

A 2013 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Blocker v. U.S. Bank, NA, deals with the attempted use of the "International Promissory Note" to pay one's mortgage debt. The opinion mentions the "Redemptionist" movement. I don't have a Westlaw or N.E. Reporter reference, but it can be seen at: [ — Unsigned, by: Theprince / talk / contribs


'The conspiracy holds that, it was not replaced with fiat currency' - at least one word has been lost. (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

An omission[edit]

Richard Nixon decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. (Would this be a suitable rejoinder?) Anna Livia (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)