toward being a free man on the land

[BrainGlutton]

@Bryan_Ekers

Yeah, it’s like Walden Glacier out there.

That’s what all this FOTL comes down to, I think – pining for the America that Henry David Thoreau grew up in, where retreating to Walden was at least a possibility.

From “Mark Twain: The Licensed Jester,” by George Orwell (1943):

Although Mark Twain produced a surprising variety of books, ranging from a namby-pamby ‘life’ of Joan of Arc to a pamphlet so obscene that it has never been publicly printed, all that is best in his work centres about the Mississippi river and the wild mining towns of the West. Born in 1835 (he came of a Southern family, a family just rich enough to own one or perhaps two slaves), he had had his youth and early manhood in the golden age of America, the period when the great plains were opened up, when wealth and opportunity seemed limitless, and human beings felt free, indeed were free, as they had never been before and may not be again for centuries. LIFE ON THE MISSISSIPPI and the two other books that I have mentioned are a ragbag of anecdotes, scenic descriptions and social history both serious and burlesque, but they have a central theme which could perhaps be put into these words: ‘This is how human beings behave when they are not frightened of the sack.’ In writing these books Mark Twain is not consciously writing a hymn to liberty. Primarily he is interested in ‘character’, in the fantastic, almost lunatic variations which human nature is capable of when economic pressure and tradition are both removed from it. The raftsmen, Mississippi pilots, miners and bandits whom he describes are probably not much exaggerated, but they are as different from modern men, and from one another, as the gargoyles of a medieval cathedral. They could develop their strange and sometimes sinister individuality because of the lack of any outside pressure. The State hardly existed, the churches were weak and spoke with many voices, and land was to be had for the taking. If you disliked your job you simply hit the boss in the eye and moved further west; and moreover, money was so plentiful that the smallest coin in circulation was worth a shilling. The American pioneers were not supermen, and they were not especially courageous. Whole towns of hardy gold miners let themselves be terrorized by bandits whom they lacked the public spirit to put down. They were not even free from class distinctions. The desperado who stalked through the streets of the mining settlement, with a Derringer pistol in his waistcoat pocket and twenty corpses to his credit, was dressed in a frock coat and shiny top-hat, described himself firmly as a ‘gentleman’ and was meticulous about table manners. But at least it was NOT the case that a man’s destiny was settled from his birth. The ‘log cabin to White House’ myth was true while the free land lasted. In a way, it was for this that the Paris mob had stormed the Bastille, and when one reads Mark Twain, Bret Harte and Whitman it is hard to feel that their effort was wasted.

For comparison, see this from “Riding Down from Bangor” (1946):

The book [Helen’s Babies] is very short and the story is a simple one. A young bachelor is prevailed on by his sister to look after her house and her two sons, aged five and three, while she and her husband go on a fortnight’s holiday. The children drive him almost mad by an endless succession of such acts as falling into ponds, swallowing poison, throwing keys down wells, cutting themselves with razors, and the like, but also facilitate his engagement to “a charming girl, whom, for about a year, I had been adoring from afar”. These events take place in an outer suburb of New York, in a society which now seems astonishingly sedate, formal, domesticated and, according to current conceptions, un-American. Every action is governed by etiquette. To pass a carriage full of ladies when your hat is crooked is an ordeal; to recognise an acquaintance in church is ill-bred; to become engaged after a ten days’ courtship is a severe social lapse. We are accustomed to thinking of American society as more crude, adventurous and, in a cultural sense, democratic than our own, and from writers like Mark Twain, Whitman and Bret Harte, not to mention the cowboy and Red Indian stories of the weekly papers, one draws a picture of a wild anarchic world peopled by eccentrics and desperadoes who have no traditions and no attachment to one place. That aspect of nineteenth-century America did of course exist, but in the more populous eastern States a society similar to Jane Austen’s seems to have survived longer than it did in England. And it is hard not to feel that it was a better kind of society than that which arose from the sudden industrialisation of the later part of the century. The people in HELEN’S BABIES or LITTLE WOMEN may be mildly ridiculous, but they are uncorrupted. They have something that is perhaps best described as integrity, or good morale, founded partly on an unthinking piety. It is a matter of course that everyone attends church on Sunday morning and says grace before meals and prayers at bedtime: to amuse the children one tells them Bible stories, and if they ask for a song it is probably “Glory, glory Hallelujah”. Perhaps it is also a sign of spiritual health in the light literature of this period that death is mentioned freely. “Baby Phil”, the brother of Budge and Toddie, has died shortly before HELEN’S BABIES opens, and there are various tear-jerking references to his “tiny coffin”. A modern writer attempting a story of this kind would have kept coffins out of it.

<snip>

Nineteenth-century America was a rich, empty country which lay outside the main stream of world events, and in which the twin nightmares that beset nearly every modern man, the nightmare of unemployment and the nightmare of State interference, had hardly come into being. There were social distinctions, more marked than those of today, and there was poverty (in LITTLE WOMEN, it will be remembered, the family is at one time so hard up that one of the girls sells her hair to the barber), but there was not, as there is now, an all-prevailing sense of helplessness. There was room for everybody, and if you worked hard you could be certain of a living–could even be certain of growing rich: this was generally believed, and for the greater part of the population it was even broadly true. In other words, the civilisation of nineteenth-century America was capitalist civilisation at its best. Soon after the civil war the inevitable deterioration started. But for some decades, at least, life in America was much better fun than life in Europe–there was more happening, more colour, more variety, more opportunity–and the books and songs of that period had a sort of bloom, a childlike quality. Hence, I think, the popularity of HELEN’S BABIES and other “light” literature, which made it normal for the English child of thirty or forty years ago to grow up with a theoretical knowledge of raccoons, woodchucks, chipmunks, gophers, hickory trees, water-melons and other unfamiliar fragments of the American scene.

[marcmcroy]

@CurtC

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.

um “sworn testimony”
ever heard that phrase , who or what do you think is being sworn on. All I’m saying is because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it’s there . ie oxygen :smack:

[marcmcroy]

@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.).

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.”

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

Why does what you believe matter, and not what I believe.

[marcmcroy]

@BrainGlutton

That’s what all this FOTL comes down to, I think – pining for the America that Henry David Thoreau grew up in, where retreating to Walden was at least a possibility.

From “Mark Twain: The Licensed Jester,” by George Orwell (1943):

For comparison, see this from “Riding Down from Bangor” (1946):

wow page full of text ..to what end, may I ask, what was the purpose of posting this fine work of literature?

[Czarcasm]

@marcmcroy

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

Why does what you believe matter, and not what I believe.

Because his understanding(not beliefs) is based on facts and observation, while your beliefs seem to be based on some sort of greedy juvenile fantasy.

[Little_Nemo]

@CurtC

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.

@marcmcroy

um “sworn testimony”
ever heard that phrase , who or what do you think is being sworn on. All I’m saying is because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it’s there . ie oxygen :smack:

Are you suggesting that some courts might be using invisible Bibles?

[Telemark]

@marcmcroy

Why does what you believe matter, and not what I believe.

Because you believe in nonsense.

[marcmcroy]

@Great_Antibob

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.

And what if these “social contracts” were made without full disclosure of benefits and waivers. It has been implied without statements or declarations to the contrary.

You were born a living soul with flesh and blood, with the responsibility to respect other life and treat your fellow man with love and kindness, and with a life-spirit provided by the Creator. Your unalienable rights are for life, liberty and property, and to respect those rights of other human beings on this planet, our home.

In an attempt to create a safe society, men elected Governments to protect and uphold your unalienable rights and your responsibilities to the Creator and your fellow man. After a while, Governments became corrupt and now we have to ask: How could Governments and other “regulatory bodies” possibly make you follow their rules and be subservient to them since your true allegiance is to your Creator? How can you serve two masters – your creator and your Government? The answer is that you cannot server two masters, therefore the Government had to create a system that tricks you into thinking you must serve them, where in fact, Governments must serve us, the people.

One of the ways Governments and other regulators have tricked you into thinking you must follow their rules, is to create for themselves an “artificial-person / corporation” who is not you, but whom the Government has fooled you into thinking is you (See Natural vs. Artificial and Trick #4). But, so as not to violate your fundamental rights, they also have provide recognition in law for another legal entity called a “natural-person” (simply meaning a human-being in the law) with which most of your fundamental rights are still intact. So when you interact with the law, you may be represented as an artificial or natural person – you choose.

This concept of an “artificial-person”, a legally obligated entity, that appears to be you, but in fact is not you, is a little difficult to grasp at first, but if you follow through this site, you will understand.

Once the Government creates an “artificial-person” that simulates you (i.e. appears to be the same as you from your point of view), but is actually a contrivance of government laws and regulations — then they’ve got you, so to speak.

from here

[silenus]

Since FMOtlers claim to be outside our laws, can’t we just declare them “outlaw” and shoot them? Seems to be the simplest solution - even simpler than a FMOtLer.

[marcmcroy]

@Little_Nemo

Are you suggesting that some courts might be using invisible Bibles?

are you suggesting oxygen molecules are invisible or just not visible if you are not looking for them or have the tools to see it.

[Czarcasm]

Will you accept opposing sites if they come from official government sources instead of crackpot blogs?

[marcmcroy]

@silenus

Since FMOtlers claim to be outside our laws, can’t we just declare them “outlaw” and shoot them? Seems to be the simplest solution - even simpler than a FMOtLer.

why are saying this aggressive silly argument, common law says you will be subject to court jurisdiction. yea it will always be easier to kill off the new thinker. I believe it worked for the Pharisee’s and the Nazarene but look at the whole storm that created:D

[Czarcasm]

@marcmcroy

are you suggesting oxygen molecules are invisible or just not visible if you are not looking for them or have the tools to see it.

Are you incapable of answering direct questions with direct answers?

[Chimera]

@marcmcroy

One of the ways Governments and other regulators have tricked you into thinking you must follow their rules, is to create for themselves an “artificial-person / corporation” who is not you.

This here is the stupidest damned part of the whole philosophy.

Goverments don’t have to ‘trick’ you into following their rules. They have the power and means to enforce their Laws. Force is on their side. Trickery is completely unnecessary.

And at no point is time has there ever been an ‘artifical person/corporation’ who is not you but is masquerading as you and you’re being tricked into thinking it is you. That’s just stupid beyond all measure.

[Czarcasm]

@marcmcroy

why are saying this aggressive silly argument, common law says you will be subject to court jurisdiction.

Authoritative cite that shows this to be true, please? And where is your cite for your claim that when new statutes are written they ask for enforcement under “colour of law”?

[Procrustus]

Holy crap. I don’t really follow most of what you’re saying, but when you start talking about courtrooms, it’s painfully obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The common law has jurisdiction over subject matter.

Those are all words, but you’ve put them together in a way that makes no sense.

Originally Posted by marcmcroy View Post
um “sworn testimony”
ever heard that phrase , who or what do you think is being sworn on. All I’m saying is because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it’s there . ie oxygen

I’ve been in state and federal courtrooms in over 20 states. I’ve never seen a bible in court. Things don’t need to be “sworn on,” they are “sworn to.” As in “I swear to or affirm to tell the truth.”

[mlees]

@marcmcroy

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

Why does what you believe matter, and not what I believe.

I cna flip this question right back at you. Why should what you believe matter to the courts, or us here of The Dope?

You came here (to this forum) to “witness” a lifestyle. I am responding.

I believe you believe is incorrect. I’m trying to point out why I believe you are incorrect. I think my beliefs more closely fit my observations of how society functions on a macro scale, while your’s seems to be both unworkable and not based on logical or historical facts.

If you disagree, you may ignore me, or rebut.

[marcmcroy]

@Czarcasm

Will you accept opposing sites if they come from official government sources instead of crackpot blogs?

The problem with that is that the official government sources, the PTB, that have legitimized the various (yea you said it right) statuatory laws in the aspect of law are party to allegations and receive a financial stake in the matter.

The king’s court will defend the King, makes sense really now doesn’t it?

we know for instance now the supreme court ruled you can’t just keep quiet. You have to declare you are using your right to silence under the fifth amendment.
Your rights are there, you have to declare them.

[Czarcasm]

@Chimera

And at no point is time has there ever been an ‘artifical person/corporation’ who is not you but is masquerading as you and you’re being tricked into thinking it is you. That’s just stupid beyond all measure.

Doesn’t it reminder you of the Family Circus character “Not Me”?
“Who is going to pay this traffic ticket?” “Not Me!”
“Who is going to assume responsibility for this mortgage?” “Not Me!”
“Who is going to chip in to pay for all these services you are using?” “Not Me!”

[Czarcasm]

@marcmcroy

The problem with that is that the official government sources, the PTB, that have legitimized the various (yea you said it right) statuatory laws in the aspect of law are party to allegations and receive a financial stake in the matter.

The king’s court will defend the King, makes sense really now doesn’t it?

we know for instance now the supreme court ruled you can’t just keep quiet. You have to declare you are using your right to silence under the fifth amendment.
Your rights are there, you have to declare them.

Just answer this one question without all the puffery-Will you allow official government cites when it comes to laws, records and statistics? Yes, or no?