FRACTAL WRONGNESS: You are not just wrong; you are recursively wrong. The wrongness of every possible iteration of any of your arguments is self-similar with the wrongness of your entire worldview.
Thank you for that link. Love it.
And despite not answering any of the difficult questions the OP shows us exactly why you can never convince a FotL that they’re position is untenable.
FotL: I have a (natural/god-given/common-law/sovereign) right to fish in your lake.
Rational Person: Why do you have the right to take from society yet do not have to contribute to society through (paying taxes/obeying the law/registering for selective service)?
FotL: Because (God/common-law/nature/I am not a corporation/I did not sign a contract/the flag has gold fringe).
Rational Person: So why should society or the government protect you. Why can’t I fish in your lake and incidently rob you, rape your wife, shoot your dog and burn your house down?
FotL: <ignores question>
So the Freeman or Sovereign Citizen movement is that they feel they get to take from society as they see fit and contribute (or more likely not contribute) as they see fit based on some nebulous rationale. Notice the OP started with talking about sovereign right but notice that you never hear a FotL or SC actually explicitly tell what their sovereign/natural/common-law rights are. I don’t think they know their “rights” or they realize that if their laws applied to everyone we would have anarchy.
So the OP really needs to answer these questions to have an intelligent discussion.
- Specifically, what are your (and assumably everyone’s) natural/common/sovereign rights.
- What is the role of the government or assuming that government has no role then are you willing to accept anarchy as the result.
- How do you deal with the situation if two “rights” conflict e.g. I have the right to protect my property but you have the right to fish in my lake.
If you did not own the area of land in which you were fishing you were stealing the fish from the rightful owner and trespassing on the land, whether “freeman” or no. Wow, what a paragon of virtue you are…
You’re not going to get coherent, rational and internally consistent answers to those questions.
SC’s are really doing nothing more than trying to troll reality.
Really? Aren’t YOU the one taking fish that don’t belong to you?
Which does make his claim that he is God seem more plausible.
“What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too.” That’s pretty much the worldview we’re talking about here.
Well, poaching is a different crime from theft. (I think that’s because the “ownership” of wild animals is legally iffy; the animals on my land are mine, but if they wander over to your land they’re yours, and if they wander back to mine, etc. The law is different for domesticated animals.)
I’m afraid this has become painfully clear. It’s still worth asking the questions, though, if only to even more clearly highlight the foolishness of the OP’s worldview.
Only to everyone except the incoherent babbler, who thinks you just don’t know his Secrets Of The Universe and is laughing hysterically at how he thinks he’s baffling and playing you.
He is not the Student.
He is the Lesson.
Wow, I am glad I am letting the conversing continue on at it’s own natural (damn, there’s that word again) speed. I would have been exhausted responding to the opinions I am reading.
let me see if I’m able to even address all of what I’m seeing.
-
First the fish,Poaching you say?,on the king’s pond you say?Poaching, Why Mr Sherriff of Nottingham the lord gave us those fish. How can A king own a fish?
oh cause he says so. ok, I get it do you? Do you mean the man that 10 other guys said is the boss, not me mind you, them. Really?,he just laid claim to the creature that hawk just ate. uh ok… and says I can’t have it without his permission… yea ok -
that fish again, Ok, Ok, hundred of thousands of years of Darwinism, there is no god BS, season after season of migration, 10 thousand years of being fished by man,and a whole cast of natural predators, That fish? and that little fish owes it’s existence to the uniformed state employee that protects it from 2 hungry creatures( me and the other fisherman I guess?)Hell, the bear up the river ate more than me.
one poster said if I read correctly my opinion was murders go free if they dont claim jurisdiction. No, you did not read correctly then The common law has jurisdiction over subject matter.
You wanted proof and I gave you two first hand accounts and you didn’t see the
The hiker with less than 7 dollars was me. But I did have a state ID. I admitted jurisdiction. I was cuffed and in my book, illegally detained. No crime, no suspicion
of crime. I was just a traveler exercising my right to travel under the inalienable right to travel. But didn’t supply the proper papers.
The fish and game guy was smart as well. he recognized my sovereignty, to be where i was, as a free human being. No Id was presented, asked for, but not presented, I did not identify with the state.
It was as natural a setting as to be imagined.
Two travelers, meeting at the watering hole, both wearing sidearms,talking about the weather and what was gonna hit the fishing line.
Respect and yes Honour on both sides. The way a "natural’ meeting should be. no fear no intimidation from either side.
My right to eat, his responsibility to throw pebbles and cause ripples.
(neither were illegal)
As far as the creator
All I have seen teaches me to trust the creator for all I have not seen.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
When I admire the wonders of a sunset or the beauty of the moon, my soul expands in the worship of the creator.
Mahatma Gandhi
Hey, the short answer could just be, maybe its just in my star charts to see things different. Hell maybe it is in my blood (o-neg ya know) to have certain vibrations of gamma energy effect my dna at a cellular level and makes my GOD cosmic particle act different than some of other folks. Heck maybe that sun gazing I do, helped revealed too much of the matrix . Layer upon layer of deceits
i kinda get the pearls before swine feeling. Not everyone will see, not everyone will hear. well i guess that a good thing, less crowding on the bus.
I gotta go back to the list and get some more . Some posters have the worst case of Stockholm syndrome i have ever seen. Wow some folks.
Not to scare you, but when was the last time you got your PSA levels checked?
What a load of crap.
Where are the direct answers to the questions I asked pertaining to the type of evidence that you would find acceptable-the answers you promised us?
answers
1)Ill take these for 100 alex A
- il take most important role here.
THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT
It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those right? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them. Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:
“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible t discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” (P.P.N.S., p. 134)
The great Thomas Jefferson asked:
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)
Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6)
30 ah heck and for three I’ll go here:
NATURAL RIGHTS
In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
“Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?” (The Law, p.6)
Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three – defending themselves, their property and their liberty – in what properly was called the “Lawless West.” In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attach and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves – nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:
“If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -–its reason for existing, its lawfulness – is based on individual right.” (The Law, p. 6)
So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer “A” has no just claim to it.
If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
from here
Are you the victim . Are they your fish?
They are mine, God said i have dominion over the fish.
that statement is in the Bible.
the Bible is in the court the court takes testimony swearing an oath on the bible.
the Queen of England in her oath said The Book (the bible ) was her most treasured item in her whole domain . must be some authority there.
Public Service Announcement~~ broadcasting service working great friend~
TEST! TEST!
The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.******
**
Niels Bohr
wow thanks for the inquiry.
So answer my three questions
Hit “post” too early.
You ignored question #1 with link to the dictionary. What SPECIFICALLY are the rights you are claiming. How is the right to fish on public land “non-transferable”? Do you have the right to use public streets? How about the right to use government services. If I claim th right to burn your house down and that I cannot transfer that right to anyone else, is that OK?
You see, the problem is that while I understand the theory that your natural rights are those that are inalienable and not given to you by another, I still hav no clue what exactly you have the right to do? Freedom of speech and religion is given to you via the Constitution so those are not natural rights? What about the right to own property? Or do you feel no one can own property? Let me put it this way. You can rewrite the Bill of Rights to explicitly spell out what the natural rights are. What would that document look like?
According to your diatribe, the natural rights are defense of your person, your property and your liberty. So let’s say we go with those as the natural laws. Did the fish you take belong to someone else? Didn’t you violate their natural right? Wasn’t the gamekeeper performing the role of government you claim they should take in protecting this other persons’ property FROM YOU? Maybe God gave HUMAN dominion over fish and beasts but he certainly did not give YOU personally dominion over all fish and beast and so you took that fish that belonged to someone else which according to your horse analogy was wrong.
You attacked Broomstick’s position because they were not his fish but the fact remains that they were somebody’s fish and so you deliberately violated their natural rights. And that is why no one takes your FotL argument seriously because while you stand on your natural rights, you refuse to see that you’re trampling on other people’s rights.