Freeman/Strawman

robtri

uprising2 wrote: »

The way I see Freeman is men and women with a united ideology of living in harmony, in a free and just society, everybody "should" join in the betterment of their fellow man, money, stocks and shares, greed and the likes are not what makes the world go round contrary to popular belief.


If there were a fair system in place I would abide by it and I think the majority would, I would freely offer any skill or service I may be able to offer to whomever should need it, and recieve likewise from others, I would go to Mahatma's land (free ride of course;)) and grow some organic crops and various herbs and share my produce with mahatma, and the old lady down the road and the man at the side of the street with a begging board and a starving child in Africa, Asia, Europe, America or anywhere.


I see the current world system as wrong for a number of reasons, I won't go into them all now my post history would give an indication of what and where I see fault.

If I want to smoke a spliff I will (and at this point of posting I went outside and did just that, so anything after this point may ramble), if I want to mug and beat up an old lady I should be put down like the dog that I would be, I don't want thugs on any side of the legal divide allowed to be thugs, they should pay for their crime in a fair way, an eye for an eye kinda way, a hungry person shouldn't be arrested for stealing food, because food should be available to all, and before anybody says "we couldn't afford to feed everybody", I have never seen anybody eat paper,silver or gold.

The planet is heading into some deep sh1t, this system isn't doing anything to help it, only destroy it, in a little over 100 years we've managed to bring the world to it's knee's almost, and through the current system it's on course for one bad trainwreck sooner rather than later, the writings on the wall, whatever about climategate, the planet is being plundered and destroyed, animals, creatures great and small and becoming fewer and fewer...............Erm, sorry, I dont know where that was heading, but if I had a choice I would live in the land of the freeman instead of the land of greed and all the bad that comes with that.

For the record, my "land of the freeman" is a land where everybody pulls together, everybody does their fair share according to their abilities, I know it doesn't exist and probably never will, but maybe if a few thousand years ago a different mindset had emerged and people were not what they are (greedy bastards) and were more inclined towards humanity and living in harmony a better world could have been.

Anyway sorry about all that waffle, but it's nice to dream from time to time.

while I agree the sentiment of this is right.. unfortunately from what i have seen so far of the freeman stuff posted here in past threads and videos posted.. the freeman stuff is trying to be used to get of current social responsibilities, and not about change....

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Immoral :D:D:D:D:D

So YOU are the arbitrator of all things Moral, the Current legal system is Morally Bankrupt, It is Immoral to continue to lend support to this regieme.

Freemen want to see a Change in how trhe world works, we want to see a policve force and Justice system designed to protect the Rights of the people and Deal in Justice, however what we have is a revenue raising exercise with its own uniformed agents.

is that Morally right?

Can you see the irony and logical fallacies in this post?

Mahatma coat

care to enlighten the Group?

phantom_lord

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Immoral :D:D:D:D:D

So YOU are the arbitrator of all things Moral, the Current legal system is Morally Bankrupt, It is Immoral to continue to lend support to this regieme.

Freemen want to see a Change in how trhe world works, we want to see a policve force and Justice system designed to protect the Rights of the people and Deal in Justice, however what we have is a revenue raising exercise with its own uniformed agents.

is that Morally right?

No I'm the arbitrator of all things moral I never alluded to be, but it's interesting that while you misunderstood that and took umbridge, in the same breath you state that you and your group of freeman are?

Particulary when you look at the type of people that comprise your movement.

Personally I don't think I'd be very interested in a lesson in ethics from someone that drives around without tax, insurance or a licence and then tries to get off by saying that the law doesn't apply to them?

we want to see a policve force and Justice system designed to protect the Rights of the people and Deal in Justice

Dunno what it's like out in Brisbane but maybe you should come to Ireland, that's what we have here.

Brown Bomber

phantom_lord wrote: »

No I'm the arbitrator of all things moral I never alluded to be, but it's interesting that while you misunderstood that and took umbridge, in the same breath you state that you and your group of freeman are?

Particulary when you look at the type of people that comprise your movement.

Personally I don't think I'd be very interested in a lesson in ethics from someone that drives around without tax, insurance or a licence and then tries to get off by saying that the law doesn't apply to them?



Dunno what it's like out in Brisbane but maybe you should come to Ireland, that's what we have here.

What chance of you saying something new? Honestly your argument here is so weak it's funny. Typical "CTer" logic tarring a group with the actions of a few, leaping to conclusions and idle speculation devoid of meaningful evidence :pac:

I'd like to see you post your strongest case to support your claim that:

Originally Posted by phantom_lord
Interesting that this freeman stuff seems to revolve mainly around trying to get out of fines and other obligations.

By the way...5 people posting on the internet under a pseudonym aint gonna cut it. I've done illegal drugs in my mispent youth with more serving garda than that, been in a car that another garda, a boyfriend of a friend was drunk driving and speeding in, drank many times confiscated beer and lit confiscated fireworks with a son of a detective inspector who I was friends with.

Does this represent the complete Gardai?

You have to believe me cos I'm on the internet.

phantom_lord

I'm still waiting for your evidence of the modern rosa parks freemen. Can I assume at this stage it doesn't exist.

Brown Bomber

phantom_lord wrote: »

I'm still waiting for your evidence of the modern rosa parks freemen. Can I assume at this stage it doesn't exist.

You can assume whatever you want. All I am asking for is to share why you believe what you believe but apparently you don't even know yourself.

The late-night love letter PM you sent me proves you don't have an argument.
(but thanks for that it gave me a little chuckle)

I've already told you that i put forward Rosa Parkes as an example of how standing up to authority and breaking the law can be the just and moral action.

Even on this thread you've had Mahatma Coat, a declared Freeman very graciously offer free use of his land to one and all for growing food. It's in line with the thread here http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/letts-system-and-skills involving skill swaps which is an admirable pursuit IMO.

Despite your best efforts you have in no way at all demonstrated that criminality is any more prevalent among freemen than any other group and since this is the crux of your argument your argument is non-existent.

Perhaps you also think that Harold Shipman and Mengele's actions represent all doctors?...

Like I said tarring a total group/people with the actions of few is the area of bigots and racists; though your position is not based on race or creed is the same flawed, judgemental rationale as black man rapes white woman - all black men are rapists.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said tarring a total group/people with the actions of few is the area of bigots and racists; though your position is not based on race or creed is the same flawed, judgemental rationale as black man rapes white woman - all black men are rapists.

You may or may not be aware of Mahatma Coat's anti-semitic comments here.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You may or may not be aware of Mahatma Coat's anti-semitic comments here.

1. That's a cheap shot.
2. It's a cheap shot without any substance.
3. Persecution of the diaspora Jews is a central tenet of Judaic prophesy and is a documented historical fact. Facts cannot be anti-semitic nor can asking questions be.
4. Mahatma Coat gave an open invitation for ALL folk to use his land for crops; no exclusion of Jews or anyone else. This should speak for itself.

Yitzhak Rabin

Keep this on topic. Don't head down that tangent

phantom_lord

Brown bomber every single example I've come across both here and on that site supports what I say. You dispute that and say I don't have enough evidence while putting forward nothing that backs up what you say. Fairly sure I'm winning on the evidence front.

Jimmy the Wheel

phantom_lord wrote: »

Brown bomber every single example I've come across both here and on that site supports what I say. You dispute that and say I don't have enough evidence while putting forward nothing that backs up what you say. Fairly sure I'm winning on the evidence front.

Your blithe dismissal of my example of the weed growing campaigners would suggest you take a different view to the sovereign rights of an individual than those of us trying to convince you, and would suggest any further efforts would be in vain.



.

Torakx

I think its just that Phantom lord comes from a totally different perspective.
Alot of the people involved in this freeman/strawman stuff believe in their hearts that any person should have the right to do to their own bodies as they please.
This should include doing whatever they wish on their own premises as long as it does not bring harm to anyone else or break any of their contracts etc etc.
But since the legal society need money and they feel they own every irish person, in full, body and all, alot of people are unable to live freely and peacefully in their own homes.Can you imagine that!
Not even inside your own house are you safe sometimes!
This is probably one of the main issues.
The fact some people cannot even live peacefully by themselves in their own homes without fear of abductions and harrassment.

I understand their are people who blindly follow authority as we saw in the extreme case of the 1940's in Germany.Even the most obscene acts will be seen as ok if the authorities demand it and there seem to be people who will not only stand down and say nothing but also join in!
So in comparison these freeman issues may not seem so big a deal.
But at the end of the day these are real people with only a limited time on this planet to experience life and its being limited severely by a corrupt system.
Fair enough if someone wants to support a corrupt system or is happy living under it.Just dont pretend to yourselves you are free.
You are free to live peacefully as long as its done acccording to certain rules and you blindly walk yourself into contracts now and then.

The Tv licience is a good example of something that is more or less trying to be forced on people.
The licence isnt for the tv that you bought and paid for.
Its to support a government owned company that alot of people couldnt care less for if they closed down.
Yet people have felt threatened with break in's and garda harrassment if they do not pay this company.

Im not going to reply to you much more Phantom Lord after this.I think the issues have been well explained a couple of times and i feel most discerning readers on boards who dont post have a good idea what its about now.
I think from here on its just a means to argue with you and nothing else.
Should i see any questions or comments that arent just arguementative and repetitive i will post here again.

If you like we can all agree that you win the arguement and then you can leave and we will have a discussion instead.

Brown Bomber

phantom_lord wrote: »

Brown bomber every single example I've come across both here and on that site supports what I say. You dispute that and say I don't have enough evidence while putting forward nothing that backs up what you say. Fairly sure I'm winning on the evidence front.

Congratulations!

Feel like a broken record here but again I have very much reserved my opinion on the freeman movement as I don't know very much about it. I haven't really said anything about it other than ask you to support your claim that

freeman stuff seems to revolve mainly around trying to get out of fines and other obligations.

If this is true it would be fairly damning yet you can't show it's true so you can't know it's true and should withdraw the statement or admit it is a creation of your imagination.

Rather than this constant back-and-forth of me asking for evidence from you and you dodging the issue maybe you could answer this?

What is fundamentally more important for you as a person to follow:

A. Orders
B. Your own morals

It's B for me btw.

phantom_lord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If this is true it would be fairly damning yet you can't show it's true so you can't know it's true and should withdraw the statement or admit it is a creation of your imagination.

Yes it's in my imagination that if I go to the freeman site it's going to be filled with examples of people supporting petty criminals, I don't see anyone using this freeman law theory for any crusading moral stands other than getting to smoke weed. The only thing you can put up to support your claim is a service sharing thread, that's great and commendable but doesn't support your argument.

Jimmy the Wheel wrote: »

Your blithe dismissal of my example of the weed growing campaigners would suggest you take a different view to the sovereign rights of an individual than those of us trying to convince you, and would suggest any further efforts would be in vain.

And the support by freeman for petty criminals shows the movement for what it is.

Monty Burnz

freeman stuff seems to revolve mainly around trying to get out of fines and other obligations.

I'm not saying that this is what the Freeman thing is all about (it's actually quite interesting) but I've only come across the Freemen three times, and in every case it related to not paying fines.

phantom_lord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Rather than this constant back-and-forth of me asking for evidence from you and you dodging the issue maybe you could answer this?

What did you miss this post or something?

What is fundamentally more important for you as a person to follow:

A. Orders
B. Your own morals

Your question is a false dichotomy, I like to live in a society where people follow laws.

Jimmy the Wheel

phantom_lord wrote: »

Your question is a false dichotomy, I like to live in a society where people follow laws.

You're just trying to wriggle out of his question.

You'd happily live in any society so long as the people followed the laws, no matter what laws that society had?

Mr Plough

Some folks might like this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHAOfcqLDgE

Brown Bomber

phantom_lord wrote: »

What did you miss this post or something?


Your question is a false dichotomy, I like to live in a society where people follow laws.

Your inability to answer a simple question speaks volumes. Hopefully mostly to yourself.

" I like to live in a society where people follow laws."

This was exactly my point from the the beginning- "I like to live in a society where people follow laws"...regardless of whether I consider them moral or not.

Simple yes or no question: Does the above represent your opinion?

Is it fair to say had you lived during the time of the slave trade you would have supported the slave trade laws?

If you lived in the US pre civil rights movement you would have supported the Jim Crow Laws on racial segregation just because

" I like to live in a society where people follow laws." ?

phantom_lord

The fact you have to resort to a false dictonomy to engineer the answer you want shows the weakness of your position. I don't have to chose between the two choices in your question. Please explain to me what immoral laws in our society these freeman are fighting against exactly?

clever_name

Mr Plough wrote: »

Some folks might like this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHAOfcqLDgE

Good post Mr. Plough, I think the most interesting point of this is the conflict in the narrator's logic, on one hand he asserts that the police are there to administer fines as a revenue generating service for government while saying that the cost of all the police is more than will be raised. thats my view anyway.

Monty Burnz

clever_name wrote: »

Good post Mr. Plough, I think the most interesting point of this is the conflict in the narrator's logic, on one hand he asserts that the police are there to administer fines as a revenue generating service for government while saying that the cost of all the police is more than will be raised. thats my view anyway.

It's odd though - do these Freemen think that imprisoning or corporal punishment is a preferable or practical solution to every legal transgression? Or should we have a complete free-for-all for crimes that are deemed not serious enough for imprisonment?

Mahatma coat

phantom_lord wrote: »

The fact you have to resort to a false dictonomy to engineer the answer you want shows the weakness of your position. I don't have to chose between the two choices in your question. Please explain to me what immoral laws in our society these freeman are fighting against exactly?

Well how about my Freedom to Smoke Pot.

Is it Morally correct that I be Criminalised for What I decide to do in the Comfort of my own home???

clever_name

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well how about my Freedom to Smoke Pot.

Is it Morally correct that I be Criminalised for What I decide to do in the Comfort of my own home???

I will keep my answer to the realm of drugs, no point in derailing by saying the many things I think everyone would agree should be against the law where ever they are done. (we could all make a long list, lets not bother)

Right drugs, should you be criminalised for you decide to do in the comfort of your own home?

Honest answer from someone who does not like pot is that I would be happy for you to grow pot in your garden and smoke your days away.I also think most police would be happy to be told they can ignore this and spend time on something else.

Now to reality, most people who smoke don't grow it, they buy it, funding a larger crimnal organisation. how serious this is can be debated or not but I feel it is a reality.

Secondly,people I knew who smoked a lot (not saying you do) well I would not trust them to use a can opener, I do not want them driving on the same road as me.

Many people would say booze is more dangerous (I would agree) but I don't want to share the road with drunks either.

Lastly, is that the aim of the freeman movement? smoking pot at home? How about selling pot to a small number or people, is that ok?

What about my freedom to do coke?

Mahatma coat

Yeah You're Free to Do Coke if you Want, Hell if you want to Shoot Heroin straigh into your Eyballs go for it, I wont stop you, Might try and inform you of the Risks to your Personage and if you still want to do it then Fine, off ya Go Free will and all that.

the Reason Drugs are ascosiated with a Criminal element is due to the CRIMINALISATION of Drugs, cant you see the vicious cycle.

if Cannibas was Decriminalised then theat would cut the legs out from under the Drug business and Free up the Gardai to target actual Criminals, doubtless also that a Lot more people would grow their own Plants.

I never said anything about Driving Whilst Stoned thats an attempt by you to direct the course of the discussion Somewhere that you can Claim Outrage, its a rather obvious diversionary Tactic, How about you Debate the points I raise rather than presuming things that suit your argument better

Mr Plough

clever_name wrote: »

I will keep my answer to the realm of drugs, no point in derailing by saying the many things I think everyone would agree should be against the law where ever they are done. (we could all make a long list, lets not bother)

Thanks, I think most of us would agree that injecting heroin in a police station or at granny's would be a bad idea.

clever_name wrote: »

Right drugs, should you be criminalised for you decide to do in the comfort of your own home?
Honest answer from someone who does not like pot is that I would be happy for you to grow pot in your garden and smoke your days away.I also think most police would be happy to be told they can ignore this and spend time on something else.

Good. So you agree that police time/taxpayers money would be better spent elsewhere.

clever_name wrote: »

Now to reality, most people who smoke don't grow it, they buy it, funding a larger crimnal organisation. how serious this is can be debated or not but I feel it is a reality.

More people would grow it if police time/taxpayers money was better spent elsewhere and police time/taxpayers money would be spent elsewhere if more people grew it.

clever_name wrote: »

Secondly,people I knew who smoked a lot (not saying you do) well I would not trust them to use a can opener, I do not want them driving on the same road as me.

Most women I know (not saying you) well I don't trust them to drive a car sober.

clever_name wrote: »

Many people would say booze is more dangerous (I would agree) but I don't want to share the road with drunks either.

You already do and always have done and most likely always will.

clever_name wrote: »

Lastly, is that the aim of the freeman movement? smoking pot at home? How about selling pot to a small number or people, is that ok?

Maybe some individuals would sell it, trade it or give it for free, as freemen and non freeman do and have always done. Though it might not be worth much since it would be so readily available.

clever_name wrote: »

What about my freedom to do coke?

Snort away. I'm not spiteful. Might not be good for your health though.

Mr Plough

clever_name wrote: »

Good post Mr. Plough, I think the most interesting point of this is the conflict in the narrator's logic, on one hand he asserts that the police are there to administer fines as a revenue generating service for government while saying that the cost of all the police is more than will be raised. thats my view anyway.

Thanks.

No, your heard it wrong, that's not what he said at all.

uprising2

clever_name wrote: »

Right drugs, should you be criminalised for you decide to do in the comfort of your own home?

Honest answer from someone who does not like pot is that I would be happy for you to grow pot in your garden and smoke your days away.I also think most police would be happy to be told they can ignore this and spend time on something else.

Now to reality, most people who smoke don't grow it, they buy it, funding a larger crimnal organisation. how serious this is can be debated or not but I feel it is a reality.

As already said, the reason it funds larger criminal organisations is because it is ILLEGAL. If it were "allowed" be grown, people would and not be paying €250-€300 per oz, or roughly €10-€25 per gram from some street dealer.






NOW to reality, you will find yourself in more sh1t for actually growing it than buying a few grams and being caught with it, so people who would like a peaceful smoke don't want the worry of having a panic attack everytime a knock comes to the door.

clever_name wrote: »

Secondly,people I knew who smoked a lot (not saying you do) well I would not trust them to use a can opener, I do not want them driving on the same road as me.

Unless Mahatma has a road running through his living room this point is pointless, it's you adding your own bits in, he never asked can he smoke all he wants while driving on a public road.
And the people you knew, would you trust them to use a can opener sober, some people are just naturally stupid clumsy bastards without the need of anything else.
If they can't use a can opener I don't want them driving on the same road as me either.

clever_name wrote: »

Many people would say booze is more dangerous (I would agree) but I don't want to share the road with drunks either.

I would agree too, drink while perfectly legal, causes much more damage and destruction than a bit of weed ever would, there are no deaths from weed, the toxic level is not known.
As pointed out already you more than likely do, have and will use the road with a drunk person, probably a lot more often than you'd think.

clever_name wrote: »

Lastly, is that the aim of the freeman movement? smoking pot at home? How about selling pot to a small number or people, is that ok?

Well if everybody was allowed grow it, the price would be worthless or similar to a rose bush, but if it were legal and people are stupid enough to still want to buy it, then why not?
Which brings me to another conclusion I had about why it's not legalised.
If it's legal, most people will grow rather than buy from revenue paying shop, like how it's illegal to distill puteen yet you can go into any off licence and buy as much cheap vodka as your truck can carry.

clever_name wrote: »

What about my freedom to do coke?

It's your freedom, you can do as you please, but I'd personally advise against it, firstly it's mostly fillers 5% cocaine, will fook up your life and cost you much more than money, during the BOOM years I was spending up to €2,500 a week on the crap, I would advise against it, but the final choice would always be yours. I would not have the same attitude towards my children doing it, as a parent I'd remove that right from them.

clever_name

Mr Plough wrote: »

Thanks.

No, your heard it wrong, that's not what he said at all.

0.37 text on screen. 1.37 voiceover