Right or Wrong?

[rob menard]

Since much of the FMOTL perspective involves awakening, developing and following our own conscience or moral code, and the people who are with the P&O crowd seem to want to avoid this issue, we will open a new thread for it.

Are we free to follow our own conscience and hearts and morals? Or are we compelled to obey some other human being, and do what they say, even though it goes against our own morals?

If it is right to follow our own morals and go against the corporate policy masquerading as 'law' and called Statutes and Regulations, should we be punished for doing so?

Is following ones moral code, or conscience, or Faith, lawful excuse for disobeying others? Or are we lawfully bound to obey even though doing so is directly against our morals?

If it is right to follow ones own conscience or moral code, is it right to incarcerate someone for doing so?

Thoughts please....

[rob menard]

The way I figure they have limited options.

1- They can claim it is wrong to follow ones own conscience if someone else commands otherwise. However doing so destroys any claim they may have to the moral high ground. They follow orders, not morals.


2- They can claim that it is right to follow ones conscience contrary to statutes and codes and regulations. If they do that they are embracing the FMOTL perspective, and lose all their previous arguments. FMOTL WINS.

3 - They can claim that it is right to follow ones own conscience, but that it is also right to jail people for doing what is right, in which case their support for the entire system is rendered illogical and morally corrupt. Unless they wish to claim it is right to punish people for doing what is right...


I wonder if any of them will even bother weighing in, or are the wise enough they realize this question and the logical consequences destroys completely their OBEY AND PAY philosophy? :D

I wonder if the P&O crowd who consider themselves to be skeptics will bring this thread to the attention of their fellow forum members? I bet if they do they avoid the question, and try to divert to questioning the morals of myself.

[rob menard]

I know they have seen it. Now watch how silent they all become.:D

They have to abandon their morals and follow orders contrary to their own morals, and in doing so identify themselves as cowards....

Or..

They can accept the FMOTL perspective is a valid one.


Or.....


They can claim it is right to jail someone for doing what they claim is right...

Is it right to follow your own conscience?
If it is, then is it right to jail people for doing what is right?

Will they try to claim that following ones moral compass is wrong, yet obeying the orders of someone else is right?

I bet they are scratching their heads on how to respond to this without either abandoning all moral ground, or embracing FMOTL beliefs.

They can't do both...
:D

[jason_c]

Far be it for me to speak for anybody but myself, so I won't speak for any crowd but myself. I wish we lived in a world where ALL people were moral, but we dont. The bad behaviour of a small group forces society to create "blanket" rules. I hate the nanny state and government incursion into my life but I do not see fmotl as a practical solution on a grand scale. In smaller communities it may very well work but in a city of a million there are too many people who won't play nice. Therefore we get rules that are then enforced across the board even against good moral people. In all (very limited) the fmotl reading I've done I have not seen how this would be addressed.

[rob menard]

Rob believes he has created a dilemma for the skeptics
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156346


What he has failed to realise is that people are simply ignoring him
He has had to post 3 times in his own thread



Except for him of course..... :D

Hey lets count the times he post in his threads!!! LMAO! (879 posts and half are his! )

The points raised will not be addressed. Diverting tactics will be employed instead.

Nice try! HE TOOK THE BAIT! hahahahaha

[rumpelstilzchen]

I know they have seen it. Now watch how silent they all become.:D

They have to abandon their morals and follow orders contrary to their own morals, and in doing so identify themselves as cowards....

Or..

They can accept the FMOTL perspective is a valid one.


Or.....


They can claim it is right to jail someone for doing what they claim is right...


Or......
They might just be sitting there pissing themselves with laughter watching you talking to yourself attempting to bait them into replying.

I bet they are scratching their heads on how to respond to this without either abandoning all moral ground, or embracing FMOTL beliefs.

They can't do both...
:D

Actually I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering what to get my grandaughter for her birthday.
Just because you've started a thread rob, it doesn't automatically mean that others feel obliged to respond or give a damn if they don't bother.
If you take non response as verification for your beliefs and acceptance of those beliefs by others, then carry on believing that.
I'm off present hunting.

[rob menard]

Far be it for me to speak for anybody but myself, so I won't speak for any crowd but myself. I wish we lived in a world where ALL people were moral, but we dont. The bad behaviour of a small group forces society to create "blanket" rules. I hate the nanny state and government incursion into my life but I do not see fmotl as a practical solution on a grand scale. In smaller communities it may very well work but in a city of a million there are too many people who won't play nice. Therefore we get rules that are then enforced across the board even against good moral people. In all (very limited) the fmotl reading I've done I have not seen how this would be addressed.

So do you believe all (a majority anyway) should be bound by the rules only a few require? If I live in a house with toddlers who do not know how to use a toilet, should I be forced to wear diapers?

Do you agree that 'Compelled by Faith' is a just reason to disobey some other human being whose morals are no better than yours?

Who made the rules if not you, and why should you follow them if you did not make them, nor agree to them, and they do not reflect your morals?

[rob menard]

Or......
They might just be sitting there pissing themselves with laughter watching you talking to yourself attempting to bait them into replying.



Actually I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering what to get my grandaughter for her birthday.
Just because you've started a thread rob, it doesn't automatically mean that others feel obliged to respond or give a damn if they don't bother.
If you take non response as verification for your beliefs and acceptance of those beliefs by others, then carry on believing that.
I'm off present hunting.

I notice you have the time to respond, yet failed completely to address the questions. They will be here when you get back and I look forward to your response. Do you personally follow your own moral code, or did you abandon that in favour of being told what to do?

You will also notice that I am now being called a buffoon instead of them responding to the questions. All they have are insults. They insult to avoid the issues and it is all they have ever been able to do. I wonder if they realize people are watching, and realize their avoidance is evidence of an ass kicking.... THEIRS! KEEP DIVERTING.

Call me a buffoon and ignore the issue.

[yozhik]

It's a Catch 22 Rob because the entire underpinning of the current system is a bedrock of Christian morality, albeit in various shades of dilution, distortion and corruption in many areas ... 'evolution' or 'positive law' I believe are a couple of terms used to describe the bastardisation of and amendment to, but nonetheless, the roots are still there if digging deeply enough for them to see the light of day.

So, as you propose, to deny morality is to deny the system.
However, to acknowledge morality also denies the system, as it has been stated as necessary to remove all elements of morality, which calls upon subjective matters of conscience, in favour of codification and strict adherence to precedent with its misleading appeal to logic.


"the laws of God are superior to all other laws; that no human laws should be suffered to contradict them; that human laws are of no validity if contrary to them; and that all valid laws derive their force from that Divine original."
-- Sir William Blackstone
Commentaries


One of the things that a well-ordered civilized society needs is law. Law which is either inherent in the nature of things (natural law) or law as given by God, Divine or revealed. As Blackstone put it: "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws. . ."

Much of [John] Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/



We talk a lot these days about freedom – freedom for the individual and freedom among nations. Freedom for the human soul is, indeed, the most important principle of our civilization. We must always remember, however, that the freedom we are talking about is freedom based upon moral principles.

-- Harry Truman

Every State, whether it is of a federative or a non-federative character, must seek, under the penalty of utter ruin, to become the most powerful of States. It has to devour others in order not to be devoured in turn, to conquer in order not to be conquered, to enslave in order not to be enslaved - for two similar and at the same time alien powers, cannot co-exist without destroying each other.

The state then is the most flagrant negation, the most cynical and complete negation of humanity. It rends apart the universal solidarity of all men upon earth, and it unites some of them only in order to destroy, conquer, and enslave all the rest. It takes under its protection only its own citizens, and it recognises human right, humanity, and civilisation only within the confines of its own boundaries. And since it does not recognise any right outside of its own confines, it quite logically arrogated to itself the right to treat with the most ferocious inhumanity all the foreign populations whom it can pillage, exterminate, or subordinate to its will. If it displays generosity or humanity toward them, it does it in no case out of any sense of duty: and that is because it has no duty but to itself, and toward those of its members who formed it by an act of free agreement, who continue constituting it on the same free bases, or, as it happens in the long run, have become its subjects.

-- Mikhail Bukunin
Ethics: Morality of the State

THE WELFARE STATE and the regulated society are based on a twofold notion about morality: first, that this type of society reflects that people are moral, caring, compassionate, and responsible and, second, that this type of society makes people moral, caring, compassionate, and responsible.

-- Jacob G Hornberger

[jason_c]

I think that you are over simplifying the world. In some cases yes all must be bound for the sake of a few, in others we can enforce rules only on people they need apply to. If the person in the house has the thought process of a toddler maybe I do need to ask them to wear a diaper also.

No I don't believe that being compelled by faith is a justification for anything. The reason we have rules (good and bad) is to codify what we think as a society our morals are. We get it wrong on a regular basis and hopefully people will step up and attempt to get the rules changed.

I live here, thats why I follow the rules. In a perfect world I might be compelled to worry about on what authourity these rules were brought in, but in reality I'm glad that we live in a society with the rule of law. It is far from perfect but its the best thing going right now. We are also capable of changing it from within.

[rob menard]

Every State, whether it is of a federative or a non-federative character, must seek, under the penalty of utter ruin, to become the most powerful of States. It has to devour others in order not to be devoured in turn, to conquer in order not to be conquered, to enslave in order not to be enslaved - for two similar and at the same time alien powers, cannot co-exist without destroying each other.

Maybe that is the big problem we face. Thank you for your input. You have given me much to ponder and have raised some very good points. Peace eh?

May I have your belief concerning the questions? Do you do what you are told? Or do you follow your heart?

[rob menard]

Hi Jason,
You may wish to speak with a lawyer. 'Compelled by Faith' is a very powerful and widely accepted common law defense. 'Compelled by Conscience' is also accepted for those who do not identify with a 'faith'.

[flabio]

Great question, Rob...

Keeping on that note, say, are you ever going to make a video where you are driving a car with freeman on the land licence plates? Or do you just leave the real leg work to everyone else?

[rob menard]

Great question, Rob...

Keeping on that note, say, are you ever going to make a video where you are driving a car with freeman on the land licence plates? Or do you just leave the real leg work to everyone else?

Wow your first post and it is full of accusations.
:rolleyes:
Wonder who you could be.
:rolleyes:
Do I know you?
:rolleyes:
How about you stop trying to divert from the question at hand?
:rolleyes:

care to answer? Do you follow the statutes or your heart when they are opposite?

[jason_c]

You asked an opinion without regard to our present laws and I do not believe faith justifies anything. Conscience on the other hand compels me to behave the way I do.

My moral structure is no better than anyones but it does correspond to the rules of our (Canadian) society in general. Therfore in the way of the real world, usually I do what I want and it happens to also be what I'm being told to do. Other times I don't like what I'm being told and ignore the rules. And if I actually think the rules are immoral I make an effort to have the rules changed.

[jason_c]

I am trying to recall if I've ever had to make a choice of morals or statute. Rob can you give me an example of how they come into conflict for you.

[flabio]

Deflection duly noted, Rob...

So it's safe to say you're not going to make a video where you are driving a car with freeman on the land licence plates then?

[rob menard]

I am trying to recall if I've ever had to make a choice of morals or statute. Rob can you give me an example of how they come into conflict for you.

Sure. Marijuana oil has been well proven as cancer fighting. Yet using it is against the statutes apparently. Even if you are doing it to save a life, and it is the only way to do so. (Google Rick Simpson and 'Run from the cure'.)

So, do you contravene this statute one not made by you, one that goes against your own moral code, or do you obey and allow a child to die?

This is not a hypothetical situation. Actually happened, and it saved a life.

[rob menard]

Well, just like I thought, they had to resort to questioning and denigrating the presumed morals of another, and completely avoided the question at hand. Their response is follow your own morals, UNTIL PEER PRESSURE GETS TOO GREAT! Then they suggest competing for power and running for office to impose your morals on others, or running to someone else to fix it! They call the other you must run to and beg for remedy 'Your representative' and they fail to realize that requires MUTUAL CONSENT!!!!

LMAO!

Its a hoot watching them struggle with this conundrum.

Watch them all abandon their morals as they run from the FMOTL perspective...

[rumpole]

Great question, Rob...

Keeping on that note, say, are you ever going to make a video where you are driving a car with freeman on the land licence plates? Or do you just leave the real leg work to everyone else?

Oh God not that again?

That being said road traffic law is a good example of why positive laws are necessary in modern society. Without speed limits death / serious injury would sky rocket because people would drive faster. The same applies to laws regarding licensing, vehicle safety etc.

Whilst I agree that a only a small minority of people are actively criminal if there were no 'policy laws' then a much larger class of people would take part in activities that would collectively damage society. One of the many flaws in FMOTL thinking is it's wholly unrealistic view of human nature.

[rob menard]

Deflection duly noted, Rob...

So it's safe to say you're not going to make a video where you are driving a car with freeman on the land licence plates then?

Nope not safe to say at all, and how does have anything to do with the OP?

Post reported asky/steven/JB....

[jason_c]

Not a dilema that I will ever face but a fair one. I believe the are alot of people today in Canada working to change these laws. Is it too slow? Maybe, but I myself am not comfortable with alot of alternative research. That being said you do what you feel is right and accept the consequences of your actions in an imperfect world. Then you fight like hell to make it a better word.

[yozhik]

Maybe that is the big problem we face. Thank you for your input. You have given me much to ponder and have raised some very good points. Peace eh?

May I have your belief concerning the questions? Do you do what you are told? Or do you follow your heart?

I've never been a 'do as you are told' kinda guy; much to my mother's dismay.
Not in terms of being intentionally 'harmful', just in terms of asking 'why?' or from 'where do you claim your authority?'.

If I had to give a one paragraph summation of my issue with where we are, it is this;
What we have is a system and structure that is upside down; ass about face.
Those in an office which should have authority, by the good grace and faith of the people, have somehow come to believe and demonstrated by their actions and attested by their words, that it is, in fact, a top-down model, when it has always been 'sold' and gains its moral authority from being a bottom-up concept. That's my view and take on it. Having a 'structure' is not the issue; any community needs some guidelines. It is where the power base is seated. The clue should be in that term; [democratic] power base, in contradistinction to [tyrannical] figure head.

Which is actually a wonderful paradox, given that the Superior authority is the only valid "top-down" model, that being of the Divine over all creation.

However, given every man, woman and child has the Divine within ... and any 'office', being nothing more than a legal fiction does not ... then the bottom-up aspect of the consent of the governed being superior to the current top-down fictional behemoth and all its incompetent apparatchiks of the legislative and political body, is wholly consistent with the Divine paradox, in that the Divine is the font of all.

[angelthecat]

Rob I believe that if anyone here where to genuinely believe what Rick Simpson is saying [and doing] is true they would follow their heart above any statutes or laws in order to secure a healthy life for their sons, daughters, wives and husbands, because if they didn’t they would be complicit in the murder of the innocent, therefore dooming themselves by their own conscience to a life of misery, it is too easy to pass off as quackery alternative medicine, but the so-called medics by their own admission believe that a headache is caused by a lack of painkiller in the bloodstream [otherwise why would they prescribe paracetamol for a headache] Those who would not break statues or laws to obtain health for their beloved ones are either psychopaths or liars and deserve to be at the end of a rope!

[flabio]

Nope not safe to say at all, and how does have anything to do with the OP?

Post reported asky/steven/JB....


Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic here. I'll be looking forward to video. I'd imagine that all of your friends that you use as your own personal taxi service will be looking foward to seeing the video too!!!

Have a great day, Rob...

[rob menard]

Oh God not that again?

That being said road traffic law (IT IS A STATUTE, NOT A LAW) is a good example of why positive laws are necessary in modern society. Without speed limits death / serious injury would sky rocket because people would drive faster. The same applies to laws regarding licensing, vehicle safety etc.

Whilst I agree that a only a small minority of people are actively criminal if there were no 'policy laws' then a much larger class of people would take part in activities that would collectively damage society. One of the many flaws in FMOTL thinking is it's wholly unrealistic view of human nature.

And your concern about human nature damaging society, what happens when due to human nature the worst amongst us claim the greatest power? And they start making statutes for their own benefit, and gradually replace what is good for society as a whole with what is good for them only?

However I want you to answer a simple question and not avoid it.
When you are in a position where you have to choose between doing what you are told by some other man, or following your own heart, what do you do?

Would you disobey my orders if I was asked to act as someone else's representative, if they went against your own morals? Would you not question the limits of my power to command you?

I am your neighbours representative. I give you an order that goes against your own morals, interest and ethics. Do you obey me?

And if I only have the power your neighbours gave me, do you accept they have the power to order you, without a representative?:D

[rob menard]

Rob I believe that if anyone here where to genuinely believe what Rick Simpson is saying [and doing] is true they would follow their heart above any statutes or laws in order to secure a healthy life for their sons, daughters, wives and husbands, because if they didn’t they would be complicit in the murder of the innocent, therefore dooming themselves by their own conscience to a life of misery, it is too easy to pass off as quackery alternative medicine, but the so-called medics by their own admission believe that a headache is caused by a lack of painkiller in the bloodstream [otherwise why would they prescribe paracetamol for a headache] Those who would not break statues or laws to obtain health for their beloved ones are either psychopaths or liars and deserve to be at the end of a rope!

+1^

[rob menard]

Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic here. I'll be looking forward to video. I'd imagine that all of your friends that you use as your own personal taxi service will be looking foward to seeing the video too!!!

Have a great day, Rob...

Bye Bye asky/JB/Steven.

Over 200 posts over there and you folks have not figured out who I am! LMAO!

[rob menard]

Not a dilema that I will ever face but a fair one. I believe the are alot of people today in Canada working to change these laws. Is it too slow? Maybe, but I myself am not comfortable with alot of alternative research. That being said you do what you feel is right and accept the consequences of your actions in an imperfect world. Then you fight like hell to make it a better word.

Now that is the attitude of a man, and not a child of the state.

Nice to meet you.

[yozhik]

Oh God not that again?

That being said road traffic law is a good example of why positive laws are necessary in modern society. Without speed limits death / serious injury would sky rocket because people would drive faster. The same applies to laws regarding licensing, vehicle safety etc.


Please provide proof that 'licensing', in itself, has an effect on driving ability or leads to a measurable increase in skill.

You are arguing that the instant after receiving a licence, the man or woman had a measurable increase in their ability when compared to the instant prior to having it; i.e. the 'skill' is an element of the licence, not of the man or woman.

If you do not state that, then the licence, in itself, has no value in terms of the ability to control a motor vehicle and your argument has no validity.


There was also a published study in the U.S from one of the states which showed that whilst an estimated 16% of 'drivers' were unlicensed, they were involved in less than 10% of accidents; i.e. unlicensed drivers were nearly half as likely to be in an accident than a licensed driver.

It's on this forum somewhere ... can't locate it with the search function ... but it has specifically been discussed before.

[rob menard]

I am trying to recall if I've ever had to make a choice of morals or statute. Rob can you give me an example of how they come into conflict for you.

Another...

In some jurisdictions it is illegal to feed the homeless. If you are in a park having a picnic, you can't share with those who do not have an address.

Do you feed the hungry and break this 'law'? Or watch someone starve?

[rob menard]

Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic here. I'll be looking forward to video. I'd imagine that all of your friends that you use as your own personal taxi service will be looking foward to seeing the video too!!!

Have a great day, Rob...

I believe you did not wish to reveal your self or your intent. But you smell so bad and are sooo easy to spot...

[rob menard]

Infiltration :d

[jason_c]

I again agree you do what you feel is right. The other 2/3 of this way of thinking though is to accept the consequences and try to change the rules. I do not believe we can just ignore the rules and then claim jurisdictional mumbo jumbo. Just do it, accept it, then fight it. I will live by my decisions good and bad but I won't try to weasel out when I do something I know is against the rules.

[blakeriede]

Sure. Marijuana oil has been well proven as cancer fighting. Yet using it is against the statutes apparently. Even if you are doing it to save a life, and it is the only way to do so. (Google Rick Simpson and 'Run from the cure'.)

So, do you contravene this statute one not made by you, one that goes against your own moral code, or do you obey and allow a child to die?

This is not a hypothetical situation. Actually happened, and it saved a life.

:rolleyes:
does anybody get it yet? or just sit around bashing rob?
ya'll like being lil slaves dont you..you little sheep...
hey whos american?
who knows what the word "america" means?
**raises hand** It means 'A' = No (like Asymmetrical), 'Meri' = Mercy, Ca = 'Sheep' Ha, go figure...
How about if all the clues were laid out for ya ? Look at the back of a dollar, OH...Symbolism! :eek:
Hmm..The Mayans....
-
Anybody stoped around their city to look at the sticker on the back of the road signs? The ones around here say "statute" on the back.....
Anybody here know a damn thing about health? DO YOU KNOW HOW TO EXERCISE PROPERLY!!?? :mad: Nahh...I bet you little sheeple just go to the gym and watch the bodybuilder and his weight belt as he does 300lb squats destroying his core...HA!
-
You do realise the bodybuilding industry is just as equally corrupt as the government, right? So lets find a point here, because I need +1 for my karma and hopefully educate some idiots in the room.....lets create a "SCENARIO" :o
---------
1. Man goes into gym
2. man inquires about gym membership
3. man gets gym membership and technically he creates another 'person' (because of his new gym identity)
4. man goes to gym regularly to "be healthy" and "get in shape" (id love for you geniuses to define those terms for me please get back at me wouldja? PM would be nice)
5. man decides maybe he needs some help so he hires a personal trainer!
6. stays with personal trainer for 8 to 12 weeks and likes it...asks personal trainer how HE can become a personal trainer...
7. personal trainer leads man in the right direction...
8. man becomes personal trainer and completely wakes up and realizes to how corrupt the bodybuilding industry is (this is the turning point in man's life)
9. so man is eating organic, exercising like a monkey (im not fucking kidding people, you are monkeys dont get bonked on the head! OO OO AH AH! ) and warning people to stay away from whey protein, creatine products, processed food, microwaves, steroids, and pasteurized milk and give the money to the local organic farmer
10. ---THIS IS A BIG TRUTH (realizing how dangerous shopping at a grocery store or a vitamin shop can be) ---
11. so man does this for a while and says ok ive mastered all of this...time to move on to better things
12. man buys books, one of the books has medicinal information on "illecit drugs" such as ayahuasca, sacred/magic mushrooms, and all the rest of it.
13. the book states how healthy and beneficial these things are for the body and mind
14. now man is super perplexed..."But all these things are illegal and so Bad for me!?"
15. ---- BUT THEYRE NOT ----
16. this is the noble lie, people.
17. man realizes he and his society is being massively controlled so he studies into the law, and realizes...
18. :o
19. so man tells EVERYBODY! EVERYBODY HE KNOWS!
20. eventually...well actually it hasnt happened yet (we're still in the gregorian year 2011 :rolleyes: )

So the moral of the story people is to keep your minds open.
If you all want your freedoms then work together and not against each other because guess what the real reality is, you're all being massively controlled (i just want to go protesting and yell that through a bull horn... "YOURE ALL BEING MASSIVELY CONTROLLED" how fun it would be )
so y'know... you can complain and be like "oh world peace will never happen...people been fighting for years....theres always some bad guy out there" BLAH BLAH BLAH LETS GO CRY....No.

"lets all just bash the free man" is this your attitudes? really?
how old are you people? im 20. some of you need to smarten up and learn how to pull your balls up and get rid of that god for saken gut.
but hey, we all have our time and day :rolleyes: no worries, no rush...go on being slaves to your number and statutory regulations..thats fine...if your child dies or your spouse dies ah who cares right? lets not worry about the real issues lets all just bash the free man whos trying to teach us important lessons of life...ya lets bash that guy...screw off freeman rob youre of no use to us! :D yaa...see didnt that feel wonderful gents? :) lets instead divide ourselves and keep fighting ya that sounds like a great idea! woo hoo! divided we stand!
.....................
NO..:mad:...
..
Lets put our f**kin' heads together and beat these slavemasters, lets share our ideas and be realistic. lets work together as 1 human tribe inside the atmosphere of this planet we call earth. any takers? anybody at all?

it amazes me people on a david icke forum bashing each other...thats not even remotely close to what david icke stands for you ought to just leave the forum some of you.

[flabio]

I believe you did not wish to reveal your self or your intent. But you smell so bad and are sooo easy to spot...

Now, now, Rob....

There's no need to resort to child like insults. Me and you have never met before in the RL or the VL. My question on if you ever plan on making a video with you driving a car with freeman on the land licence plates was perfectly legitimate. Especially considering all the time that you've told people on how to go about exercising their right to free travel. That's all, I no longer wish to derail this thread off topic, so I'll just start a new thread about it here tomorrow, OK?

[blakeriede]

http://www.hemmy.net/images/travel/earthatnight01.jpg
imagine in this image above that YOU are the one who is behind the camera

all those lights...how pretty :D
now imagine that you are a seperate human race not of the planet you are looking at..you are coming in on your space ship from andromeda galaxy, or orion or niburu, or whatever...maybe you call yourself annunaki, patall, andromedan, or youre a grey!
"oh what a lovely little civilization down there! "
and then you descend into the atmosphere and people are blowing each others heads off, arressting people who smoke an herb, raping the females of the race.... yea...real fkn lovely....not to mention the reality of the division. from space it looks like 1 tribe. but once you descend into the planet everything is divided and you realize all these selfish people are out to get each other! well most of them anyway...

http://www.hemmy.net/images/travel/outerspace02.jpg

now imagine a different scenario
you are behind the consciousness or the camera of this picture ^
and you go "oh what a lovely planet im sure its inhabitable"
there is nobody on it, and you want to start a brand new civilization so you start from scratch since nobodies on it....nothing is divided...nothing is conquered...nothing is destroyed or damaged..everything is perfect....it is literally a foreign world of peace. nothing is divided

ok now that ive instilled two scenarios in your minds lets look at the reality of the situation when we leave our computers after having just read this forum post.

heres one reality somewhere inside this giant sphere:
http://www.pigbird.com/images/iraq_war_najaf.jpg


and heres another: http://yloquio.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/marijuana-burning-11.jpg


its not all peace and love now is it? 3 out of 4 of these scenarioes (whether fictional or not) are very destructive.
peoplee destroying people, people destroying the plants of the garden....its very sad isnt it people...
thats what is going on when you get up off your computers and actually REAL-ize...
----

so my question to you people is are you going to grab robs hand and help create this :
http://robertjrgraham.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PWeCanHaveWorldPeace.jpg

or re you going to keep perpetuating the fraud that you are all living in? your choice. peace

[micklemus]

Re the OP and purely to answer your ridiculously mentally vacant post 3, I haven't contributed because it's based on what is for me a stupid premise. You centre your views on your own personal freedoms, your ability to do whatever you please. I don't, I think about my neighbours (both in an immediate and in a broad sense).

We're not going to agree because we have two different outlooks on life.

There, that's that one done.

[blakeriede]

Re the OP and purely to answer your ridiculously mentally vacant post 3, I haven't contributed because it's based on what is for me a stupid premise. You centre your views on your own personal freedoms, your ability to do whatever you please. I don't, I think about my neighbours (both in an immediate and a broad sense).

We're not going to agree because we have two different outlooks on life.

There, that's that one done.

and yet we still have this bickering and argueing continuing on...
how ridiculous
Greenpeace - Inspiring Action - YouTube

[solzhenitsyn]

Another...

In some jurisdictions it is illegal to feed the homeless. If you are in a park having a picnic, you can't share with those who do not have an address.

Do you feed the hungry and break this 'law'? Or watch someone starve?

Really? I find that shocking. Which jurisdictions?

With respect to the original questions:

Since much of the FMOTL perspective involves awakening, developing and following our own conscience or moral code, and the people who are with the P&O crowd seem to want to avoid this issue, we will open a new thread for it.

Are we free to follow our own conscience and hearts and morals? Or are we compelled to obey some other human being, and do what they say, even though it goes against our own morals?

If it is right to follow our own morals and go against the corporate policy masquerading as 'law' and called Statutes and Regulations, should we be punished for doing so?

Is following ones moral code, or conscience, or Faith, lawful excuse for disobeying others? Or are we lawfully bound to obey even though doing so is directly against our morals?

If it is right to follow ones own conscience or moral code, is it right to incarcerate someone for doing so?

Thoughts please....

It seems to me that even freemen acknowledge that sometimes people must compelled to obey another human being. As I understand it, freemen acknowledge that there is at least a "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, no?

So, this acceptance of "Common law" raises a number of questions. For example, from where does the authority to compel people to obey the "Common law" come? Who has the authority to enforce this "Common law"?

Secondly, as I understand it, the "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, regardless of their faith, religion, conscience, includes the law that no one may cause harm to another. However, the obvious questions that arise are: how is harm defined?; who defines it?; which sorts of harm are illegal and which aren't? (for example, is cheating on one's wife, which presumable harms her in some way, illegal or not?); how are people to know what is harm and what is not, and also which harms are illegal and which aren't?.

With respect to my second point, and all of the problems that arise from a law which states that one may not cause harm to another, I will pose a hypothetical situation: Black Acre Bank gives a mortgage to Mr. White so that he can build his home. However, Mr. White falls ill and can't pay back the mortgage. Let's presume that Black Acre Bank paid Mr. White the proceeds of the mortgage in silver (to avoid any "currency is rubbish anyway" argument") and that it charged Mr. White no interest. When Black Acre Bank attempts to claim Mr. White's home, Mr. White complains that they are causing him harm by evicting him. Black Acre Bank complains that Mr. White has caused them harm by taking their silver and not repaying it.

Who determines who suffered harm and who didn't? How does that person make that determination? Are both Black Acre Bank and Mr. White bound by that decision? Why?

[mfrey0118]

I would love for the usual crowd who will support the government line to explain to me how Monsanto can now produce unlimited genetically modified seeds, how they can force farmers off their land if they don't use their seed, how the government is considering banning backyard gardens because the pollin from the natural seeds will "pollute" their cash cow seeds...
...explain to me how the corporation that Donald Rumsfeld worked for invented Aspartame, and how the FDA at the time would not approve it, and how conveniently shortly thereafter the head of the FDA was removed and BAM, Aspartame is APPROVED AS A NON HAZARDOUS SWEETNER!
I don't give a crap how much law you think you know.
I don't give a crap how smart you may be.
I don't give a crap how enamored you may be with the system you worship.

It is NOT a government for We The People. We did not consent to toxicity by corporation.

Any argument in support of the government is against natural law, since the actions of said government are fatal to its people.

You HAVE NO REBUTTAL to the Natural Law that protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, therefore any claim at such is FALSE.

End of line.

[blakeriede]

I would love for the usual crowd who will support the government line to explain to me how Monsanto can now produce unlimited genetically modified seeds, how they can force farmers off their land if they don't use their seed, how the government is considering banning backyard gardens because the pollin from the natural seeds will "pollute" their cash cow seeds...
...explain to me how the corporation that Donald Rumsfeld worked for invented Aspartame, and how the FDA at the time would not approve it, and how conveniently shortly thereafter the head of the FDA was removed and BAM, Aspartame is APPROVED AS A NON HAZARDOUS SWEETNER!
I don't give a crap how much law you think you know.
I don't give a crap how smart you may be.
I don't give a crap how enamored you may be with the system you worship.

It is NOT a government for We The People. We did not consent to toxicity by corporation.

Any argument in support of the government is against natural law, since the actions of said government are fatal to its people.

You HAVE NO REBUTTAL to the Natural Law that protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, therefore any claim at such is FALSE.

End of line.

Amen to that! :D

[micklemus]

and yet we still have this bickering and argueing continuing on...
how ridiculous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVu9eawb1QY&feature=related

I've only just noticed your comments. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't hold a messianic view towards Rob and therefore I won't be holding his hand.

I'll thank you to note that this does not equate to me being hell bent on the destruction of the planet either.

[rob menard]

I've only just noticed your comments. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't hold a messianic view towards Rob and therefore I won't be holding his hand.

I'll thank you to note that this does not equate to me being hell bent on the destruction of the planet either.

I do not know anyone who does.
Nice avoidance of the ethical issue raised however.

Do you follow your heart or the orders of some other human being when those two things are opposite?

If it is right to follow ones heart, is it also right for someone else to throw you in jail for following your heart and refusing to obey them?

[micklemus]

I've already answered the OP, Rob - post 38.

Your latest comment is just rhetoric. If you feel strongly enough about something to go to prison for it, do what you need to do. Disobey people all you like.

[rob menard]

Re the OP and purely to answer your ridiculously mentally vacant post 3, I haven't contributed because it's based on what is for me a stupid premise. You centre your views on your own personal freedoms, your ability to do whatever you please. I don't, I think about my neighbours (both in an immediate and in a broad sense).

We're not going to agree because we have two different outlooks on life.

There, that's that one done.

So your answer, is to say it is a stupid question, claim a higher morality based on caring about your neighbours more then I care about mine, you denigrate my motives petulantly refuse to answer! :rolleyes:

LMAO! :D

#38 is one of the most desperate attempts by you ever. ;) I think I have a new sig....

I wonder how you would respond if others tried the same tactic!

Lets try this then. One asked with your superior neighbour loving morals.

Hypothetical Choice:
You have a choice between doing what you are told by your government agent, who does not care about his or your neighbours. This action will be legal and is commanded by statute but will harm your neighbour enormously. It is also against your own moral code.

OR

You can disobey them and their statutes but it helps your neighbour and follows your own moral code.

Which do you choose?

Remember it is for your neighbours now, so you have no claim to a higher moral ground.

:D

[micklemus]

So your answer, is to say it is a stupid question, claim a higher morality based on caring about your neighbours more then I care about mine, you denigrate my motives petulantly refuse to answer! :rolleyes:

LMAO! :D

#38 is one of the most desperate attempts by you ever. ;) I think I have a new sig....

I wonder how you would respond if others tried the same tactic!

Lets try this then. One asked with your superior neighbour loving morals.

Hypothetical Choice:
You have a choice between doing what you are told by your government agent, who does not care about his or your neighbours. This action will be legal and is commanded by statute but will harm your neighbour enormously. It is also against your own moral code.

OR

You can disobey them and their statutes but it helps your neighbour and follows your own moral code.

Which do you choose?

Remember it is for your neighbours now, so you have no claim to a higher moral ground.

:D

I think you must have had too many drugs. Again more rhetoric but again you've just reinforced my point.

Short answer is that if the hypothetical situation arose where I felt strongly enough that an action being taken by government was damaging the wider community, I would probably take action. I'll leave you to try twisting that whichever way you like.

I'm wondering if the skunk has scrambled you a bit. Get a coffee and suck on a sugar cube.

[rumpole]

I do not know anyone who does.
Nice avoidance of the ethical issue raised however.

Do you follow your heart or the orders of some other human being when those two things are opposite?

If it is right to follow ones heart, is it also right for someone else to throw you in jail for following your heart and refusing to obey them?

It depends what 'my heart' tells me to do? My 'heart' tells me I should do a number of things that I don't do. for example I'd like to drive home from a party after perhaps one to many, I'd have like to have flattened that idiot who was playing his ipod too loud on the train yesterday morning, I'd like to help myself to that Omega automatic watch I've been hankering after without paying. Needless to I haven't done any of these things because they're criminal acts.

[merlincove]

It depends what 'my heart' tells me to do? My 'heart' tells me I should do a number of things that I don't do. for example I'd like to drive home from a party after perhaps one to many, I'd have like to have flattened that idiot who was playing his ipod too loud on the train yesterday morning, I'd like to help myself to that Omega automatic watch I've been hankering after without paying. Needless to I haven't done any of these things because they're criminal acts.

And perhaps you have not done any of these things because they would be immoral?

For my own part, i place morality above all else, i choose not to drink drive not because the law tells me not to, but because in doing so it would be immoral. i choose not to hit the guy who is annoying, not because it is illegal, but because i do not A) wish to impose my Ego upon another and B) because i would feel great guilt in causing pain to another - such for me would be an immoral act.

Where statute law re-enforces morality (and i am aware that many people do not have moral codes) then i am all in favor of such, it is where statute law imposes an oppressive nature, seemingly for a gain in revenue that nark's the heck outa me. But thaz jus me ;)

[rob menard]

I think you must have had too many drugs. Again more rhetoric but again you've just reinforced my point.

Short answer is that if the hypothetical situation arose where I felt strongly enough that an action being taken by government was damaging the wider community, I would probably take action. I'll leave you to try twisting that whichever way you like.

I'm wondering if the skunk has scrambled you a bit. Get a coffee and suck on a sugar cube.

Actually, I have been on a health and sobriety kick lately. (working on the nicotine demon now) but I do not fail to notice your tactic, that being attacking me by raising the issue of drug consumption. Does that help you feel superior? Do you feel people reading will side with you because you labelled me a druggy? I think it is an obvious tactic. Failing to address the point, you attack the presenter of the argument and try to belittle him. Nice try. You folks seem to have to do that an awful lot!

Now the bolded part. Guess what? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT FREEMEN DO AND WHY THEY DO IT! We feel actions being taken by the people in the government is damaging to our wider community and we are doing something about it! We are taking action. :D

[micklemus]

Now the bolded part. Guess what? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT FREEMEN DO AND WHY THEY DO IT! We feel actions being taken by the people in the government is damaging to our wider community and we are doing something about it! We are taking action. :D

And who am I to tell you not to?

And when have I ever told you not to?

Do you get it yet?

I'm not going to tell anyone to say or do anything, or follow me or whatever. All I am doing here on this sub forum is setting the record straight on points of law which people have got wrong (generally more than enough to keep me busy when I visit) and trying to ensure that people get a balanced picture on what you tell them.

As to choices, people can do whatever they wish, including you. I have no wish to lead or control anyone.

So, please do get back to your discussion about personal freedom. As I said in my first post, I don't solely make decisions based upon my self-interest so it's a pointless exercise trying to encourage me to debate something that doesn't resonate with me.

Knock yourself out, as they say.

[rob menard]

Well thank god we have some one hiding behind the internet setting the record straight for us peons!

So you do not wish to engage in discussion on these topics, you just 'correct' us from on high when we are 'wrong'. :rolleyes:

[micklemus]

If you wish to view it that way, yes.

At least it gives those who decide to check for themselves an opportunity to work out what might be right next time.

Enjoy your thread. ;)

[rumpelstilzchen]

We are taking action.

We?
All I have seen from you is talk.
It's those that fall for your dulcet tones that take action, and end up getting into trouble.

[rob menard]

We?
All I have seen from you is talk.
It's those that fall for your dulcet tones that take action, and end up getting into trouble.

So you did not wish to address the OP, you just want to slag at me, right? :D (POST REPORTED)

I wonder why.....:rolleyes:

So did you wish to address the point raised in this thread, or just once again use it as a chance to slag others, and try to divert the discussion?

Remember, this thread is not about me, regardless of how obsessed you may be with me, and regardless of your need to take every thread I start and twist it to speak about me or what you perceive to be my failings. Ok?

I take a great many actions. Just so yo know. Been traveling all over the place meeting people. Engaging in actions. Working on a new book and movie. Doing all sorts of stuff. Having great effect too.

Now back to the OP....:D

[rumpole]

And perhaps you have not done any of these things because they would be immoral?

For my own part, i place morality above all else, i choose not to drink drive not because the law tells me not to, but because in doing so it would be immoral. i choose not to hit the guy who is annoying, not because it is illegal, but because i do not A) wish to impose my Ego upon another and B) because i would feel great guilt in causing pain to another - such for me would be an immoral act.

Where statute law re-enforces morality (and i am aware that many people do not have moral codes) then i am all in favor of such, it is where statute law imposes an oppressive nature, seemingly for a gain in revenue that nark's the heck outa me. But thaz jus me ;)


Bully for you :D The fact is there are many 1000's who don't have a moral code such as you. They need right from wrong clearly stated to them.

[rob menard]

Bully for you :D The fact is there are many 1000's who don't have a moral code such as you. They need right from wrong clearly stated to them.

So if we accept some need be told, do we then say all must be similarly bound?

The question still is at large.
If the situation arose where you had to do what you are told and not break a statute, but operate contrary to your own moral code, OR break the statute and follow your own code, which do you do?

Choose the former, you abandon your own moral code usually out of fear.
Choose the latter, you support the FMOTL perspective.

Divert the discussion again, you only show a lack of honour. Again.

[rumpole]

So if we accept some need be told, do we then say all must be similarly bound?

The question still is at large.
If the situation arose where you had to do what you are told and not break a statute, but operate contrary to your own moral code, OR break the statute and follow your own code, which do you do?

Choose the former, you abandon your own moral code usually out of fear.
Choose the latter, you support the FMOTL perspective.

Divert the discussion again, you only show a lack of honour. Again.

Yes they should for the simple reason that's it practically impossible to distinguish the 'moral' from the 'immoral'. Every should get the same deal.

As regards 'honour' I have more of it my little finger than you do in your whole body. I'm not going to spell it out with reference to specific acts but you've done (& continue to do) things that I consider to be profoundly immoral, exploitative & shameful & in other words 'dishonourable'.

[merlincove]

Bully for you :D The fact is there are many 1000's who don't have a moral code such as you. They need right from wrong clearly stated to them.

Thats why i bracketed (and i am aware that many people do not have moral codes)

:D

Is this then due to societies inability to instill a moral code?

[rumpole]

Thats why i bracketed

:D

Is this then due to societies inability to instill a moral code?

Naah, that'll be human nature.

[theabominablephenomenon]

Naah, that'll be human nature.

Ever heard of social conditioning?

[john white]

To do the right thing because it is right is the highest human calling

It carries great responsibility

The right thing must never involve creating harm, theft, or lies

The right thing is always Lawful

I draw a distinction between the words moral (morality) and ethical (ethics)

I define them like this:

Morality is the rules of the social construct

They may be appropriate, or they may be corrupted

(racial prejudice is corrupted morality, for example)

Morals provide a guide but they may need to be over-ruled

Ethics is the personal individual guide... the resulting behaviour from the balance of ones own consciousness

Our ethics are our guide to knowing when an action is right

Opposing injustice, even when injustice is legalised, is always ethical and always right. Injustice cannot be lawful

[mfrey0118]

Bully for you :D The fact is there are many 1000's who don't have a moral code such as you. They need right from wrong clearly stated to them.

Every Man and Woman's moral code is unique and based upon their experiences and personality. For instance, a man who would never murder a family and steal their wealth in the dead of night might think it's an acceptable compromise to lie to his child almost from birth about the existance of a fictional creature commonly known as Santa Claus.

The man known as Yahushuah stated something very profound once. When asked BY A LAWYER which was the greatest commandment in the law that was in existance in Israel about two thousand years ago, he summed it up by saying:

"Love Ahayeh Asher Ahayeh with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The written Torah that God gave Moshe consisted of about 620 commandments. Most of these were governing the procedures for the Levite priests in the Tabernacle, so even less of these applied to the people. The rest dealt with fair dealings with God and between man and his neighbor. The important point to remember here is that God stated very emphatically that His law was unchanging, and any who attempted to pervert it by adding to or taking away from the Torah would be cursed.

Then Judaism took off, born out of the captivities in Egypt and Babylon, many years later. This religious and political system developed many, many laws. So many, in fact, that there are laws that dictate to the follower exactly how to wash hands and feet, and even the order of which shoe gets put on and tied first!

Judaism was fundamentally flawed because it's nature was dynamic, ever changing, and based upon precedent.

Today, we have a heavy Talmudic influence in the law society and strangely enough there are over sixty million rules, acts, codes, and regulations. They are ever-changing, and based upon "decisions" made by "judges".

These judges, unfortunately, are given great latitude when "legislating from the bench", so to speak, and thus have created an almost indiscipherable code of conduct.

One actually has to go to school for eight years, just to be considered ready to begin their journey of understanding "law".

Back in the days of the Law of God, a family was required to read through the Torah over and over. Every child, no matter how rich or poor, smart or stupid, knew the entire Law by the time they were teenagers.

If a judge in the United States is given so much latitude to create precedent through decision, how can you possibly maintain that this is somehow the correct procedure for a paper fiction to dictate morality to its citizens? What happens when the judge is just as much of a moral degenerate as the one standing beneath his bench?

This system is inherently flawed. As history has overwhelmingly showed, it is not the job of government to dictate right and wrong to the people. It must merely be the reflection of that society's morality.

I believe a Man is born with a conscience. Most will agree that they did not need anyone to instruct them that raping, torturing, and murdering a five year old little girl is not a moral act.

I also think that, as Man lives his life, conscience is either reinforced by outside influences such as parents, siblings, friends, media, etc., or it is slowly weakened to the point where the Man is able to overcome his sense of right and wrong and act out of harmony with creation.

The biggest responsibility for morality must come from the family. So what happens when evidence suggests a very concerted effort, by the government through its political system and the mainstream media (just follow the food chain up the pyramids and it becomes quite evident that the heads of these conglomerates and the heads of the government are undeniably interwoven) to influence the moral codes of the people? THEY HAVE TAKEN ON THE ROLE OF GOD. By default, this form of authority is morally reprehensible.

Hollywood, in response to concerns about the morally bankrupt programming it is responsible for, often responds with the mantra that they are merely a reflection of morals of society, and not responsbile for creating these morals. This, however, is the exact opposite of what is true. If anyone denies this, a quick study into the power of influence over the human brain of a television set would quickly put this denial to bed, in my opinion.

The media is constanly trying to tell us what to think. Why? Who is responsible? Well, who are these entities LICENSED by? The Federal Communications Commission. The government has given the media its power to dictate morality to the people.

Rumpole, to review and in answer to your statement, people are born with a conscience which has an innate sense of right and wrong. This sense is either strengthened or weakened through experience and environment. The responsibility for strengthening the moral fiber of a Man lies first with his Creator, second with his Father and Mother, and lastly with himself, through the choices he makes based upon what he has learned.

This responsibility is not, nor ever has been, with the political entities that Man has shaped to control his fellow Man throughout our history. Government, by its very nature, can only successfully be a reflection of the morality of its people. If the community has eroded to the point where children are brought up without the morals that God has given to His people, then the community must remedy this from within or die. Installing a government to force-feed its own morality to the people will only result in a spectacular collapse of that government as all law eventually breaks down under its own weight.

[rumpelstilzchen]

So you did not wish to address the OP, you just want to slag at me, right? :D (POST REPORTED)

You have reported my post for responding directly to something you have posted?
Right let's see if I've got this right.
You may say anything you wish in your posts, but if anybody responds to any off topic comment you make, you complain that they are not addressing the OP?
Everbody must play by your rules, and your rules alone? The problem is you keep changing them as you go along.
If reporting posts is your bag, them go ahead. It's a pastime you appear to take great delight in.
I'm reminded of a conversation we had a few weeks ago regarding "snitches". Obviously you have had a change of mind on that one.
Anyway, I was not slagging you off.
I was simply making an observation. An observation I believe to be the truth.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you consider it to be "slagging you off"?

[john white]

It's a Catch 22 Rob because the entire underpinning of the current system is a bedrock of Christian morality, albeit in various shades of dilution, distortion and corruption in many areas ... 'evolution' or 'positive law' I believe are a couple of terms used to describe the bastardisation of and amendment to, but nonetheless, the roots are still there if digging deeply enough for them to see the light of day.

So, as you propose, to deny morality is to deny the system.
However, to acknowledge morality also denies the system, as it has been stated as necessary to remove all elements of morality, which calls upon subjective matters of conscience, in favour of codification and strict adherence to precedent with its misleading appeal to logic.

This is precisely why I make the distinction between morals and ethics

[mfrey0118]

It's a Catch 22 Rob because the entire underpinning of the current system is a bedrock of Christian morality, albeit in various shades of dilution, distortion and corruption in many areas ...

Actually the sanitized versions of history we get in schools claims the underpinning of the current system is Christian. However, the actual system the current one reflects is far more ancient than that.

[solzhenitsyn]

Really? I find that shocking. Which jurisdictions?

With respect to the original questions:



It seems to me that even freemen acknowledge that sometimes people must compelled to obey another human being. As I understand it, freemen acknowledge that there is at least a "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, no?

So, this acceptance of "Common law" raises a number of questions. For example, from where does the authority to compel people to obey the "Common law" come? Who has the authority to enforce this "Common law"?

Secondly, as I understand it, the "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, regardless of their faith, religion, conscience, includes the law that no one may cause harm to another. However, the obvious questions that arise are: how is harm defined?; who defines it?; which sorts of harm are illegal and which aren't? (for example, is cheating on one's wife, which presumable harms her in some way, illegal or not?); how are people to know what is harm and what is not, and also which harms are illegal and which aren't?.

With respect to my second point, and all of the problems that arise from a law which states that one may not cause harm to another, I will pose a hypothetical situation: Black Acre Bank gives a mortgage to Mr. White so that he can build his home. However, Mr. White falls ill and can't pay back the mortgage. Let's presume that Black Acre Bank paid Mr. White the proceeds of the mortgage in silver (to avoid any "currency is rubbish anyway" argument") and that it charged Mr. White no interest. When Black Acre Bank attempts to claim Mr. White's home, Mr. White complains that they are causing him harm by evicting him. Black Acre Bank complains that Mr. White has caused them harm by taking their silver and not repaying it.

Who determines who suffered harm and who didn't? How does that person make that determination? Are both Black Acre Bank and Mr. White bound by that decision? Why?

I realize its a bit pretentious to quote myself, but I am curious if anyone has a solution to my hypothetical situation, and the questions arising out of it?

[lizardlover]

The problem is, in any society, you will need rules determined by someone, that some won't agree with. In your freeman village idea, will there be laws or rules? What if some disagree with them, which I'm sure they will? I remember somewhere on here before Rob listed somethings that would be punishable by death if they were broken in freemanland.

I've tried to point out flaws in the 3-common-law-rules is all we need and many examples of "crimes" that don't violate them. Albeit, they were extreme, but instead of answering, Rob just called me a pedophile and avoided the question on how it would have been dealt with.

When it comes down to it, there will be rules in Rob's micro-society that some don't agree with, and then they will want to leave and start up there own micro-society and people there won't agree with some of those rules, etc, etc repeat forever.

[john white]

When it comes down to it, there will be rules in Rob's micro-society that some don't agree with, and then they will want to leave and start up there own micro-society and people there won't agree with some of those rules, etc, etc repeat forever.

We call that culture: see also cultural diversity

[solzhenitsyn]

And how would freeman society resolve the "cultural diversity" (two different understandings of "harm") conflict in my hypothetical?

[john white]

And how would freeman society resolve the "cultural diversity" (two different understandings of "harm") conflict in my hypothetical?

Each to their own, respect each other

[rumpole]

And how would freeman society resolve the "cultural diversity" (two different understandings of "harm") conflict in my hypothetical?

& there is the more fundamental question of what 'harm' is? Say I ditch my wife & run off with a nubile secretary I'm inevitably going to cause her 'harm' but is this the type of 'harm' a FMOTL convened Court would have the jurisdiction to rule on? Or should the 'law' not interfere in people private lives?

What if my business is doing badly & I need to make staff redundant? Clearly I've caused then 'harm'. What's the FMOTL stance on this?

[solzhenitsyn]

Sorry, I don't understand. How is "each to their own" a solution? Each of the parties' position is in direct conflict with the other.

With respect to your suggestion of "respect each other", what does this mean in these circumstances? What does it require of each party? And who would enforce this requirement should one of the parties not "respect" the other?

[micklemus]

& there is the more fundamental question of what 'harm' is? Say I ditch my wife & run off with a nubile secretary I'm inevitably going to cause her 'harm' but is this the type of 'harm' a FMOTL convened Court would have the jurisdiction to rule on? Or should the 'law' not interfere in people private lives?

What if my business is doing badly & I need to make staff redundant? Clearly I've caused then 'harm'. What's the FMOTL stance on this?

I've got one - I make some bread and accidentally use duff ingredients. I sell it to someone else who in turn gives it to a third party. No contract between me and third party.

Third party gets food poisoning and is 'harmed'. How do we deal with that.

Sorry, I said I was ducking out of this thread but this is an interesting issue so I'm stepping back in briefly. :)

[solzhenitsyn]

& there is the more fundamental question of what 'harm' is? Say I ditch my wife & run off with a nubile secretary I'm inevitably going to cause her 'harm' but is this the type of 'harm' a FMOTL convened Court would have the jurisdiction to rule on? Or should the 'law' not interfere in people private lives?

What if my business is doing badly & I need to make staff redundant? Clearly I've caused then 'harm'. What's the FMOTL stance on this?

Absolutely. Sorry, I was trying to capture this in my post and my clumsy little hypothetical, but perhaps I failed. I completely agree though. And I don't understand how "to each their own" is a solution to the endless variety of problems like this that arise every day in human society.

[rumpole]

I've got one - I make some bread and accidentally use duff ingredients. I sell it to someone else who in turn gives it to a third party. No contract between me and third party.

Third party gets food poisoning and is 'harmed'. How do we deal with that.

Sorry, I said I was ducking out of this thread but this is an interesting issue so I'm stepping back in briefly. :)

Haha - substitute the bad bread with ginger beer with a rotten snail in it & you've got a classic on your hands :D


Absolutely. Sorry, I was trying to capture this in my post and my clumsy little hypothetical, but perhaps I failed. I completely agree though. And I don't understand how "to each their own" is a solution to the endless variety of problems like this that arise every day in human society.

Yes, John White's idea doesn't seem to resolve the defaulting borrower / aggrieved lender scenario

[micklemus]

Haha - substitute the bad bread with ginger beer with a rotten snail in it & you've got a classic on your hands :D


Don't know what you mean! :D

Yes, John White's idea doesn't seem to resolve the defaulting borrower / aggrieved lender scenario

Further agreed here

[john white]

John White's idea doesn't seem to resolve the defaulting borrower / aggrieved lender scenario

Oh sorry, your talking about commerce?

I thought this thread was about right and wrong

There's no right or wrong in commerce, only contract

But contract must be lawful

[rumpole]

Oh sorry, your talking about commerce?

I thought this thread was about right and wrong
There's no right or wrong in commerce, only contract

But contract must be lawful

But there is a moral (right / wrong) dimension to honouring contracts isn't there?

[john white]

But there is a moral (right / wrong) dimension to honouring contracts isn't there?

The contract should be lawful, any changes to the contract should be lawful, and contracts should be re-negotiated if their terms cause other unlawful effects... if any of the above are missing, it is honourable to challenge them

[solzhenitsyn]

The contract should be lawful, any changes to the contract should be lawful, and contracts should be re-negotiated if their terms cause other unlawful effects... if any of the above are missing, it is honourable to challenge them

Could you apply these principles to any one of the hypothetical situations that have been posed? And then explain who, in your understanding of freeman society, would be so applying them, and where their authority to do so comes from, and how that application would be enforced, etc.?

[yozhik]

Really? I find that shocking. Which jurisdictions?



Here's a similar story;

Should a couple be stopped from feeding the homeless because they lack a permit?

For the past year, Houston couple, Amanda and Bobby Herring have been feeding the homeless through their program, “Feed a Friend.” Usually, about 60 to 120 people are fed every night. The food is donated from area businesses and prepared in various kitchens by volunteers or Amanda.

However, on November 8, they were approached by Houston police officers and asked if they could provide food at another location. They moved and continued to provide food there until Dec. 30, when a park ranger and two police officers told them they would have to stop until they could obtain a permit.

According to Houston’s Food Ordinance, “anyone who sells or serves food, is required to obtain a food dealer’s permit from the Houston Department of Health and Human Services. Food prepared in or obtained from an unlicensed private home or other unlicensed food establishment is prohibited.”


Source (http://msnbc.newsvine.com/_question/2011/01/17/5860938-should-a-couple-be-stopped-from-feeding-the-homeless-because-they-lack-a-permit)

[john white]

Could you apply these principles to any one of the hypothetical situations that have been posed? And then explain who, in your understanding of freeman society, would be so applying them, and where their authority to do so comes from, and how that application would be enforced, etc.?

I could, entirely succesfully

[john white]

Should a couple be stopped from feeding the homeless because they lack a permit?

For the past year, Houston couple, Amanda and Bobby Herring have been feeding the homeless through their program, “Feed a Friend.” Usually, about 60 to 120 people are fed every night. The food is donated from area businesses and prepared in various kitchens by volunteers or Amanda.

However, on November 8, they were approached by Houston police officers and asked if they could provide food at another location. They moved and continued to provide food there until Dec. 30, when a park ranger and two police officers told them they would have to stop until they could obtain a permit.

According to Houston’s Food Ordinance, “anyone who sells or serves food, is required to obtain a food dealer’s permit from the Houston Department of Health and Human Services. Food prepared in or obtained from an unlicensed private home or other unlicensed food establishment is prohibited.”

Obvious example of an unlawful statute

[solzhenitsyn]

Here's a similar story;

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting and raises a number of issues. I would just comment that there is no mention of a law prohibiting the feeding of homeless people, only the serving of food to the public without a permit. Now, one might very well argue that this is an absurd application of the law, and I can't say that I would disagree, but at the same time, the statute clearly serves a purpose: to prevent people from serving unsafe food to the public (ginger beer with a snail in it, for example). What if, for example, the Herrings' kitchen were filthy, and the food they served to the homeless people made them all very ill? Would this statute clearly be unlawful in those circumstances?

[solzhenitsyn]

I could, entirely succesfully

Somehow I don't find that answer particularly satisfying. Perhaps others do. Anyway, in your hypothetical solution, were both parties completely satisfied that the harm they felt they had suffered was adequately punished or compensated? It seems to me that that would be quite a feat.

If they weren't so completely satisfied of course, at least one of the parties was compelled to obey some rule that they didn't consent to, no?

[lizardlover]

Obvious example of an unlawful statute

No, its an example of setting something up to make sure food is prepared properly and safely. Now what happens if the food they prepare is undercooked and kills a bunch of homeless people, who is at fault?

[yozhik]

No, its an example of setting something up to make sure food is prepared properly and safely. Now what happens if the food they prepare is undercooked and kills a bunch of homeless people, who is at fault?

So when will you be petitioning for every cook in the house needing a 'permit' to put food on the dinner table each night?

Will you also be insisting on permits for any one planning to hold a dinner party?

[yozhik]

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting and raises a number of issues. I would just comment that there is no mention of a law prohibiting the feeding of homeless people, only the serving of food to the public without a permit.

If it isn't a commercial venture, why does it need a 'permit'?
Since when did cooking food become a legislated activity?
Selling food, I might be able to comprehend due it's commercial elements ... but cooking food to help the homeless?

What is the difference between 'holding a dinner party' for the homeless and 'holding a dinner party' for work colleagues?

Can Ma cook for the family without a permit?
Can the next door neighbour prepare a cake for your family?

What part of 'cooking food' is that requires a permit, exactly?

[blakeriede]

tobacco/nicotine addiction can be curbed by an herb known as lobelia. this herb has chemical in it called lobeline and closely resembles nicotine therefore you'll have reduced craving for it.
you may also want to try chaparral. this herb is extremely eficient at detoxifying and extracting the residues of substances such as marijuana, cocaine, and lsd. you might try consulting also a book called "healing with whole foods by paul pitchford"
good luck with that :o
--
to the postings about a man cheating on his wife with the secretary.
lets look at it this way. 3 scenarios.
1. he can leave his wife because he no longer loves her and realizes that the relationship he is in is doing more harm than good. thats an option resulting in frustration and hurt but has a great optimistic outcome and a lesson to be learned. so she'll be hurt temporarily and im sure he will to, but how much harm is done? is it lethal, etc?
2. he can cheat on her and continue to do so until she walks in on him and the secretary which will cause and even bigger issue perhaps an overwhelmingly amount of aggression, sadness, or both. it may or may not be worse than scenario number 1.
3. he can cheat on her one time with the secretary and live the rest of his days continuing on with the original wife who he doesnt love anyway but only stays because a piece of paper has bound him to her. therefore destroying his own health, lying to his "wife", and living in guilt and living a lie for the rest of his and her life. thats not very healthy.

---
thoughts are things, thoughts have bodies. thoughts are PRAYER! and prayer does work and it has been proven and shown to work. so i'll let you all make the judgement call on how much prayer you are willing to render (whether constructive or destructive) and of course as newton said "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" - if i'm not mistaken..that was a "law" governed by the universe, right? :o
here is a short clip about thoughts and emotions:
Thoughts Are Things. Emotions Have Bodies - Paul Chek LIVE! - YouTube

---------
and since most of us like to claim ourselves as being a being in the creation of god in our notices of understandings and claims of rights we might also want to educate ourselves as to what god and the absolute really means/or is, so here is a quick clip about that:
Love, Blasphemy and GOD, The Absolute - PPS Success Mastery - YouTube

---------
Dr. Massaru emoto has done research on the effects of prayer being rendered to water, here are the results. consult the actual book for more info i am not your teacher nor am i masaru emoto:
http://www.visionantics.co.uk/images/amberlotus/CALHID09.jpg
http://www.hado.net/img/globe.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gQbLhYQDz7U/TBESzU_7uPI/AAAAAAAACxM/xhYhC7udN_c/s1600/water+crystal+message+in+water.jpg


...talk about getting technical :D Cheers! :p

[john white]

No, its an example of setting something up to make sure food is prepared properly and safely. Now what happens if the food they prepare is undercooked and kills a bunch of homeless people, who is at fault?

Here is a mouth that has never known suffering

[blakeriede]

i would also like to share of a story about one time when i went to a local headshop to buy some herb for smoking and tea making purposes, although most headshops sells bongs and bowls and pipes and says "tobacco use only" what a bunch of bullshit rubish. but not to get off topic or anything, when we pulled into the parking lot of the store there was an old lady with a walker standing alone on the street corner, kicked out by her own family (this was near a ghetto area) and left alone on the street corner. when we "traveled" past her in our conveyance she waved at us like she needed help or something.

being a person who has family members with various disabilities i have a lot of sympathy for a person like this, esecially an 60-70 yr old lady with a walker standing on a street corner at 9:45 at night. i could understand if she could walk, and was functional, but clearly she wasnt.

she asked for some change to grab a bus to get to her home. but i was willing to just take her to the bus station, unfortunately the lady was too weak to get into the vehicle...so i then said to my buddy what should we do?
he said just leave her here. i said dude no! you commit to something you should follow through, in my opinion and in most cases.
there was a laundry mat behind the headshop so i walked her over to the laundry mat where she could sit atleast in more safety than being on the street corner. i had some people standing near by assist me in assisting her to walk to the laundry mat. it showed me how loving people are, in certain situations. i dont know what the statute is on helping seemingly "homeless" people but i do know that it is against the law to leave a person stranded, whatever that law may be. it is just not right. my dad told me one time while out boating that you cant leave another guy stranded on the ocean if his boat breaks down, its against the law.

all the bums and homeless people who are functional and have a divine understanding need to join a farm or commune if theyre really so desperate instead of begging for money. although helping youre man is a good thing to do, it may or may not be the right thing to do because you may be perpetuating a bad habit. use your understanding and intuition ;)

[rob menard]

Here is a mouth that has never known suffering

I think you mean experienced suffering.

Many of his type cause more than plenty of suffering, and know intimately how to create it. It is how they find joy.

[rob menard]

Good on you blake. That was a heartwarming story. :)

Do you have evidence it actually happened? ;)

Just teasing... Just teasing....

May you continue to follow your heart when it tells you right from wrong, and help people such as that old lady. Peace eh?

[blakeriede]

Good on you blake. That was a heartwarming story. :)

Do you have evidence it actually happened? ;)

Just teasing... Just teasing....

May you continue to follow your heart when it tells you right from wrong, and help people such as that old lady. Peace eh?

the more love you give, the more love you have
and peace of mind becomes more prevalent.
yes, peace to earth, rob :)
that is the prayer i render ... :o

[solzhenitsyn]

That is a nice story Blake. I've always found it quite sad how western culture marginalizes elderly people.

Indeed, elder neglect seems to be an increasing problem. Section 215(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada does place a duty on people to provide the necessities to elderly people (unable to do so themselves) under their charge. Anyone have any insight into whether a similar duty would exist under "Common law" for freemen?

Also, anyone want to address one of the hypotheticals posted earlier in this thread? Maybe they aren't interesting?

[rob menard]

I know many people who take care of the elderly in their communities. They exercise their common law right to hunt and fish for sustenance, and they share with the elderly in their communities. I do not know that there is any law forcing them to do so. As Freemen they do what they feel is right. As Freemen they have escaped the selfish mentality the standard rat race seems to encourage.

Personally I think strong communities where people know each other and share resources is the best way to go. Taking care of old folks and instilling that value in the next generation is the best retirement plan.

Which hypothetical were you referring to?

[mfrey0118]

i would also like to share of a story about one time when i went to a local headshop to buy some herb for smoking and tea making purposes, although most headshops sells bongs and bowls and pipes and says "tobacco use only" what a bunch of bullshit rubish. but not to get off topic or anything, when we pulled into the parking lot of the store there was an old lady with a walker standing alone on the street corner, kicked out by her own family (this was near a ghetto area) and left alone on the street corner. when we "traveled" past her in our conveyance she waved at us like she needed help or something.

being a person who has family members with various disabilities i have a lot of sympathy for a person like this, esecially an 60-70 yr old lady with a walker standing on a street corner at 9:45 at night. i could understand if she could walk, and was functional, but clearly she wasnt.

she asked for some change to grab a bus to get to her home. but i was willing to just take her to the bus station, unfortunately the lady was too weak to get into the vehicle...so i then said to my buddy what should we do?
he said just leave her here. i said dude no! you commit to something you should follow through, in my opinion and in most cases.
there was a laundry mat behind the headshop so i walked her over to the laundry mat where she could sit atleast in more safety than being on the street corner. i had some people standing near by assist me in assisting her to walk to the laundry mat. it showed me how loving people are, in certain situations. i dont know what the statute is on helping seemingly "homeless" people but i do know that it is against the law to leave a person stranded, whatever that law may be. it is just not right. my dad told me one time while out boating that you cant leave another guy stranded on the ocean if his boat breaks down, its against the law.

all the bums and homeless people who are functional and have a divine understanding need to join a farm or commune if theyre really so desperate instead of begging for money. although helping youre man is a good thing to do, it may or may not be the right thing to do because you may be perpetuating a bad habit. use your understanding and intuition ;)

Your compassion is admirable. Bravo.

[mfrey0118]

Personally I think strong communities where people know each other and share resources is the best way to go. Taking care of old folks and instilling that value in the next generation is the best retirement plan.

This.

[solzhenitsyn]

I know many people who take care of the elderly in their communities. They exercise their common law right to hunt and fish for sustenance, and they share with the elderly in their communities. I do not know that there is any law forcing them to do so. As Freemen they do what they feel is right. As Freemen they have escaped the selfish mentality the standard rat race seems to encourage.

Personally I think strong communities where people know each other and share resources is the best way to go. Taking care of old folks and instilling that value in the next generation is the best retirement plan.

Come on Rob. Yes, this is a noble sentiment indeed. But what happens when someone doesn't feel that it is right to take care of their elderly mother, but rather abandons her in their basement to wallow in her own urine and feces? Or does that not happen in "Freemanland"? If you don't believe that people are capable of this, I will happily direct you to a disturbing wealth of cases whose facts will keep you up at night.

So, presuming that the "accused" here is claiming to be a freeman and claiming that he did not DO anything to cause any harm, how would a freeman society deal with this situation? Would it be up to the community to determine whether this is acceptable or tolerable? Who would make that decision? Who would enforce it? How would it be enforced?



Which hypothetical were you referring to?

Well, I've (sort of unexpectedly) provided you with another one above. However there were at least three others posted in this thread. I've reposted them below:

& there is the more fundamental question of what 'harm' is? Say I ditch my wife & run off with a nubile secretary I'm inevitably going to cause her 'harm' but is this the type of 'harm' a FMOTL convened Court would have the jurisdiction to rule on? Or should the 'law' not interfere in people private lives?

What if my business is doing badly & I need to make staff redundant? Clearly I've caused then 'harm'. What's the FMOTL stance on this?

I've got one - I make some bread and accidentally use duff ingredients. I sell it to someone else who in turn gives it to a third party. No contract between me and third party.

Third party gets food poisoning and is 'harmed'. How do we deal with that.

Sorry, I said I was ducking out of this thread but this is an interesting issue so I'm stepping back in briefly. :)


Really? I find that shocking. Which jurisdictions?

With respect to the original questions:



It seems to me that even freemen acknowledge that sometimes people must compelled to obey another human being. As I understand it, freemen acknowledge that there is at least a "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, no?

So, this acceptance of "Common law" raises a number of questions. For example, from where does the authority to compel people to obey the "Common law" come? Who has the authority to enforce this "Common law"?

Secondly, as I understand it, the "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, regardless of their faith, religion, conscience, includes the law that no one may cause harm to another. However, the obvious questions that arise are: how is harm defined?; who defines it?; which sorts of harm are illegal and which aren't? (for example, is cheating on one's wife, which presumable harms her in some way, illegal or not?); how are people to know what is harm and what is not, and also which harms are illegal and which aren't?.

With respect to my second point, and all of the problems that arise from a law which states that one may not cause harm to another, I will pose a hypothetical situation: Black Acre Bank gives a mortgage to Mr. White so that he can build his home. However, Mr. White falls ill and can't pay back the mortgage. Let's presume that Black Acre Bank paid Mr. White the proceeds of the mortgage in silver (to avoid any "currency is rubbish anyway" argument") and that it charged Mr. White no interest. When Black Acre Bank attempts to claim Mr. White's home, Mr. White complains that they are causing him harm by evicting him. Black Acre Bank complains that Mr. White has caused them harm by taking their silver and not repaying it.

Who determines who suffered harm and who didn't? How does that person make that determination? Are both Black Acre Bank and Mr. White bound by that decision? Why?

[john white]

Also, anyone want to address one of the hypotheticals posted earlier in this thread? Maybe they aren't interesting?

Because you should be able to do it for yourself. Have a go. Otherwise, why make an effort for someone who wont help themselves?

[john white]

Personally I think strong communities where people know each other and share resources is the best way to go. Taking care of old folks and instilling that value in the next generation is the best retirement plan.

It's a lot better than the alternative... try to accumulate enough "money" so that when geriatric decrepitude beckons all your assets can be seized and used to pay (bribe) someone who doesn't care about you to wipe your arse and not leave you sitting in your own shite

As the saying goes, money can't buy love

[solzhenitsyn]

Because you should be able to do it for yourself. Have a go. Otherwise, why make an effort for someone who wont help themselves?

Um, the laws of whatever jurisdiction these incidents occurred in would apply. Those laws would be applied by the courts of that jurisdiction according to the procedures set out in law in that jurisdiction. Your turn.

[rob menard]

FMOTL does not claim to be the answer for every human or societal challenge. It seems if it does not fix everything possibly suggested, it is rejected outright. Yet these cases you refer to, they were not dealing with Freemen were they? These things you refer to, I bet everyone of them was a 'citizen' who paid taxes and never claimed the right to follow their heart and do what is right. These failures are failures not of FMOTL, but shows the need for it. Thus YOUR SYSTEM which you defend and which they are a part of sees these things happen, yet you do not reject your system due to it.

System A is bad cause 'this' might happen.
System B is NOT bad even though 'this' happens in it all the time.
That is your argument.

To be honest, I highly doubt it would happen in Freeman land. We have a sense of community, and a feeling of support. These are things your system lacks and which causes the neglect. They feel overwhelmed. Would that happen in a community where people work together and share? Not as likely, is it.

Not providing basic necessities of life is a harmful act in my book, and many I know would agree with me. Do you claim no harm is done in this situation? If not, why base your argument on us thinking otherwise?

Who makes the decisions and who makes the determinations of which you speak now? Do you think we need a special class of people trained in the language of the law to help us determine right from wrong? That is what you seem to think. Who determines what is within community standards? THE COMMUNITY! Who determines if something is wrong? the COMMUNITY! Who enforces it, AGAIN: THE COMMUNITY.

Your hypothetical situations raise issues that happen now in your system. We can easily deal with it using similar tools.

Let me ask, do you feel the need to have someone tell YOU what to do?

IF so, I pity you, and if not, how can you claim the right to tell others?

[theabominablephenomenon]

Willful neglect is a form of abuse.

[john white]

Um, the laws of whatever jurisdiction these incidents occurred in would apply. Those laws would be applied by the courts of that jurisdiction according to the procedures set out in law in that jurisdiction. Your turn.

No need.

Now you need to understand the word "jurisdiction"... then you will have solved your own hypothetical

[solzhenitsyn]

FMOTL does not claim to be the answer for every human or societal challenge. It seems if it does not fix everything possibly suggested, it is rejected outright. Yet these cases you refer to, they were not dealing with Freemen were they? These things you refer to, I bet everyone of them was a 'citizen' who paid taxes and never claimed the right to follow their heart and do what is right. These failures are failures not of FMOTL, but shows the need for it. Thus YOUR SYSTEM which you defend and which they are a part of sees these things happen, yet you do not reject your system due to it.


Rob, these cases deal with people. They deal with people who don't care about other people. They deal with selfish, anti-social people. Now, if you're arguing that it is not possible for this sort of person to become a freeman, I don't understand how that is possible. Is "freeman" a special club that only good people are admitted to? That seems to be totally inconsistent with the "all humans are equal with the same natural law rights" tenet upon which freemanism (as I understand it anyway) is premised. Or does declaring oneself as a freeman magically transform a bad person into a good person? And what about people that born into freemanism (in that their parents are "freemen" [well, "freepeople" I suppose])? Or have you stumbled upon some magical way to ensure that every person is raised to be a kind, caring, responsible person?


System A is bad cause 'this' might happen.
System B is NOT bad even though 'this' happens in it all the time.
That is your argument.


No, that is not my argument. My argument is that people's actions, when they are living with other people, have many effects on those other people. Often these effects are negative or at least in conflict with the goals and aspirations of the other people. This simple fact, in my opinion, is evidenced by 6000 years of recorded human history, and continues to be affirmed to me every single day. System B has mechanisms, that have developed over hundreds and hundreds of years, for dealing with these conflicts and negative effects. System A seems to have none (or at least, no one has explained them and apply them to an actual situation).


To be honest, I highly doubt it would happen in Freeman land. We have a sense of community, and a feeling of support. These are things your system lacks and which causes the neglect. They feel overwhelmed. Would that happen in a community where people work together and share? Not as likely, is it.


Well Rob, to me, this is a utopian vision. I would just say also that several of the hypothetical situations which have been posted do not involve any malicious intent. Rather, most of them are simply conflicts between two people with different perspectives. Would that also not happen in Freeman land?


Not providing basic necessities of life is a harmful act in my book, and many I know would agree with me. Do you claim no harm is done in this situation? If not, why base your argument on us thinking otherwise?


Of course I think it is a harmful act (well, an act of omission strictly speaking). Of course I think that harm was done in this situation. But what if the "accused" (for lack of a better term) doesn't think it was a harmful act? What if he doesn't think he caused in any harm? In Canada, it makes no difference what the accused thinks. The only thing that matters is what the democratically-elected government of Canada thinks? What about in freeman land? Does it matter that the accused thinks he's done no harm?


Who makes the decisions and who makes the determinations of which you speak now? Do you think we need a special class of people trained in the language of the law to help us determine right from wrong? That is what you seem to think.


We've already discussed this in other threads. Lawyers don't make the laws. The government of Canada (or of the provinces), elected by the people of Canada, makes the laws. Judges, who have been granted the authority by the democratically-elected government of Canada, apply those laws.


Who determines what is within community standards? THE COMMUNITY! Who determines if something is wrong? the COMMUNITY! Who enforces it, AGAIN: THE COMMUNITY.

Your hypothetical situations raise issues that happen now in your system. We can easily deal with it using similar tools.


Exactly. We completely agree. You've just described the political system in Canada. However, this seems totally inconsistent with the supremacy of individual or personal moral standards that I understood to be at the heart of freeman theory. How does one reconcile that? What happens (in freeman land) when an individual's moral standards come into conflict with the community's moral standards?



Let me ask, do you feel the need to have someone tell YOU what to do?

IF so, I pity you, and if not, how can you claim the right to tell others?

Yes, I feel the need to have the community tell me what to do so that the community has the authority to tell everyone else what to do as well. I feel this way because I prefer to live in an orderly and peaceful community.

And incidentally, I don't claim the right to tell others what to do. I claim the right of the community to tell others what to do.

[solzhenitsyn]

No need.


No need. Sigh. Well, I can't argue with that, can I?


Now you need to understand the word "jurisdiction"... then you will have solved your own hypothetical

I see. Would you help enlighten a dimwit like me, or must I do my own research?

[mfrey0118]

solzhenitsyn, have you ever considered that the man or woman who leaves their elderly mother to wallow in the basement is a product of the diseased society that has been engineered and force fed to us?
Or should we all simply ignore the fact that we've been taught to be degenerates from birth?

[mfrey0118]

rumpole, I am surprised you didn't address my last post directed at you...

[brianthebrain]

solzhenitsyn, have you ever considered that the man or woman who leaves their elderly mother to wallow in the basement is a product of the diseased society that has been engineered and force fed to us?
Or should we all simply ignore the fact that we've been taught to be degenerates from birth?

go on id love to see you justify how we are taught to be degenerate, FROM birth

[herald_holmes]

Also, anyone want to address one of the hypotheticals posted earlier in this thread? Maybe they aren't interesting?


With respect to my second point, and all of the problems that arise from a law which states that one may not cause harm to another, I will pose a hypothetical situation: Black Acre Bank gives a mortgage to Mr. White so that he can build his home. However, Mr. White falls ill and can't pay back the mortgage. Let's presume that Black Acre Bank paid Mr. White the proceeds of the mortgage in silver (to avoid any "currency is rubbish anyway" argument") and that it charged Mr. White no interest. When Black Acre Bank attempts to claim Mr. White's home, Mr. White complains that they are causing him harm by evicting him. Black Acre Bank complains that Mr. White has caused them harm by taking their silver and not repaying it.

Who determines who suffered harm and who didn't? How does that person make that determination? Are both Black Acre Bank and Mr. White bound by that decision? Why?

I guess the hypotheticals are just the illustration for the three questions posed?

It is simple solzhenitsyn, Mr. White and Black Acre Bank would sort out their conflict like adults. Really simple eh.

Now you will ask "What if they cannot work out their conflict". Then they would go to court seeking remedy.

They choose an adjudicator for their case and a jury is formed from their peers. They can accept the juries decision or be seen as a outlaw in their community. That means no protection of the community nor support.

[mfrey0118]

go on id love to see you justify how we are taught to be degenerate, FROM birth

Wow, talk about exasperation!

I don't need to justify anything. If you're so oblivious to your surroundings that you feel the need to have me explain it to you, I can't help you.

I will indulge you on one small example...a tv show I watched last night portrayed the hero character has having a choice to make about lying to someone. A "trusted friend" and also a "good guy" in the story line basically advised the hero that:


We lie to protect those we love
Trusting the liar means never questioning why they are lying.


Are you an idiot, that I need to spell this out for you? Or are you going to go the "TV doesn't affect its watchers" route? If you believe that, you have no clue about how the human brain works.

Who is in control of the media? The licensers. Who are they? FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Just watch some tv and you'll see all the social engineering you need to answer your own questions. Study pre-1945 Germany, too.

For cryin' out loud as I can without cryin' out loud, these things aren't even debatable...they're OBVIOUS and history has many many examples... :eek:

p.s. And yes, I know parentes who are dumb enough to stick their babies in front of a TV from the moment they are born...

[ben10]

Are we free to follow our own conscience and hearts and morals? Or are we compelled to obey some other human being, and do what they say, even though it goes against our own morals?

let me clear up your question for you rob, you are free to do anything you like just as others are free to set up organisations that put you in prison if they don't like what it is you like doing.
There are no morals without judgements, all things are possible. You have no right to anything and anything you have is in spite of the conditions on the planet not because of them. I can do anything i like to you and it's down to you to stop me and others if they are that way inclined. You can't be a freeman with rules, as i pointed out earlier, your morals require judgement which ultimately means some one else deciding what you can do.
My understanding of the freeman situation is that there are ways you can operate in the system by a serious of paper manoeuvres that make you exempt from the laws set up by people who like to make laws but i'm struggling with the idea that those who want to impose laws on us would have an escape route if you know the way, maybe i'm wrong, it sounds great but i can't say for any certainty that it's true.
So in reality you are as free as you'll ever be, no need to wake up or anything, just being alive is as free as it gets.

[blakeriede]

let me clear up your question for you rob, you are free to do anything you like just as others are free to set up organisations that put you in prison if they don't like what it is you like doing.
There are no morals without judgements, all things are possible. You have no right to anything and anything you have is in spite of the conditions on the planet not because of them. I can do anything i like to you and it's down to you to stop me and others if they are that way inclined. You can't be a freeman with rules, as i pointed out earlier, your morals require judgement which ultimately means some one else deciding what you can do.
My understanding of the freeman situation is that there are ways you can operate in the system by a serious of paper manoeuvres that make you exempt from the laws set up by people who like to make laws but i'm struggling with the idea that those who want to impose laws on us would have an escape route if you know the way, maybe i'm wrong, it sounds great but i can't say for any certainty that it's true.
So in reality you are as free as you'll ever be, no need to wake up or anything, just being alive is as free as it gets.

provided that the person or "authority" (the word authority is derived from the word author by the way) is mentally competent and is able to deciphor the difference between constructive freedom and destructive freedom is all of the law, is it not?

lets create a lil scenario (ha, me and my scenarios :D )

Lets say you find a new planet and you and your civilization of star beings wants to create a new colony or civilization on this planet. so you do that, millions of your kind start spreading around the planet. lets say at this point of time there is only 1 foundational understanding of law and here is how it would look like in its entirety: treat your fellow being with respect, dont hurt each other, share the resources the planet is providing you, do not start conflicts or wars, be peaceful, be yourself but not at the detriment of others, you can discard yourself from the society and travel this planet alone if you want to but that is your choice. use common sense, use fair practice in disputing conflicting situations, use technology to the advantage of the entire civilization like in case of a big meteor hits, or the star the planet is orbiting is going to spit a giant solar ejectioin into the atmosphere, or if major flooding happens or if someone or a group of people in the civilization decides they want to start killing and terrorizing the civilization. any of this sound familiar? :mad:

---
thats just a small example, however.
---
so you see, the entire civilization of this newly colonized planet has to be morally ethical, respectful, and have brains in case of emergency. because what if the entire planet was going to end on a specific date or something...wouldnt you want to be able to escape into the solar system and find a new planet to colonize? I would. and anybody who is MENTALLY COMPETENT would too. otherwise you would die. last time i checked the whole reason for living is to live and ascend, not die and descend.

if you are not mentally competent then it is easy to render you useless in regards to advancing the civilization, you would have to become a peon or peasant, or whatever by default. you have to accept this. it is VITAL TO YOUR UNDER-STANDING of the entire civilization because lets face it 100 million vs. 1 thats not a situation anybody wants to be in now is it? :rolleyes:

so to conlude with what rob was saying and the mentally incompetent individual was trying to bash him - like if YOU were free to do whatever you wanted and what you wanted to do was come stand near me and urinate on my legs or something instead of the tree or plant then i would assume you are not competent to live in a civilized survival based manner and I would probably bonk you on the head with my club - yes you should be free to do what you want, PROVIDED that you are not putting the rest of the community of the civilization into any detriment or deadly situation. so if youre trying to free a civilization and provide them with life and wealth and evolutionary ascendance and if a person comes by with handcuffs, a gun, and a prison system and says "no youre not allowed to leave this planet or provide wealth to the rest of the civilization. you have to stay here and die with the rest of us" one can easily deem this persons act/consciousness as mentally incompetent, delusional, and counter productive and/or potentially hazardous to the survival of the said/given civilization. With the proper philosophy a person can escape from or neutralize any evil, with the proper knowledge of the stars, a civilization can colonize any universe and continue to do so on a future occasion. :)

Human After All - Daft Punk - YouTube

they also have a song called "television rules the civilization" or wait...nation...its nation...silly me :rolleyes:

---
Now have a look around folks, cheers.

[ben10]

provided that the person or "authority" (the word authority is derived from the word author by the way) is mentally competent and is able to deciphor the difference between constructive freedom and destructive freedom is all of the law, is it not?

lets create a lil scenario (ha, me and my scenarios :D )

Lets say you find a new planet and you and your civilization of star beings wants to create a new colony or civilization on this planet. so you do that, millions of your kind start spreading around the planet. lets say at this point of time there is only 1 foundational understanding of law and here is how it would look like in its entirety: treat your fellow being with respect, dont hurt each other, share the resources the planet is providing you, do not start conflicts or wars, be peaceful, be yourself but not at the detriment of others, you can discard yourself from the society and travel this planet alone if you want to but that is your choice. use common sense, use fair practice in disputing conflicting situations, use technology to the advantage of the entire civilization like in case of a big meteor hits, or the star the planet is orbiting is going to spit a giant solar ejectioin into the atmosphere, or if major flooding happens or if someone or a group of people in the civilization decides they want to start killing and terrorizing the civilization. any of this sound familiar? :mad:

---
thats just a small example, however.
---
so you see, the entire civilization of this newly colonized planet has to be morally ethical, respectful, and have brains in case of emergency. because what if the entire planet was going to end on a specific date or something...wouldnt you want to be able to escape into the solar system and find a new planet to colonize? I would. and anybody who is MENTALLY COMPETENT would too. otherwise you would die. last time i checked the whole reason for living is to live and ascend, not die and descend.

if you are not mentally competent then it is easy to render you useless in regards to advancing the civilization, you would have to become a peon or peasant, or whatever by default. you have to accept this. it is VITAL TO YOUR UNDER-STANDING of the entire civilization because lets face it 100 million vs. 1 thats not a situation anybody wants to be in now is it? :rolleyes:

so to conlude with what rob was saying and the mentally incompetent individual was trying to bash him - like if YOU were free to do whatever you wanted and what you wanted to do was come stand near me and urinate on my legs or something instead of the tree or plant then i would assume you are not competent to live in a civilized survival based manner and I would probably bonk you on the head with my club - yes you should be free to do what you want, PROVIDED that you are not putting the rest of the community of the civilization into any detriment or deadly situation. so if youre trying to free a civilization and provide them with life and wealth and evolutionary ascendance and if a person comes by with handcuffs, a gun, and a prison system and says "no youre not allowed to leave this planet or provide wealth to the rest of the civilization. you have to stay here and die with the rest of us" one can easily deem this persons act/consciousness as mentally incompetent, delusional, and counter productive and/or potentially hazardous to the survival of the said/given civilization. With the proper philosophy a person can escape from or neutralize any evil, with the proper knowledge of the stars, a civilization can colonize any universe and continue to do so on a future occasion. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgH2pO9jE2U

they also have a song called "television rules the civilization" or wait...nation...its nation...silly me :rolleyes:

---
Now have a look around folks, cheers.
all of what you have said is just the same as it is now but with you deciding what is acceptable. Clearly you need rules to your liking and someone to enforce them. Everybody is a philosopher these days even those that never made it to the top of the hill for a pale of water.
If this is the best you can do, don't bother.
When a dog chases his tail he doesn't find a bone.

[mfrey0118]

let me clear up your question for you rob, you are free to do anything you like just as others are free to set up organisations that put you in prison if they don't like what it is you like doing.
There are no morals without judgements, all things are possible. You have no right to anything and anything you have is in spite of the conditions on the planet not because of them. I can do anything i like to you and it's down to you to stop me and others if they are that way inclined. You can't be a freeman with rules, as i pointed out earlier, your morals require judgement which ultimately means some one else deciding what you can do.
My understanding of the freeman situation is that there are ways you can operate in the system by a serious of paper manoeuvres that make you exempt from the laws set up by people who like to make laws but i'm struggling with the idea that those who want to impose laws on us would have an escape route if you know the way, maybe i'm wrong, it sounds great but i can't say for any certainty that it's true.
So in reality you are as free as you'll ever be, no need to wake up or anything, just being alive is as free as it gets.

A response from a chaotic mind, that doesn't seem to follow logical trains of thought.

Many of the statements you make are bordering on ludicrous. Tell the man who has been imprisoned for nothing more than reading his bible, with his entire family raped and slaughtered back in his village, that being alive is as free as it gets and there is no need for improvement.

That statement isn't even chaotic, it's simply stupid and belies a complete lack of understanding of reality.

[girlgye]

Really? I find that shocking. Which jurisdictions?

With respect to the original questions:



It seems to me that even freemen acknowledge that sometimes people must compelled to obey another human being. As I understand it, freemen acknowledge that there is at least a "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, no?

So, this acceptance of "Common law" raises a number of questions. For example, from where does the authority to compel people to obey the "Common law" come? Who has the authority to enforce this "Common law"?

Secondly, as I understand it, the "Common law", which all people are compelled to obey, regardless of their faith, religion, conscience, includes the law that no one may cause harm to another. However, the obvious questions that arise are: how is harm defined?; who defines it?; which sorts of harm are illegal and which aren't? (for example, is cheating on one's wife, which presumable harms her in some way, illegal or not?); how are people to know what is harm and what is not, and also which harms are illegal and which aren't?.

With respect to my second point, and all of the problems that arise from a law which states that one may not cause harm to another, I will pose a hypothetical situation: Black Acre Bank gives a mortgage to Mr. White so that he can build his home. However, Mr. White falls ill and can't pay back the mortgage. Let's presume that Black Acre Bank paid Mr. White the proceeds of the mortgage in silver (to avoid any "currency is rubbish anyway" argument") and that it charged Mr. White no interest. When Black Acre Bank attempts to claim Mr. White's home, Mr. White complains that they are causing him harm by evicting him. Black Acre Bank complains that Mr. White has caused them harm by taking their silver and not repaying it.

Who determines who suffered harm and who didn't? How does that person make that determination? Are both Black Acre Bank and Mr. White bound by that decision? Why?

You know this argument is really boring and hackneyed and soo sick and tired of reading the same ripostes over and over by you guys.

go and make your own policies up. Stop coming here asking us to dot the i and cross the ts.

The Common Law system is Feudally fair but what they didn't bank on was that the surfs would call themselves Sovereigns. Ah. Need to change it now.
It was so Feudally fair. It had to be changed. So that people like you could parasite off it.

Sorry but we are going back to that system and unfortunately for you that system still exists as well you know.

The only other alternative (allow me to pre-empt) is sheer brute force and tyranny but as this flows like water. What will you do when the police, the doctors and the soldiers all down the tools too. Despite the money you offer them to wield that big stick.

It's happening. Make no mistake about it.

Yes we know. We'll create war in the middle East and mind bomb the Terror threat.
Only people don't seem that bothered. Must be all the arse raping going on. Ho hum.

[girlgye]

A response from a chaotic mind, that doesn't seem to follow logical trains of thought.

Many of the statements you make are bordering on ludicrous. Tell the man who has been imprisoned for nothing more than reading his bible, with his entire family raped and slaughtered back in his village, that being alive is as free as it gets and there is no need for improvement.

That statement isn't even chaotic, it's simply stupid and belies a complete lack of understanding of reality.

Yes JB is like that. Sometimes posts when Pissed you will notice.

[girlgye]

Everybody is a philosopher these days even those that never made it to the top of the hill for a pale of water.
.

All except you Jeff. Not very bright. Philosophical Enquiry requires a very wide ranging brain indeed.

[blakeriede]

Clearly you need rules to your liking and someone to enforce them. .


only if the "rules" are conducive to my survival, friend... ;)

[ben10]

All except you Jeff. Not very bright. Philosophical Enquiry requires a very wide ranging brain indeed.

I'm not jeff nor do i have the slightest idea who jeff is. My dear i am a new member, i have never had an account here before . You don't seem to believe that, i don't care really but i'm just telling you to stop wasting your energy thinking i'm other people

[politicallycorrect]

I think that you are over simplifying the world. In some cases yes all must be bound for the sake of a few, in others we can enforce rules only on people they need apply to. If the person in the house has the thought process of a toddler maybe I do need to ask them to wear a diaper also.

No I don't believe that being compelled by faith is a justification for anything. The reason we have rules (good and bad) is to codify what we think as a society our morals are. We get it wrong on a regular basis and hopefully people will step up and attempt to get the rules changed.

I live here, that's why I follow the rules. In a perfect world I might be compelled to worry about on what authority these rules were brought in, but in reality I'm glad that we live in a society with the rule of law. It is far from perfect but its the best thing going right now. We are also capable of changing it from within.

The world should be and is very simple, to over complicate anything digresses from the truth. why should we have 'rules' imposed on us? who has the right? who believes that they have the right? I'm always getting told that the Queen is the one with the power and the right... who gave her that right? the system we live in was created from overthrown systems, invasions, occupations and immoral acts which we perpetrated for and by those who believe that they have the right.. why should my right to look after myself and my family without harming another be subject to these rules?

"we can enforce rules only on those people that they need apply to" - WHY?? what gives you or I the right to determine the application of rules to a man, do animals impose rules on each other? you might argue pecking orders, which is a valid argument however a pecking order only applies to those animals who are FORCED into a system of governance. stick chickens in a coup and they will fight for order, stick men in a room and they will fight for order, give a man the option and the knowledge to have his own room, his own food and his own life without the interference of others and he will live quite happily so long as;

[A] He is never subject to the tyranny of others and;
[B] He never seeks to impose tyranny on others.

"What the superior man seeks, is in himself; what the ordinary man seeks, is in others." (Analects, bk. xv., c. xx.)

To look down on another man and say that he must wear a nappy invokes all meanings of 'right', whether it is right that he should (subj) wear one, whether it is right that you would make him wear one (obj) and whether he has the right to determine if he needs one.

To say in an objective but undoubtedly bias way that a man has the mentality of a toddler is to slur against what you thought and what you now think.. much in the same way as we call out to "sheeple", we should never forget that our ego gives us the 'right' to oppose and impose on others and that it is a matter of absolute morality in the way that we treat each other which determines our reality... the UK government had the 'right' to act on behalf of the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to bring them the objective but undoubtedly bias notion of 'democracy'.

Faith is an integral part of all of us, even the atheists. morality is the justification of right and wrong but faith is the part of us which outlines right and wrong as a perfect thought, something pure, the wholehearted belief that our actions are good and pure and that something should happen because it is right, we have faith in good.

Surely the codification of laws to satisfy morality is complete bullshit and as a matter of reality, do laws ever get changed to reflect what is right?

Changing the system from within requires the 'right' to abolish it or reform it... it's not yours why touch it, they can do whatever they want so long as they don't try and stop me from doing what is my right, whether that is smoking in my own home or executing a paedophile for harming a child.. morals are the foundation of all and to say that the system of codified laws and the infringement of "human rights" is the best thing we have is to stand by and acquiesce while the bully works it's way through the playground snatching dinner money..

even in an ideal world there will be opposition but what is ideal should never infringe the fundamental rights given by god and nature... this world is ideal for profiteers and criminals, the next will be the same.

Good luck for the coming trials.

[politicallycorrect]

Oh God not that again?

That being said road traffic law is a good example of why positive laws are necessary in modern society. Without speed limits death / serious injury would sky rocket because people would drive faster. The same applies to laws regarding licensing, vehicle safety etc.


The notion of people speeding excessively without positive laws has been shown to be false in another thread.

[politicallycorrect]

Please provide proof that 'licensing', in itself, has an effect on driving ability or leads to a measurable increase in skill.

You are arguing that the instant after receiving a licence, the man or woman had a measurable increase in their ability when compared to the instant prior to having it; i.e. the 'skill' is an element of the licence, not of the man or woman.

If you do not state that, then the licence, in itself, has no value in terms of the ability to control a motor vehicle and your argument has no validity.


There was also a published study in the U.S from one of the states which showed that whilst an estimated 16% of 'drivers' were unlicensed, they were involved in less than 10% of accidents; i.e. unlicensed drivers were nearly half as likely to be in an accident than a licensed driver.

It's on this forum somewhere ... can't locate it with the search function ... but it has specifically been discussed before.

only just read this bit of the thread... see my previous comment... I hate to say I told you so but rumpole you really never do your research, thanks for the clarification of the study Yozhik... I've read the same thread.

[jason_c]

who gave god the "right"
I don't think the queen has any power
Money and influence give me the right
Right is just another word for ability, I have the ability to do it so it is my right.
Faith means nothing, we do a cost benifit analysis and decide what is moral based on our willingness to accept consequences for our actions.
You may not have the power to change the system from within but don't presuppose you represent many people. Again, I have the right because I can.
I will accept that the codefication of "law" is bs but again by my definition I have the right to do so and if you suffer because of it then exercise your rights to avoid my codes. The fact is you have no rights because you can't do what you want.
In any coming "trials" I have a huge advantage over people like you because I have the means and influence to take advantage of any chaos.

[yozhik]

Good luck with that.