He fought with the law and law lost

[1694]

http://www.break.com/index/he-fought-the-law-and-the-law-lost.html

He talks some freeman sounding stuff, the cops tried to use the rules to arrest him for "It doesnt matter", in the end the laws of physics won out.

[quetzalcoatl]

http://www.break.com/index/he-fought-the-law-and-the-law-lost.html

He talks some freeman sounding stuff, the cops tried to use the rules to arrest him for "It doesnt matter", in the end the laws of physics won out.

Das fucking riotous!!! :D:D:D

[bones]

he sounded crazy...

he needed to stay calm and state his objections, he was gonna be arested anyway so let em deal with it but under duress...

never give your name and details......

but i bet he didnt have a nuicor in place!!

b4 you build a house make sure you have good foundations....

[informationx]

Man on floor

"Whats the charge?" :(

Officer

"It doesnt matter!" :mad:

Man on floor

"???" :eek:

Welcome to modern policing :D

[nialldabass]

HaHa he got away, that was the best bit, while being tazed with what looks like their handcuffs. Not sure if that tune he was singing will chart anytime soon but I think his call out to the universe seemed to work. Now I wonder what happened to his wife:eek:

[yozhik]

Slightly off topic ... and an extremely naive question, but I'm going to ask it anyway ...

This looks like its on the forecourt of a petrol station.
Is a taser, emitting 50,000+ volts something you would regularly want to use around a petrol station?

I'm reminded of those (fake?) cautionary tales of "not using mobile phones on a forecourt" ... would a taser not be equally, if not more, of a risk?

[thetonic]

AWESOME!!!

Good singer too !

[tom bombadil]

Un lawfull, not ilegal.


Nelly.

[gilly]

Good for him - the pair of wankers looked so forlorn when he legged it! :D

[dharmic one]

AWESOME!!!

Good singer too !

what a signature statement!!!!:):):)

that sums my experience up completely!

everything is a state of mind.............

genius......

[wakeupworld]

Un lawfull, not ilegal.


Nelly.


Would explain the difference please. I do believe there is a difference but looking for a simple explanation to tell others, thanks.

[girlgye]

So 1694 Do you have any remedies to offer us?

[1694]

So 1694 Do you have any remedies to offer us?

Be able to run a mile in <8 mins?

[girlgye]

Be able to run a mile in <8 mins?

Wrong. That would be contract. Suggest you look up Contract Law.

[rosix]

Be able to run a mile in <8 mins?

there's something about you that's not quite right to me

I'd be really interested to know your life-story to see if it gives any explanation/background as to why

(edited to say that I'm not expecting you to give it to me or anything lol)

[girlgye]

there's something about you that's not quite right to me

I'd be really interested to know your life-story to see if it gives any explanation/background as to why

(edited to say that I'm not expecting you to give it to me or anything lol)

He's on here acting as an agent. Seemingly to provoke and look for answers he can't be bothered to look up himself. As well as to subliminally send messages to the faint hearted not to bother trying to be Free as the Law/Establishment is mighty powerful and one doesn't have a snow flake in hells chance of winning against them.

[john white]

http://www.break.com/index/he-fought-the-law-and-the-law-lost.html

He talks some freeman sounding stuff, the cops tried to use the rules to arrest him for "It doesnt matter", in the end the laws of physics won out.

You did watch this? The "law" appears to have lost that one to a clean pair of heels....

[1694]

Wrong. That would be contract. Suggest you look up Contract Law.

You can catch a disease or you can contract a disease, ill tell you this much, you cant contract what you havent caught.

As for commercial contracts, take a look at Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 3159 :-)

[1694]

there's something about you that's not quite right to me

I'd be really interested to know your life-story to see if it gives any explanation/background as to why

(edited to say that I'm not expecting you to give it to me or anything lol)

sorry I don't do internet dating ;)

[1694]

You did watch this? The "law" appears to have lost that one to a clean pair of heels....

Notice the only time I used the word law in the text of the post.

[tom bombadil]

Would explain the difference please. I do believe there is a difference but looking for a simple explanation to tell others, thanks.

I'll try to put it simply for all.


Natural=Lawfull. Made-up=Legal.

Thus, man cant be 'questioned' (by any other man) for doing something outside the box if it does no harm to others in the Lawfull world.
But, a man that has agreed to comply and then does something outside the box can be 'questioned' quite legaly.

So, to be ilegal is to be non-compliant in an agreed to world.
and to be un-Lawfull is to go against all that seems and feels right.

The Lawfull world seems only to have a few 'rules'. No harm to others. Or property.....Thats about it.
The agreed-to legal side has too- too many agreed-upon rules. Harder to figure them out so therefore easier to break by mistake.


Example; The policeman stopped the car for speeding. Asked the driver his details. Gave him a ticket. The man paid up. All quite legal and above board. It would be the same for anyone at their place of employ. The man is late for work. His pay is docked. He puts his hands up in surender and agreement because he knew the rules when he started the job. He could leave the job if he thought the rules suck. Now, wouldnt it be great if we could leave the legal system? Well we can.

Example two; The policeman attempted to stop the car for speeding. The policeman had to pull up sharply in front of the car because the driver would not stop. The car stops. The policeman attempts to give a ticket to the driver. The driver informs the policeman that the policeman has no lawfull authority over him. The policeman bids him fairwell. Well that is how it should be and in reality the policeman could at the start have found out from his car computer that the plates were that of a freeman and thus out of his 'control', but that is a bit far off for now.

Legal=agreed to terms and therefore nessasary to put to print.
Lawfull=naturaly obvious and therefore unessasary to pin down.


Nelly.

[1694]

Lawfull means in accordance with the law.

An imporperly drafted contract is unlawfull, but not illegal.

These are however both just made up rules.

[miked]

Fuck me, that vid is scary!!

I cant believe that the guy said no I don't understand then the cop tazered the poor cunt!! Evil bastards! How long b4 we have this in uk, probably has happened already, loads!!

[tom bombadil]

These are however both just made up rules.

Too true.

[tom bombadil]

Fuck me, that vid is scary!!

I cant believe that the guy said no I don't understand then the cop tazered the poor cunt!! Evil bastards! How long b4 we have this in uk, probably has happened already, loads!!

I think its heartening. To see a man get his own way over a tyrant or two is great. They were not interested in his rights. So sucks to them.


Nelly.

[girlgye]

You can catch a disease or you can contract a disease, ill tell you this much, you cant contract what you havent caught.

As for commercial contracts, take a look at Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 3159 :-)

and...

[1694]

and...

Its a statute to protect you against exactly the kind of underhanded contracting you claim to be victims of.

[girlgye]

Its a statute to protect you against exactly the kind of underhanded contracting you claim to be victims of.

Its a statute. Protecting whom?

[1694]

Its a statute. Protecting whom?

Anyone entering into a contracted drafted by the counter party.

As a poor example:

I ask you to was my car.

I draw up a contract:
You will wash my car on this date and in return I will pay you £5, if you fail to wash my car I will break your legs.

You sign the contract.

You fail to wash my car on that date.

I still cannot legaly break your legs, it is an "unfair" term and unenforceble even though you agreed to it in the contract.

Whilst that contract is not illegal in itself, that particular term is unlawful.

[girlgye]

Anyone entering into a contracted drafted by the counter party.

As a poor example:

I ask you to was my car.

I draw up a contract:
You will wash my car on this date and in return I will pay you £5, if you fail to wash my car I will break your legs.

You sign the contract.

You fail to wash my car on that date.

I still cannot legaly break your legs, it is an "unfair" term and unenforceble even though you agreed to it in the contract.

Whilst that contract is not illegal in itself, that particular term is unlawful.


Yes under common law it is. No harm to other. If I say now the interest is 5,000 is it gonna protect you?

[dharmic one]

Notice the only time I used the word law in the text of the post.

From what I can gather, 1694 is a big fan of the "solid matter" view of universal laws that cannot be broken. The physical laws are what they are referring to in this thread. Not whether any of what occurred in the video is lawful or legal or whatever. So I think it belongs on a different forum, perhaps one about "science". This is not a serious thread, as per many other of 1694's childish attempts to undermine people's fragile confidence in themselves so that they may do as they did and go and join the forces. (quite a big assumption to make I know but I feel it is accurate as a guess). I think 1694 is ex-service and feels that force and force alone can win the day.

Hence their sig. 1694 still believes as many do that they are seperate from everyone else, that you have to take a "side", are different in every way from others and that physics is undisputable and universal. This is bigotry at its best.

Sadly these contradictory paradigms they live in are in fact hampering their growth as a being, hence their sarcasm and vitriol at aimed at people who question them.

I actually smile when I read their posts these days as they are becoming bizarrely predictable, which is what you find with most folks who are mired in a solid, bigoted point of view.

1694 aims only to preserve their current belief system in the vain hope that they do actually know all they need to know.

If only they knew how much it was all about to change........

For it was one of the fathers of modern physics that said..

"There is no matter as such. All matter exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter"

Max Planck

I think this quote effectively nullifies all 1694's arguments about laws of physics etc etc as this is what backs their "you can't beat the government cos they will just overcome us all with force so we have to fight them......" argument

If you're up for a challenge 1694, lets explore on another thread on the forum some "laws" of physics that you claim are unbreakable.

I am very confident that your knowledge of science in general is very limited to what you want to know instead of what there actually is to learn. This is what leads to the bigotry of your views and your inability to logically argue a point without argument ad hominem.

Have a lovely day everyone!!!

:):)

[micklemus]

Very good points in many respects, in my opinion.

Struggling to reconcile it with the argument about the right to carry arms that I saw elsewhere though. Conceptually this becomes an oxymoron.

Two sides of the same coin.

No one will 'fight' the system using freeman principles and win; you actually justify its existence, whether in the same or modified form. The arguments are very pleasing in dream world but a flight of fancy in reality, as experiences I see here demonstrate. People on the other side of the fence (i.e. "the system") are laughing and swotting 'freeman' like flies. At it's roots it is an attempt to change an established and recognised legal system for another one which freeman think is somehow better. It only works with a critical mass of support and trying to engender change with freeman legal challenges won't work on the whole - it's like trying to persuade the proverbial turkeys of the Establishment to vote for Christmas. And then you still need a 'system' and some sort of heirarchy afterwards to keep things as freemen want them. No internal growth = no (meaningful) external change. It would be like winding back to the 12th century (applying the concept that this is the last time things were about right legally) and then starting again. Wonder what would then happen over time...

However, I'm with you completely with your comments about physics and change. Change yourselves and the world changes. Fight the world and you don't change; you only support (normally unknowingly) the very egoic, polarised and dualistic (same thing really) world vision that got us here in the first place.

The paradox and comedy of life. Human nature to crave certainty and change 'out there', somewhere, and to forget that evolution and revolution starts a little closer to home. We're so masterful at making the same mistakes yet for me personally dharmic one is very close to that eureka moment.

Good luck one and all.

[dharmic one]

Very good points in many respects, in my opinion.

Struggling to reconcile it with the argument about the right to carry arms that I saw elsewhere though. Conceptually this becomes an oxymoron.

Two sides of the same coin.

No one will 'fight' the system using freeman principles and win; you actually justify its existence, whether in the same or modified form. The arguments are very pleasing in dream world but a flight of fancy in reality, as experiences I see here demonstrate. People on the other side of the fence (i.e. "the system") are laughing and swotting 'freeman' like flies. At it's roots it is an attempt to change an established and recognised legal system for another one which freeman think is somehow better. It only works with a critical mass of support and trying to engender change with freeman legal challenges won't work on the whole - it's like trying to persuade the proverbial turkeys of the Establishment to vote for Christmas. And then you still need a 'system' and some sort of heirarchy afterwards to keep things as freemen want them. No internal growth = no (meaningful) external change. It would be like winding back to the 12th century (applying the concept that this is the last time things were about right legally) and then starting again. Wonder what would then happen over time...

However, I'm with you completely with your comments about physics and change. Change yourselves and the world changes. Fight the world and you don't change; you only support (normally unknowingly) the very egoic, polarised and dualistic (same thing really) world vision that got us here in the first place.

The paradox and comedy of life. Human nature to crave certainty and change 'out there', somewhere, and to forget that evolution and revolution starts a little closer to home. We're so masterful at making the same mistakes yet for me personally dharmic one is very close to that eureka moment.

Good luck one and all.

I agree with alot of what you have said here and can understand the seeming paradox of peace and firearm carrying!!!


I actually find it almost imposible to reconcile my physical existence with my attempt at a metaphysical understanding of my reality.

I genuinely believe that the claiming of these rights by me will lead me in the right direction, without necessarily using force at all. I really think that if the critical mass you speak of is to be reached then the first people to get out there and really do it (change themselves that is to reflect that change in the hologram of life) may need to ensure that they have some degree of protection from parties who may wish to forcefully subvert and undermine their attempts to be free.

The past two years for me have been the resolution in my mind of one paradox after another! I have alot of respect for your view though because although we may differ on some things I really do think that we all do want to live together in peace and prosperity and you are absolutely right in saying that the revolution really does begin inside the heart and mind, the soul if you like. This path is what brought me to this forum and I have found it very hard to control my egotistical tendencies and my "i know better" attitude has been hard to reign in. But in doing so I have experienced immense growth which I feel is invaluable on my journey.

I value your thoughts and hope we might get to meet one day and have a natter about all things life...

Peace to you,

Paul

[redman]

He left those bizzies for dead... LMAO :D


Soon as that Tazer come out he got on his toes... LOL



Good on him I say.

[1694]

Yes under common law it is. No harm to other. If I say now the interest is 5,000 is it gonna protect you?

Incorrect it is illegal to perform the actions under the "offences against a person" (iirc) statute.

I could give other examples, for examples contracts which have no exit clause, or try to deny termination in cases of fundemental breach.

DYODD.

[1694]

From what I can gather, 1694 is a big fan of the "solid matter" view of universal laws that cannot be broken. The physical laws are what they are referring to in this thread. Not whether any of what occurred in the video is lawful or legal or whatever. So I think it belongs on a different forum, perhaps one about "science". This is not a serious thread, as per many other of 1694's childish attempts to undermine people's fragile confidence in themselves so that they may do as they did and go and join the forces. (quite a big assumption to make I know but I feel it is accurate as a guess). I think 1694 is ex-service and feels that force and force alone can win the day.

Hence their sig. 1694 still believes as many do that they are seperate from everyone else, that you have to take a "side", are different in every way from others and that physics is undisputable and universal. This is bigotry at its best.

Sadly these contradictory paradigms they live in are in fact hampering their growth as a being, hence their sarcasm and vitriol at aimed at people who question them.

I actually smile when I read their posts these days as they are becoming bizarrely predictable, which is what you find with most folks who are mired in a solid, bigoted point of view.

1694 aims only to preserve their current belief system in the vain hope that they do actually know all they need to know.

If only they knew how much it was all about to change........

For it was one of the fathers of modern physics that said..

"There is no matter as such. All matter exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter"

Max Planck

I think this quote effectively nullifies all 1694's arguments about laws of physics etc etc as this is what backs their "you can't beat the government cos they will just overcome us all with force so we have to fight them......" argument

If you're up for a challenge 1694, lets explore on another thread on the forum some "laws" of physics that you claim are unbreakable.

I am very confident that your knowledge of science in general is very limited to what you want to know instead of what there actually is to learn. This is what leads to the bigotry of your views and your inability to logically argue a point without argument ad hominem.

Have a lovely day everyone!!!

:):)

I am not ex service.

If the "laws" of physics can be broken they are not "laws", what we calls the laws of physics are our best attemptst o explain reality. Reality is the law it is governed by its own laws, whether we like it or not.

The same philosophers who developed legal systems understood this, hence why definitions explain the difference between a statute and law, or how man made law fails to elivate the weakest but instead must seek to reduce to the strongest to the same level as the weakest.

Legal systems in the origins are philosphical matters, slavery of africans used to be legal, now it is not because the commonly accepted philiosphy changed.

We are all one sits ever so well against we are all individuals, you can be one with everyone if you like, please dont force your beliefs on me, I find it oppressive. Perhapse it is ironic that you wish to push this group homogeniety on a subforum revolving around individual sovereingty.

Refering to the force arguement I am just saying be aware of it, those with evil intent surely are and have no qualms about using it, do not think that even if you have "legal protection" you are legaly protected, there are plenty of GITMO detainees who are wondering where the legal protection they should have is about now.

Add that to the fact that the "legal" arguments of freemanism are like a sieve made of swiss cheese and all in all its a 30 year old money making scam that has been tried and failed the test many times.

Make the difference yourself, dont put realy on false promises to give you what you want.

[1694]

Very good points in many respects, in my opinion.

Struggling to reconcile it with the argument about the right to carry arms that I saw elsewhere though. Conceptually this becomes an oxymoron.

.

I commonly see the phrase, "Laws police the law abiding." Making gun ownership a crime doesnt stop criminals, they are afteral criminals.

[dharmic one]

I am not ex service.

If the "laws" of physics can be broken they are not "laws", what we calls the laws of physics are our best attemptst o explain reality. Reality is the law it is governed by its own laws, whether we like it or not.

The same philosophers who developed legal systems understood this, hence why definitions explain the difference between a statute and law, or how man made law fails to elivate the weakest but instead must seek to reduce to the strongest to the same level as the weakest.

Legal systems in the origins are philosphical matters, slavery of africans used to be legal, now it is not because the commonly accepted philiosphy changed.

We are all one sits ever so well against we are all individuals, you can be one with everyone if you like, please dont force your beliefs on me, I find it oppressive. Perhapse it is ironic that you wish to push this group homogeniety on a subforum revolving around individual sovereingty.

Refering to the force arguement I am just saying be aware of it, those with evil intent surely are and have no qualms about using it, do not think that even if you have "legal protection" you are legaly protected, there are plenty of GITMO detainees who are wondering where the legal protection they should have is about now.

Add that to the fact that the "legal" arguments of freemanism are like a sieve made of swiss cheese and all in all its a 30 year old money making scam that has been tried and failed the test many times.

Make the difference yourself, dont put realy on false promises to give you what you want.

"If the "laws" of physics can be broken they are not "laws", what we calls the laws of physics are our best attemptst o explain reality. Reality is the law it is governed by its own laws, whether we like it or not."

I must first really commend you on the politeness of your response. It was a pleasure to read. I do have some questions that I will attempt to use to end this thread with reason. With regard to the paragraph of your post that I have outlined above, could you please be specific?

Which Laws of physics are unbreakable??

I do not want to spend too much time on this as I feel it serves to divert seekers of truth from the ideas that are trying to be expressed. I have added emphasis to your words regarding our attempts to explain reality. You used a very important word. Attempt. Would you be prepared to state that at any stage in history, an objective view of reality has been reached that has had no reasonable opposition?

For it is my understanding that ALL ideas in science everywhere throughout history have had to be revised or changed when further data becomes available. This (contrary to your persistent re-stating of such) does not lead to ABSOLUTISM by way of "laws", in theory or practice. Science is a magnificent castle with constantly shifting foundations. How can you speak with such absolute finality and confidence and bigotry when the very discipline from which you draw your information and single-minded view is changing constantly.

Imagine a timeline stretching back from now to the infinite past and forward to the infinite future. How can you say without any doubt that the "laws" of physics you quote won't be vastly different in fifty years time, possibly forcing you to completely re-think your reality, as it was only fifty years ago? This is pure single-minded bigotry.

In paragraph 2 of what I have quoted you speak of "legal" systems. Check any legal dictionary for the definitions of lawful and legal. It has been pointed out to you before, yet again you choose to ignore what you do not want to address. They are totally different, almost opposite in fact. Then check the english dictionary for law. Nowhere will you find any corroborative info backing your point. There is no ABSOLUTE use of the word law, as you insist over and over. Insisting that laws do not exist if they are open to interpretation exposes the huge flaw at the base of your argument. For they are all open to interpretation, scientific or otherwise.


"We are all one sits ever so well against we are all individuals, you can be one with everyone if you like, please dont force your beliefs on me, I find it oppressive. Perhapse it is ironic that you wish to push this group homogeniety on a subforum revolving around individual sovereingty."

This paragraph for me is the epitome of your struggle with duality. Perhaps the quote in my signature would help??

I do believe some things are so improbable that impossibility beckons, me "forcing" my beliefs upon you is one of these things. I do not feel able in any fashion to force my beliefs on anyone. How would you describe this "force" I am using? If you see words as forceful then you are entitled to interpret them however you like. This does not "make" them forceful in an objective sense.

I wonder if there is a phrase ( perhaps reciprocal irony???) that indicates how it is you that fails to grasp the irony of the discussion. I am more than happy to have an objective discussion through the integration of opposites in my arguments. Which is why you don't see me speaking with the apparent gift of absolute "knowledge".

As for "Perhapse it is ironic that you wish to push this group homogeniety on a subforum revolving around individual sovereingty."....

Are you prepared to state that it is absolutely impossible to have individual sovereignty and simultaneously contribute peacefully and lawfully to your community in the shared goal of peace and prosperity?

Do we therefore have one dualistic choice in opposition to itself that says " we are either together or alone"?

Anyone hoping for legal protection is focusing on an oxymoron, this would be apparent to you if you yourself took the time to establish the difference between the systems you speak of.


"Make the difference yourself, dont put realy on false promises to give you what you want."

I will use this quote to completely put your views said here to bed with reason.

If you read other posts of mine on other threads you will see that I have made the difference myself by putting into practice the principles I have learned from this movement. The "false promises" you again allude to with vagaries instead of specifics (your favorite tactic) have actually resulted in not one agency of government attempting to "force" me to do anything.

In my opinion, this is because they know damn well they can't unless they want to let everyone know that we actually really do live in a fascist nazi like concentration camp called the UK.

The reason I feel sorry for you is that you persist constantly with your nonsensical arguments despite not having taken any of this information and actually tried to achieve this yourself, even if to prove empirically that it cannot be done. Would this not be the first option taken by any "scientist"?

You speak so highly of science yet science is based primarily on observation. This involves practical experiment, of which I have seen absolutely no evidence of on your part. Conveniently, you do not like to discuss anyone's small victories with anything but contempt and single-mindedness.

A scientist would adapt his theory to his empirical observation. whereas you actually do the opposite. That is what you call irony, my friend.

Good day to you 1694,

Peace and love.....

[mystic nomad]

This thread is the freeman thread right?

1694 has posted in the right thread, it's the posts about physics and stuff that don't belong here.

The point of the video is the policy enforcers had no reason to be trying to arrest the man under their own admission let alone use brutality. Notice how the policy enforcers were trying to get out of the man "you are under arrest, do you understand?" The man was stating that he did not understand and that they had no right (under common law) to be placing their hands on him as he had not broken any (common law). The policy enforcers then sink to the reptilian part of the brain and start acting like kid's who are not getting their own way and bring out the Tazer.

If individuals here haven't yet grasped the freeman principles why not take some time and energy in doing so rather than using that time and energy in a negative exercise to try and drag another being down to your "illuminated" level.

Whomever called 1694 an agent could perhaps use this word as a starting point for their personal research and finding out the meaning behind the word and it's standing in the freeman philosophy.

Born free, live free, free be.

[dharmic one]

This thread is the freeman thread right?

1694 has posted in the right thread, it's the posts about physics and stuff that don't belong here.



I agree completely with some of your comments, however I do feel that 1694's intention here was not to clarify any definition of any law within the context of the freeman philosophy. I believe they are attempting to re-inforce the idea that only force can prevent the onslaught of a dictatorial regime in the making. The opposite, I feel to the spirit of the philosophy. Hence people are "wasting their time worrying over definitions of lawful and legal".

With this I disagree and I do not believe that 1694 at any point has effectively rebutted this assumption of mine. The fact that they are totally unable in their argument to be specific about what they actually do think in this regard serves in my opinion to vindicate my assumption.

Their argument hinges on the "laws of physics are unbreakable" point of view, which I think I have managed to nullify. The fact that you yourself point out that those posts do not belong on a freeman thread to me illustrate the futility and irony of the opening post. When 1694 refers to the law winning, they mean the laws of physics, he got away. 1694 is attempting to illustrate that no matter what we all call ourselves or our points of view with regard to the law, force and physics will always win.

Interesting that you claim he is on the right thread yet, given what I have explained above, their silence in the points I am making exposes to me the bigotry with which almost all of 1694's posts on the freeman idea are loaded. I would like to add though, that I do agree that ( even if I have done it in the past...) calling anyone names on here is unacceptable. I try my utmost to argue against people's stated points instead of assassinating their character.

[girlgye]

Whomever called 1694 an agent could perhaps use this word as a starting point for their personal research and finding out the meaning behind the word and it's standing in the freeman philosophy.

Born free, live free, free be.


I called 1695 an agent. I simply don't get your point. He hasn't denied it either. If someone calls me a nutritionist. I'd say yeah I wouldn't start going around saying people are calling me names. Neither would I need to avail myself of what the means in a dictionary. I like to think I h ave some semblence of a vocabulary all of my own.

[1694]

Dharmic one, I am clearly failing to xplain myslef as you are clinging to the very traditional dogmas we wish to oovercome.

You ask for Laws of Physcis so you can find a quantum situation where they are broken, now break your thinking.

It is what it is, light is both a wave and a particle, why? Because it bloody is. It doesn't matter what is written in your text book or was written. The universe runs on its own laws it is not dependant on our examination and explanation to perform all of its functions(?).

A motorist can break the speedlimit, statutes written on pieces of paper cant stop them. This is why a statute only has "force of law" if you agree to it, I cant go over 60 if I agree not to, as soon as my actions disagree with that rule, the statute looses its force of law, because it is immediatly broken and my car goes over 60.

Now if my car runs out of petrol we have an actual sitiation where laws have stopped my car from going.

The law is what IS, not what you want to be, or what others want it to be.

Stabbing someone is illegal, does it happen, yes, has making it illegal stopped it, no, most of us dont stab eachother because we agree not to, some however dont agree not to stap people and do.....What is written by parliament has no power in itself, only influence.

[dharmic one]

Dharmic one, I am clearly failing to xplain myslef as you are clinging to the very traditional dogmas we wish to oovercome.

You ask for Laws of Physcis so you can find a quantum situation where they are broken, now break your thinking.

It is what it is, light is both a wave and a particle, why? Because it bloody is. It doesn't matter what is written in your text book or was written. The universe runs on its own laws it is not dependant on our examination and explanation to perform all of its functions(?).

A motorist can break the speedlimit, statutes written on pieces of paper cant stop them. This is why a statute only has "force of law" if you agree to it, I cant go over 60 if I agree not to, as soon as my actions disagree with that rule, the statute looses its force of law, because it is immediatly broken and my car goes over 60.

Now if my car runs out of petrol we have an actual sitiation where laws have stopped my car from going.

The law is what IS, not what you want to be, or what others want it to be.

Stabbing someone is illegal, does it happen, yes, has making it illegal stopped it, no, most of us dont stab eachother because we agree not to, some however dont agree not to stap people and do.....What is written by parliament has no power in itself, only influence.

I accept the logic with which you have tried to clarify your argument and believe that there may exist between us an opportunity for agreement!

I accept fully that, due to the current paradigm being accepted as truth (that physical force can and will be used against others to achieve an end) force has its place in the debate inasmuch as physical force is an inescapable (at present) truth.

Where I believe we differ is highlighted in your statement;

"You ask for Laws of Physcis so you can find a quantum situation where they are broken, now break your thinking.

It is what it is, light is both a wave and a particle, why? Because it bloody is. It doesn't matter what is written in your text book or was written. The universe runs on its own laws it is not dependant on our examination and explanation to perform all of its functions(?)"

I am as guilty as others of making assumptions about others' points of view but I think we can resolve some differences here.

I am of the opinion that in an infinite universe of infinite possibility it cannot be out of the question that the apparently solid state view of reality is but a mirage, an illusion of sorts and that the mind is a more powerful tool than we could ever describe within the current limits of our language. The mind is the actual source of causality. This can be transcended so that our ability to consciously create and manifest reality grows. This may seem crazy to you but I view it as a holistic, objective understanding of my experience.

What has this to do though with power of the individual in relation to the power of the state? This I think is where we differ.

As I accept your logic within the current paradigm, I think that as one consciousness experiencing the same reality subjectively, we are able through our collective collaboration to change reality itself.

I think we do this with every conscious thought, desire, emotion, feeling.

Such is the real power of consciousness.

As a proponent of the sciences, you may be interested in Peter Russell's work on the physics of consciousness. This lecture totally changed my world view and helped me understand the potential of my experience in this world.

I feel that the ideas expressed in favour of the freeman philosophy, while some are fallacious in point of fact as you have sometimes pointed out, have helped me to integrate my spiritual and scientific beliefs through an understanding of the everyday matrix we all share, crafted by fascist human beings who may really believe they are doing good by enslaving us all.

I have come full circle from "they have the real power - force" to "actually we outnumber these guys by thousands to one and if we overwhelm them with peaceful non-cooperation their plastic authority would soon disappear!! This in my view is epitomized in bill hicks' idea of "getting off the ride"

Where we may also differ is how this is affected in our physical reality.

Would this be an accurate description of our differences? You are obviously an intelligent person and I have learned from any assumptions or accusations i may have made concerning your motives, particularly as they may only exist in my mind......

How do you think all of these complex problems can be resolved without violence but in a way that delivers real change in our reality?

ie what do you think are the solutions??

[micklemus]

I definitely agree that we should have a natter at some point now.

:)

[rydeon]

http://www.break.com/index/he-fought-the-law-and-the-law-lost.html

He talks some freeman sounding stuff, the cops tried to use the rules to arrest him for "It doesnt matter", in the end the laws of physics won out.

It should be 'he fought the law and won' cause he got away from those two enforcers.
I was thinking him calling out to archangels and so on was a bit forlorn but it seemed to help as he just slipped away while the two cops were astounded!

[bsmurph83]

lmfao!!! THIS GUY IS MY PERSONAL FREAKING HERO. I JUST WATCHED IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.

HERO!!!!

GOTTA LOVE THOSE ARCHANGELS WHEN YOU'RE ABOUT TO GET TASERED. SLIPPERY S.O.B GOT AWAY AFTER THEY HIT HIM WITH THE TASER! AMAZING. BRILLIANT. BRAVO AND ENCORE!