toward being a free man on the land

[Saint_Cad]

@marcmcroy

I am really feeling drawn toward the free man on the land movement, the more i read and know about my sovereign rights the more natural it feels. How can I be accountable to state statutes that i don’t want to be party to. The new health care and abortion options are a good example I don’t want to be contracted with that kind of legislation and I want out. What say you?

Let’s start over. By being an American citizen and resident in your state, you agree to follow the laws enacted by your representatives. In effect, you trade some of your liberty for the benefits you receive.

Your fatal flaw is that you get to pick and choose what you want to follow. It doesn’t work that way. It is all or none. If you disagree then you have options. Your first option which the rest of us do is to bitch and moan about the laws we hate but follow them anyways because we have all agreed to a social contract. The second thing you could do is renounce your citizenship and go to an area of lawlessness where the ultimate natural laws apply.

So lets start with a basic question for you. Why do you believe that as a member of this society, you as an individual get to pick what rules to follow if we assume the rules are there for the common good?

[Latro]

@Saint_Cad

The second thing you could do is renounce your citizenship and go to an area of lawlessness where the ultimate natural laws apply.

But beware that those natural laws care just about shit for ‘inalianable rights’ or any ‘God given’ supremacy.

Anyway,Is there still such a place on this earth?
Somewhere that isn’t part of some nation

[Der_Trihs]

@Latro

Anyway,Is there still such a place on this earth?
Somewhere that isn’t part of some nation

Not much.

[elbows]

How is it not entirely self evident that without big government oversight and regulation that river would be filthy with industrial pollution or overfished to destruction without fisheries management. The result of free range capitalists being unregulated.

There is a lot of land freely available for freemen to go off and live removed from all that is evil and contrary to their beliefs. Try Alaska, or the Yukon. They are both full of such types.

Not blathering talkers about their ideals, impotently raging against the machine, but quietly pursuing the life you claim to wish for. You don’t even have to own the land just head into the bush and take up a quiet life, no one will give a shit.

Exercise your damn freedom and go pursue the lifestyle that will make you happy, be an island unto yourself. You live in the greatest country on earth where such is easily available to you. What’s stopping you?

Quit yer bitching and get on with getting to the lifestyle you want.

Or is this really all about you wanting to tell the rest of us how to live? Because nothing is going to change that yours is a minority position within a democracy. Sorry about your luck.

[Latro]

@Saint_Cad

Let’s start over. By being an American citizen and resident in your state, **you agree to follow the laws **enacted by your representatives. In effect, you trade some of your liberty for the benefits you receive.

Your fatal flaw is that you get to pick and choose what you want to follow. It doesn’t work that way. It is all or none. If you disagree then you have options. Your first option which the rest of us do is to bitch and moan about the laws we hate but follow them anyways because we have all agreed to a social contract.

Bolding mine.

Where Marc is right is that we have not actively agreed to our laws. Did you sign a contract, were you given a choice?
Not me, I was born somewhere and I am automatically a subject of the state my birthplace happened to be in.

So, the contract is indeed, in essence, a one-sided agreement.
Where Marc is wrong is that he thinks he can get out of it.
You can’t. Plus, as has been pointed out, the lawless, harsh alternative is not something to wish for.
Spouting magical phrases against reality will certainly not work.

The best you can do is live a reclusive life, away from society. But, though you are not as much in contact with it, you will still be a part of society and still besubject to its laws.

[Broomstick]

@marcmcroy

Are you the victim . Are they your fish?

Maybe. My family does own land in Tennessee. Are you completely certain no one else had claim to that land? Because you just might have been trespassing and taking from the territory of my family.

They are mine, God said i have dominion over the fish.
that statement is in the Bible.

I don’t believe in your book of myths, it is as meaningful to me as you find “statutes”.

the Bible is in the court the court takes testimony swearing an oath on the bible.

You are not, actually, required to swear on the Bible in court in the US. See this.

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.

My people have never been English and have never had that monarch as sovereign, so what do I care what her favorite book is?

Of course, part of your problem seems to be an inability to see things from the other guy’s point of view.

[Monty]

@marcmcroy

the Bible is in the court the court takes testimony swearing an oath on the bible.

Each and every time I was called as a witness in a trial, I was never sworn on a Bible. Kind of negates your assertion, doesn’t it?

[Broomstick]

@marcmcroy

1. 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?

Don’t try to be cute. You stole fish in Tenneesee, where there has never been a king.

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.

The bear, however, is incapable of setting up a fish-extraction operation that can take every single fish in the river/pond/whatever. The hawk is incapable of building a concrete damn that will end all migration up and down the river.

The collective of the citizens of the US, in order to protect wild resources from depletion, hired the ranger to keep other people from depleting the resources of that area. As you have noted, people have a right to band together and hire someone to protect their stuff, which is what was done and the ranger was that person hired. So you stole from the rest of the people who decided to protect the fish from depletion in that area. You didn’t own the land, so you have no “right” to fish there. Others who did own the land wanted to regulate how much fish could be taken to make sure not all the fish would be taken, so there would be fish for another day.

Bottom line, they weren’t your fish to take.

I suppose if you were wandering through my backyard you’d feel free to help yourself to the vegetables in my garden as well? You’re a taker. You take and contribute nothing.

The fish and game guy was smart as well. he recognized my sovereignty, to be where i was, as a free human being.

No, he recognized you as a loon and decided you weren’t the bother.

[Gyrate]

@Broomstick

You stole fish in Tenneesee, where there has never been a king.

Blasphemy!

[DrFidelius]

Have fun, kids. The combination of ignorance, arrogance, entitlement and illiteracy being displayed by our friend here has convinced me that my time is better off pursuing other conversations.

I can say, though, that his attitude has given me the desire to demonstrate the oppressive violence inherent in the system by forcibly joindering my knee with his crotch.

[Fear_Itself]

@marcmcroy

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.

The purpose of government is to defend me from you. It’s my natural right.

[RickJay]

[If marcmcroy wants to be a true “Free man on the land” the truth is there are places he can go be by himself and be a bother to no one. The northern part of Ontario, for instance, includes thousands of square miles of essentially uninhabited land and lakes with no names or names beyond memory from which you could pull fish almost effortlessly, fish in some copious amounts that a single person could probably not change the fish population at all. Set up some shelter and you’re good to go. It’d take a lot of effort to get there but it’s doable, and while the area is technically, of course, under Canadian and Ontarian jurisdiction, in the right spot you could live your whole life there and never be pestered by a single person.

[glee]

I think the ideal country for ‘free men on the land’ would be one without a Government.

So that means they should all travel to Somalia - their own paradise. :smack:

[Bryan_Ekers]

@RickJay

[If marcmcroy wants to be a true “Free man on the land” the truth is there are places he can go be by himself and be a bother to no one. The northern part of Ontario, for instance, includes thousands of square miles of essentially uninhabited land and lakes with no names or names beyond memory from which you could pull fish almost effortlessly, fish in some copious amounts that a single person could probably not change the fish population at all. Set up some shelter and you’re good to go. It’d take a lot of effort to get there but it’s doable, and while the area is technically, of course, under Canadian and Ontarian jurisdiction, in the right spot you could live your whole life there and never be pestered by a single person.

That takes effort, though. It’s easier, from his perspective, if the world changes so he doesn’t have to.

[Kobal2]

@RickJay

[If marcmcroy wants to be a true “Free man on the land” the truth is there are places he can go be by himself and be a bother to no one. The northern part of Ontario, for instance, includes thousands of square miles of essentially uninhabited land and lakes with no names or names beyond memory from which you could pull fish almost effortlessly, fish in some copious amounts that a single person could probably not change the fish population at all. Set up some shelter and you’re good to go.

But don’t forget yer booties because it’s *fricking *cold out there.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Yeah, it’s like Walden Glacier out there.

[CurtC]

@Monty

Each and every time I was called as a witness in a trial, I was never sworn on a Bible. Kind of negates your assertion, doesn’t it?

I’ve never been a witness in court, but I’ve served on three criminal juries and I’ve never seen a Bible in a courthouse.

[BrainGlutton]

@marcmcroy

1. 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?

So, you’re a Christian primitive-communist?

[mlees]

In a nutshell, this is how I understand our “Justice system”:

The source of “legal power” for our Federal system of government [within the lands known as the United States] is the United States Constitution. It was voted on by representitives of the inhabitants of the European colonies that managed to win political and independence [through force of arms]. This Consitution, while taking “inspiration” from previous forms of societal structuring (Birtish “common law”, The Magna Carta, the Bible/Ten Commandments, some Roman Republic/Empire and Ancient Greek influences, and probably a bunch of other stuff as well), does not depend on those other forms for justification or legal empowerment. It is the legal baseline from which all other Federal powers spring.

The States (the former colonies), I guess, predate the Federal system, but they agreed to adopt certain standards in order to join the Union. A representitive government, a State Constitution, a court system with juries and an assumption of “innocent until proven otherwise”, and so on. But anywho, in general, each State similarly assumes the powers of a Criminal Justice system and taxation based on it’s own Constitution, and no other justification is used or recognised for that ability or right to conduct these governmental activities.

Most of the stuff marcmcroy mentions as crimes (trespass, poaching, petty theft) will actually fall under that particular States laws. Not Federal laws (So even allegations of “sham Admiralty/commercial Courts” doesn’t make sense.).

@marcmcroy

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.

It would be nice if we didn’t need more than each others’ sense of honor or fairness to coexist. You wouldn’t even need the guns, in that case. Unfortunately, there’s always somebody who thinks he gets to do whatever he feels like, based on whatever justification is conveniently benificial to him at that moment. (Hence the guns?) Ironically, it’s kinda like the Freeman of the Land stuff you have been espousing here: “I don’t ascribe to your value system. Mine’s more correct.”

[Great_Antibob]

@Latro

Where Marc is right is that we have not actively agreed to our laws. Did you sign a contract, were you given a choice?

It’s been addressed somewhat (hard to find amid the hundreds of posts, though).

The concept is that for an adult who has reached the age of majority, there has been sufficient education, whether formal or not, to understand the social contract.

By not renouncing it upon reaching the age of majority (or at least soon after) and by continuing to benefit from the benefits of our social contract, one implicitly accepts it, thus accepting to be bound by it.

As also stated, one can at least attempt to find an isolated portion of the world and live as much on one’s one as possible, neither contributing to nor taking from the rest of human society, thus choosing not to be bound by our social contract. This is especially true of marcmcroy who is (apparently) of sufficiently sound mind to make such a choice.

But that’s not what he actually wants. He wants to accept the benefits of human society while only contributing what he will, thus violating our social contract. And, based on his posts, he understands that social contract and wishes to benefit personally from it while violating it at will (otherwise, no attempt at rules-lawyering to get out of fulfilling his end of the bargain). He doesn’t want to live on his own, unbound by human society. He wants to live in his own comfortable house, surrounded by people who accept our social contract, protected by police, driving on decent roads, buying food produced, packaged, and sold by publicly educated people, protected by our military from foreign incursion, provided electricity and other utilities built up on public infrastructure projects but take or dismiss the rules that go along with all that.

Perhaps that’s not as comforting as a signature on a piece of paper, but there you go. I might excuse it of a young kid who might not know better. But marcmcroy wishes to present himself as somebody considerably erudite, for whom no such excuse exists.