New Household Charge - Legal?

Ayla

Not sure if this has been pounded to death (a look over the recent threads didn't show anything), and I KNOW that the article I'm reading (but can't unfortunately link to b/c it's a public article circulating through facebook) may be nothing more than someone spouting off, but since I don't know the ins & outs of legislative legalities I was wondering if you all could confirm that what it's claiming is actually invalid.

Basically they're saying that since the new household charge has been introduced as a Statute it is not legally binding on those who register their disagreement with it. In other words, if you do not specifically agree with it (by registering & paying your fee online) then the courts can't make you pay it. This is why - they claim - the gov't is asking the public to take the initiative to pay it themselves versus automatically just sending everyone their invoice through the post.

Is this rubbish? Sorry, I know I should post the link to the article I saw, but I can't because it's been put up in un-editable format through facebook.

johnnyskeleton

For those without Facebook, do you want to tell us what the question is?

I assume it is the freeman stuff. There's a whole thread about this.

Grolschevik

Ayla wrote: »

Not sure if this has been pounded to death (a look over the recent threads didn't show anything), and I KNOW that the article I'm linking may be nothing more than someone spouting off, but since I don't know the ins & outs of legislative legalities I was wondering if you all could confirm that the following is a bunch of mularkey:

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=3024062687877&set=a.1748892889429.107760.1452048394&type=1&theater

Hmmm, I know it's a public article through facebook - don't know if that infringes on the new copyright stuff?

Yep, that's complete nonsense.

Have a look in here (around post 395) to see why:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056353782&page=27


(And this is why I said that the "Household charge" threads should have been stickied on the main page for a while rather than being buried in the Freeman thread!):)

benway

(no offense OP, just seems that I can't escape from this nonsense today)

johnnyskeleton

Ayla wrote: »

Basically they're saying that since the new household charge has been introduced as a Statute it is not legally binding on those who register their disagreement with it. In other words, if you do not specifically agree with it (by registering & paying your fee online) then the courts can't make you pay it. This is why - they claim - the gov't is asking the public to take the initiative to pay it themselves versus automatically just sending everyone their invoice through the post.

A statute is a binding law imposed by the democratically elected government. You do not have to agree with it in order for it to apply to you. This statute is no different to the statute that makes theft a crime, or the one which prevents an off licence from selling alcohol after 10p.m. The State can enforce these laws through the courts and ultimately by fines/imprisonment.

No one ever specifically agrees with these laws and registering your disagreement with these laws will get you no where. If it were otherwise, all the sex pests would publicly disagree with the rape and child porn legislation and there would be nothing that the government could do to stop them.

At the risk of sounding too rhetorical, do you really want to live in a world where people can pick and choose the laws they wish to obey and the ones they do not on a whim? Because that is what the Fremen think the world is like / want the world to be like.

Ayla

Fair points one & all. I was about 99.99% sure it was crapola but just thought I'd confirm (I have been wrong once or twice )

@ Benway: love it! I have many days like that too

pirelli

benway wrote: »

(no offense OP, just seems that I can't escape from this nonsense today)

Ayla wrote: »

Fair points one & all. I was about 99.99% sure it was crapola but just thought I'd confirm (I have been wrong once or twice )

@ Benway: love it! I have many days like that too

Would it be constitutional to force people to pay it.

At the risk of sounding too rhetorical, do you really want to live in a world where people can pick and choose the laws they wish to obey and the ones they do not on a whim? Because that is what the Fremen think the world is like / want the world to be like.

I doubt Fremen would want a world like that. I just spelled it Fremen... Ha! Ha! Now i get it.

This is just a copy of Dune in your head Johnnyskeleton where all the Fremen are the villains intent on destroying the utopia. Fremen, the Sardaukar, and the Dosadi, who are molded by their terrible living conditions into dangerous super races.

Freeman would likely punish sex pests alot more effectively than the Present dpp.

Procrastastudy

pirelli wrote: »

Would it be constitutional to force people to pay it.

Hmm let have a look see if I can find some pie in the sky.

Art 40.1 - argument here that because it's a blanket charge the difference of capacity isn't being taken into account but then there are exceptions to the charge. Not really a starter...

Art 40.5 sounds good if you leave some of the words out.
"The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable..." but thats more to do with you're door being kicked in.

Art 41.2.2 If you're a mammy you could argue that it's forcing you to engage in labour outside the home but the article says "endeavor" and I'm sure someone has tried this one before on another tax.

Perhaps something with regard to Article 43?

Any other ideas for a giggle?

Maybe I should make that face palm thing my signature on here...

Grolschevik

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Hmm let have a look see if I can find some pie in the sky.

Art 40.1 - argument here that because it's a blanket charge the difference of capacity isn't being taken into account but then there are exceptions to the charge. Not really a starter...

Art 40.5 sounds good if you leave some of the words out.
"The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable..." but thats more to do with you're door being kicked in.

Art 41.2.2 If you're a mammy you could argue that it's forcing you to engage in labour outside the home but the article says "endeavor" and I'm sure someone has tried this one before on another tax.

Perhaps something with regard to Article 43?

Any other ideas for a giggle?

Maybe I should make that face palm thing my signature on here...

Add in the aspirational aspects with regard to private property and the common good/social justice in Article 45, and we're on the slippery slope to communism, boy!

And as an aside, from a philosophical perspective, article 43.1 would not stand up to scrutiny if it was asserted in an undergrad essay:

"The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods."

benway

All of which reminds me of when my undergraduate self was gonna free da weed by relying on the rights to privacy and bodily integrity. Good times .... no .... sorry .... I've got something in my eye.

You could probably thrash some nice arguments out of that lot, albeit with a sum and total of zero chance of real-world success. The courts are reluctant to usurp the legislature in general, but particularly in revenue matters, and then there's the issue of whether a €100 household charge is proportionate, given the extent of our national financial woes, and the fact that apparently means testing is to be introduced next year.

But, just to be clear:

Objecting to the charge on tangible constitutional grounds, albeit tenuous ones - no facepalm.

Refusing to pay the charge as a matter of principle, as an act of willful civil disobedience - no facepalm.

Refusing to pay the charge because statute law only applies to the legal fiction of your corporate identity and you can legitimately refuse to acknowledge any statute whenever you feel like - see #3 supra.

Corruptable

As a avid opponent of the whole freeman woo (it's got that bad I actually have to actively oppose their non-sense), I've took apart their arguments on facebook concerning this, but unfortunately it is still spreading like wildfire as they seek to fool impressionable and desperate people via social networking sites.

They're really trying to cash in on publicity generated by the whole household charge, and septic tank registration schemes, by promoting this non-sense that you have to consent to statutes for them to apply. Long story short, Irish citizens elected the Oireachtas (Dail & Seanad) to make laws on our behalf, and therefore consent to whatever they push through the Oireachtas. That's how democracy works, the majority have given their consent, so it applies to all.

People keep throwing out the constitutional argument, and that's fair enough, but it comes down to a matter of interpretation as to whether or not it would be found unconstitutional, and the general consensus is that while arguments could be made in favour of unconstitutionality, the likelihood is that a case would not succeed given precedent. I think Madigan v A.G. was the case cited in a previous thread which dealt with a similar issue in the 1980s.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

They're really trying to cash in on publicity generated by the whole household charge, and septic tank registration schemes, by promoting this non-sense that you have to consent to statutes for them to apply.

I wouldn't deny for a second that many people have legitimate grievances with how things have gone in the past few years - household charges funnelled to banks and bondholders, etc, etc.

But, as a response, Fremenism pretty much amounts to burying your head in sand made of 100% pure cloud cuckoo dust.

If people want to take a stand, there are many better ways - as it happens, I'm all for non-payment of the charge, but framing it as a legitimate protest rather than the expression of some wooly headed mumbo jumbo.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

I doubt Fremen would want a world like that. I just spelled it Fremen... Ha! Ha! Now i get it.

This is just a copy of Dune in your head Johnnyskeleton where all the Fremen are the villains intent on destroying the utopia. Fremen, the Sardaukar, and the Dosadi, who are molded by their terrible living conditions into dangerous super races.

Freeman would likely punish sex pests alot more effectively than the Present dpp.

And how exactly would they do that? They believe that only common law is mandatory and statute law is optional. There is no common law offence of child pornography nor is there a common law offence of sexual assault (above normal assault). Plus, rape under common law is not as serious an offence as it is under statute, nor are there special provisions in respect of statutory rape (i.e. sexual intercourse with a minor).

But sticking to child porn and statutory rape, how would Fremen stop this, or would they just permit it to happen? Better the children be exploited for a sexual purpose than anyone be forced to pay taxes? That is the logical conclusion of the Fremen ideology.

However, they ignore such difficult questions, and instead focus entirely on their own immediate concerns - a nonsense way of defeating parking fines, not paying taxes and not repaying bank loans. It's all so half baked.

P2011

I saw this article earlier today.

http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2012/01/legal-basis-for-not-paying-household.html

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR NOT PAYING THE HOUSEHOLD CHARGE

You won’t get a bill because the charge is a Statute. People need to understand this: A Statute is a “legislated rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.”(Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition).

Who are those it governs? We, the public.

This household charge is a Statute, otherwise known as an Act of Government, and only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it which means that you are legally obliged to pay IF you consent or, in other words, go on to householdcharge.ie and register. Your silence and inaction will also give the appearance of no consent. If you do not consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever.

The courts know this and the last thing they will do is tell you. In fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity they can. On the other hand, if you tell them at an appropriate time, they will accept it because they know it is actually true. According to the above definition, a statutory instrument is a contract. If you register for this “charge” you are consenting to this statute ie: signing the contract. This is why the Government are ASKING the people to register and not just billing them instead.

ADDENDUM ON THE SEPTIC TANK “CHARGE”

For those of you who are said to be “liable” for the septic tank charge, the argument above also applies. If they are asking you to register – rather than simply sending you a bill – it means that they are ASKING YOU FOR CONSENT to send one of their inspectors. Most owners of septic tanks look after their septic tanks because they want to ensure that they have a sewage system that does not pose a risk to their families. So, if you WANT to pay for an inspector, register. BUT if you want to be left alone and get on with your life WITHOUT YET ANOTHER BILL, SIMPLY DO NOT REGISTER.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And how exactly would they do that? They believe that only common law is mandatory and statute law is optional. There is no common law offence of child pornography nor is there a common law offence of sexual assault (above normal assault). Plus, rape under common law is not as serious an offence as it is under statute, nor are there special provisions in respect of statutory rape (i.e. sexual intercourse with a minor).

But sticking to child porn and statutory rape, how would Fremen stop this, or would they just permit it to happen? Better the children be exploited for a sexual purpose than anyone be forced to pay taxes? That is the logical conclusion of the Fremen ideology.

However, they ignore such difficult questions, and instead focus entirely on their own immediate concerns - a nonsense way of defeating parking fines, not paying taxes and not repaying bank loans. It's all so half baked.

Fremen as you call them quoting Frank Herberts Dune.

You are familiar with the work of philosopher John Locke. You could not debate the Freeman position unless you at least knew of this man's theory's as the Freeman hinge on very similar theories to his philosophy.

Basically Locke believes that we have all consented to a society where we agree to it's laws. Without this consent we would fall under the natural law which is enforced by the individual. So if a person threatens you or your loved ones then you kill them. You enforce the natural law. No homosexuals, no child molesters or sex pest's and no kerb crawlers or sex tourists. They would all be slaughtered..all but a few very charming and well behaved homosexuals might be left alone..

{SNIP} MOD: What on Earth kind of accusation is that?! Unacceptable

Your laws Johnny prevent this.

Johnny skeleton you act as if we need the law..or the world would be chaos without it. There would be much insecurity, and anxiety without a system of laws, and the law of brutality, and death would be traumatising; but your very wrong in thinking we do not need a modern system of laws, rather it is we have consented to a system of laws.

The problem is that we never consented to corruption and people are frustrated as their instinct is to enforce the natural law against these corrupter's.


Video starts at 28.00 about John Locke..Essential viewing.

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

benway

I'm going to leave aside the highly objectionable reading of Locke, and the clear lack of understanding of natural law as an historical concept, largely because I could easily be here all night.

When it comes to "consent" your whole Fremenism hits an iceberg, though. While the State maintains a relative monopoly on force, most people can be forced to obey the law as it stands, not as they would like it to stand, by the threat of prison. See the story of Bobby of the family Sludds for one example.

On the other hand, if you're trying to bring down the system by encouraging civil disobedience, then call it what it is, don't go around pretending that the legal system operates in a way that it clearly does not.

Deciding that we can just wish away corruption through some Fremen hocus pocus isn't going to achieve jack.

johnnyskeleton

I too was going to respond to pirellis post but benway has already pointed out most of the flaws.

Just two quick things: 1. Locke did not believe in the social contract or rule by consent, you may be mixing him up with rousseau.

2. Actually history is full of unchecked child abuse and it is only in recent years when legislation has forced the issue that any sort of jusice has been doled out in this regard. But your proposal for the father of the abused child killing the abuser makes no sense. What if the father himself is the abuser? What if the alleged abuser is falsely accused? What if the father is not strong enough to take on the abuser and is killed himself? This theory of retributatove justice is popular to those who look at it from a superficial point of view, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sure you yourself claim to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Under our current system, bad as it is, you can act to redress that. Under the fremen system you propose, you would be lynched as a criminal by the mob without trial, and there's no come back from that.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

Fremen as you call them quoting Frank Herberts Dune.

You are familiar with the work of philosopher John Locke. You could not debate the Freeman position unless you at least knew of this man's theory's as the Freeman hinge on very similar theories to his philosophy.

Basically Locke believes that we have all consented to a society where we agree to it's laws. Without this consent we would fall under the natural law which is enforced by the individual. So if a person threatens you or your loved ones then you kill them. You enforce the natural law. No homosexuals, no child molesters or sex pest's and no kerb crawlers or sex tourists. They would all be slaughtered..all but a few very charming and well behaved homosexuals might be left alone..

Emmet Stagg would not be sitting in the Dail after being caught have sex with a young person. He would be killed by the young boys fathered and dismembered by the local community.

Your laws Johnny prevent this.

Johnny skeleton you act as if we need the law..or the world would be chaos without it. There would be much insecurity, and anxiety without a system of laws, and the law of brutality, and death would be traumatising; but your very wrong in thinking we do not need a modern system of laws, rather it is we have consented to a system of laws.

The problem is that we never consented to corruption and people are frustrated as their instinct is to enforce the natural law against these corrupter's.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689)

John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by The Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it. While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense (of "self-preservation"). The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government derives its "just powers from the consent [i.e, delegation] of the governed," in the language of the Declaration. For Jefferson, as for many of the American Founding Fathers, Locke was the most important and most esteemed author on political philosophy.

benway wrote: »

I'm going to leave aside the highly objectionable reading of Locke, and the clear lack of understanding of natural law as an historical concept, largely because I could easily be here all night.

When it comes to "consent" your whole Fremenism hits an iceberg, though. While the State maintains a relative monopoly on force, most people can be forced to obey the law as it stands, not as they would like it to stand, by the threat of prison. See the story of Bobby of the family Sludds for one example.

On the other hand, if you're trying to bring down the system by encouraging civil disobedience, then call it what it is, don't go around pretending that the legal system operates in a way that it clearly does not.

Deciding that we can just wish away corruption through some Fremen hocus pocus isn't going to achieve jack.

No don't leave it aside. I have highlighted above in colour ( for ease of comparison) the similarities of my synopsis with John Lockes theory, and I think given a fair synopsis of John Locke theory of social contract. I wasn't preparing a thesis for assessment. Suitable for a post I would think. Johnny Skeleton keeps bringing in sex pests i am just finding ways to kill them.

My Fremenism, and I am very new to Fremensim; would be based in works of Francis Bacon, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume; and Kant. So there is no intent to cause civil disobedience on my part. From my experiences the irish representatives are confused on what civil obedience is..used to be a bit Douglas McGregor and the proverbial carrot now that there is no carrot what are we to do?

As Johnnyskeleton has pointed out i have always had an agenda prioritising miscarriage of justice as the Noahs ark or core concept of a working society and noted through the years the Irish representatives had little time for jurisprudence or justice and a very poor understanding of how to resolve one.

Like the Irish representatives predicament when my miscarriage of justice is resolved it will be like a knife taken from my back, but a very different feeling than having your carrot taken and a much more rewarding outcome. If that is my Goal than it is the core of both social consciousness and a rigid theme of most if not all religions.The bible says those that suffered injustice sit at the right hand of God. How am I civilly disobedient or immoral in my duties and goals which i did not choose but were forced on me by a huge injustice. I strive to resolve this for the good of society and to avoid the inverse consequence of meddling with the core concepts of social contract and morality.


John Locke FRS ( /ˈlɒk/; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Liberalism,[2][3][4] was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I too was going to respond to pirellis post but benway has already pointed out most of the flaws.

Just two quick things: 1. Locke did not believe in the social contract or rule by consent, you may be mixing him up with rousseau.

2. Actually history is full of unchecked child abuse and it is only in recent years when legislation has forced the issue that any sort of jusice has been doled out in this regard. But your proposal for the father of the abused child killing the abuser makes no sense. What if the father himself is the abuser? What if the alleged abuser is falsely accused? What if the father is not strong enough to take on the abuser and is killed himself? This theory of retributatove justice is popular to those who look at it from a superficial point of view, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sure you yourself claim to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Under our current system, bad as it is, you can act to redress that. Under the fremen system you propose, you would be lynched as a criminal by the mob without trial, and there's no come back from that.

Rousseau was greatly influenced By John Locke.

Your hung up on child abuse. This double Dutch way of thinking is distracting. Something you should remember is that stupidity serves society and keeps law and order working. If we were to think like the Dutch and create a perfect society it wouldn't be the country we live in. The theory of law and order to function in it's present form is the reliance that men will be stupid.

If men were able to evolve this criminal evil you speak of then it would be evident in some regime of some kind. Men are transient beings, our time on this earth is brief and even against the tide of natural law we do not have the time or the will to evolve a perfect form of evil, and this skill if any is rarely recorded, or passed on, or taught unlike the social contract which is the core philosophy of our lives.

Singularly we are enveloped in our human existence which is composed of ancient memories and without these we can not form the consciousness necessary to devise evil and hence with these memories than it is not evil but rather just an idle or morbid curiosity. To be able to form a natural consciousness devoid of evil would be to singularly labour on the curiosities of man to create historical human memories almost instinctively would be a supreme feat. To awaken one day to some of humanities ingenious feats reproduced from the consciousness of the human memory as something you could physically touch would be potentially the end of a civilization.

Time weighs in favour of the natural law and we are educated with core values of the social contract. Like a wound that naturally heals evil is washed away in the majesty of mother earth.

loremolis

pirelli wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I too was going to respond to pirellis post but benway has already pointed out most of the flaws.

Just two quick things: 1. Locke did not believe in the social contract or rule by consent, you may be mixing him up with rousseau.

2. Actually history is full of unchecked child abuse and it is only in recent years when legislation has forced the issue that any sort of jusice has been doled out in this regard. But your proposal for the father of the abused child killing the abuser makes no sense. What if the father himself is the abuser? What if the alleged abuser is falsely accused? What if the father is not strong enough to take on the abuser and is killed himself? This theory of retributatove justice is popular to those who look at it from a superficial point of view, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sure you yourself claim to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Under our current system, bad as it is, you can act to redress that. Under the fremen system you propose, you would be lynched as a criminal by the mob without trial, and there's no come back from that.

Rousseau was greatly influenced By John Locke.

Your hung up on child abuse. This double Dutch way of thinking is distracting. Something you should remember is that stupidity serves society and keeps law and order working. If we were to think like the Dutch and create a perfect society it wouldn't be the country we live in. The theory of law and order to function in it's present form is the reliance that men will be stupid.

If men were able to evolve this criminal evil you speak of then it would be evident in some regime of some kind. Men are transient beings, our time on this earth is brief and even against the tide of natural law we do not have the time or the will to evolve a perfect form of evil, and this skill if any is rarely recorded, or passed on, or taught unlike the social contract which is the core philosophy of our lives.

Singularly we are enveloped in our human existence which is composed of ancient memories and without these we can not form the consciousness necessary to devise evil and hence with these memories than it is not evil but rather just an idle or morbid curiosity. To be able to form a natural consciousness devoid of evil would be to singularly labour on the curiosities of man to create historical human memories almost instinctively would be a supreme feat. To awaken one day to some of humanities ingenious feats reproduced from the consciousness of the human memory as something you could physically touch would be potentially the end of a civilization.

Time weighs in favour of the natural law and we are educated with core values of the social contract. Like a wound that naturally heals evil is washed away in the majesty of mother earth.

So, how does child abuse have anything to do the household charge?

Is it (the household charge, not child abuse) legal or illegal?

FreudianSlippers

It's legal.

Procrastastudy

I avoided the whole sovereignty rubbish in my pie in the sky question. Seems its been infected by the Freeman's anyway - does this now go in the quarantine box that is the mega merge?

FreudianSlippers

I think this one can stay un-merged for now; people may ask this question again.

benway

pirelli wrote: »

My Fremenism, and I am very new to Fremensim; would be based in works of Francis Bacon, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume; and Kant. So there is no intent to cause civil disobedience on my part. From my experiences the irish representatives are confused on what civil obedience is..used to be a bit Douglas McGregor and the proverbial carrot now that there is no carrot what are we to do?

As Johnnyskeleton has pointed out i have always had an agenda prioritising miscarriage of justice as the Noahs ark or core concept of a working society and noted through the years the Irish representatives had little time for jurisprudence or justice and a very poor understanding of how to resolve one.

Like the Irish representatives predicament when my miscarriage of justice is resolved it will be like a knife taken from my back, but a very different feeling than having your carrot taken and a much more rewarding outcome. If that is my Goal than it is the core of both social consciousness and a rigid theme of most if not all religions.The bible says those that suffered injustice sit at the right hand of God. How am I civilly disobedient or immoral in my duties and goals which i did not choose but were forced on me by a huge injustice. I strive to resolve this for the good of society and to avoid the inverse consequence of meddling with the core concepts of social contract and morality.

Due respect, chief, but what are you on about?

Now, maybe it's me, but all I can take out of that lot is that you're saying that the legal and political system is enforced upon you without your consent, and this is a "huge injustice".

But whether you like it or not, this is the system that's in place. The Fremen seem to be mistaking a normative statement: "a legal and political system that doesn't accord with (my concept of) natural law should not be be obeyed", for a positive one: "a legal and political system that doesn't accord with (my concept of) natural law need not be be obeyed."

If you want to change the system to something that better accords with your concept of natural law, then you need to accept that the status quo has the authority to kill the minority(!) and work from there. You can work outside the system, through violent revolution or civil disobedience, or from within, by lobbying, protest, running candidates, tactical voting, etc, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots

Beating a retreat into a fantasy world is no use to anyone.

I like Locke, btw, but he has to be read in the historical context of a backlash against Hobbes' monarchist authoritarianism. Despite his insistence that morality is a product of reason, and is as scientifically ascertainable as mathematics, the degree of co-incidence between Locke's views and traditional Christian doctrine is telling. Of course, the concept of natural law itself is of a much greater vintage - I can't help but interpret Locke's natural law as a reassertion of a role for the church in the ongoing conflict between church and state at the time. He even specifically asserts religious faith as a virtue in Essays on the Law of Nature.

Setting up the church as the arbiters of natural law also negates one of the concept's key weaknesses - if only natural law need be obeyed, and natural law may be derived by human reason, then pretty much every individual will have their own concept of natural law and accordingly will live by his or her own rules, usually a self-serving version.

Not meaning to put words in his mouth, but I think this is the point JS was making, the sexual offenders element was only there for illustrative purposes - but your conclusions in your earlier post were more than a little disquieting, not sure I'd be very happy to live in a world where your concept of natural law held sway.

One last thing, the Enlightenment was a long, long time ago, and while that era produced some defining works of political and legal philosophy, they must be read in the context of their times. It's worth bearing in mind that there have been many important developments in the intervening four hundred years, try Marx, Engels, Hayek, Berlin, Rawls, Finnis, Hart, Sen, Nietzsche, Hegel, Sartre, Foucault, etc, etc.

For example, while social contract theory represented a hugely important first step towards the assertion of the rights of the citizenry against the power of the state, this theory has been superseded by a sophisticated theory of human rights, mirrored by the formal constitutional rights which can be relied upon in real life.

As opposed to Fremenism.

johnnyskeleton

loremolis wrote: »

So, how does child abuse have anything to do the household charge?

Is it (the household charge, not child abuse) legal or illegal?

Very simply, the Fremen argue that a law created by statute as opposed to common law is not legally binding unless you consent.

By that logic, no statute law is binding unless you consent to it. A good example of a law which, if there was any truth to the Fremen argument, would not be enfrceable is the prohibition on sexually abusing minors which does not exist at common law and was created by statute.

So the relevance is that the household charge is just as binding as the laws criminalising sex abuse of minors or child porn. If the Fremen argument were true in any way, paedos would be free to reject the law and would get away with their abuse scot free.

Yes, that is just how crazy the Fremen argument is.

pirelli

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I avoided the whole sovereignty rubbish in my pie in the sky question. Seems its been infected by the Freeman's anyway - does this now go in the quarantine box that is the mega merge?

From the rascal who wouldn't do his homework to the teachers pet
In the space of a few days..not a bad turn around.

loremolis

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Very simply, the Fremen argue that a law created by statute as opposed to common law is not legally binding unless you consent.

By that logic, no statute law is binding unless you consent to it. A good example of a law which, if there was any truth to the Fremen argument, would not be enfrceable is the prohibition on sexually abusing minors which does not exist at common law and was created by statute.

So the relevance is that the household charge is just as binding as the laws criminalising sex abuse of minors or child porn. If the Fremen argument were true in any way, paedos would be free to reject the law and would get away with their abuse scot free.

Yes, that is just how crazy the Fremen argument is.

Interesting, thanks for the summary.

Seems like a way of life that would be difficult to strictly adhere to without compromising the ethos. A bit like the vegetarian who eats chicken and wears leather.

A few questions spring to mind.
Do Fre(e)men obey traffic laws or do they drive on whatever side of the road they like.
Do they drink and drive?

I haven't come across this before so forgive my incredulity and trivial questions.

In relation to the child abuse laws, surely they don't think that paedophiles and the like are acceptable?

If so, then there is no place for them in normal civilised society.

In relation to the household charge, while I won't pay it until I absolutely must, I understand why laws are put in place for everyone. If the Fre(e)men don't like laws then they should feck off to the island as suggested in an earlier post.

benway

loremolis wrote: »

Do Fre(e)men obey traffic laws.

Some of them think they don't have to. Seems that jail time brings a bit of clarity, though.

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2878029.html
http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/wexford-man-remanded-in-custody-over-confusion-about-his-identity-released-from-prison-516356.html
http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/lifestyle/uninsured-driver-2991063.html

Procrastastudy

pirelli wrote: »

From the rascal who wouldn't do his homework to the teachers pet
In the space of a few days..not a bad turn around.

I have to concede there I admit lol!

However on that point Freemen would see us marrying 12 year old girls off a return to 21 as the age of majority (due to being able to wear a full suit of armour). It would also see it much more difficult to look after the most vulnerable in society - would certainly destroy social welfare or and make it much harder to claim for personal injury.

For every tax statue and RTA that prevents people acting like a knob on the road there are many more benefiting society. Just thought I'd show I did have an opinion of my own on this one. And that I even learnt something :P

"By that logic, no statute law is binding unless you consent to it." On that point aren't they right though? With the caveat that we consent though the governmental system we have democratically adopted?

Where do they stand on the Constitution?

loremolis

benway wrote: »

Some of them think they don't have to. Seems that jail time brings a bit of clarity, though.

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2878029.html
http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/wexford-man-remanded-in-custody-over-confusion-about-his-identity-released-from-prison-516356.html
http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/lifestyle/uninsured-driver-2991063.html

Wow! Thanks for that. Very interesting.

This Fre(e)man stuff would make a great sitcom. Each week the characters could break another law or commit another crime and ignore the consequences.

I'm not trying to offend anyone but if Fre(e)men really think that there is no law that punishes people for abusing children etc. then they are fair game for whatever comes their way.

@ Pirelli: You say you base your Freemanism on, among other, the work of Immanuel Kant.

If that is so then just universalise any of the Fremen principles and I think you'll quite quickly realise they don't actually fit within Kant's framework for ethics, nevermind practical governance.

johnnyskeleton

loremolis wrote: »

Seems like a way of life that would be difficult to strictly adhere to without compromising the ethos. A bit like the vegetarian who eats chicken and wears leather.

I don't think they really believe in it as an ethos to be achieved, rather they use it as a ploy to try to avoid criminal liability. They rarely seem to advocate a future political system where the only laws that bind people are common laws, instead they try to convince other people (and themselves, it seems) that this is actually the reality.

I really think it is as simple as a misreading of the law intended to confuse the courts into dismissing criminal charges.

loremolis wrote: »

A few questions spring to mind.
Do Fre(e)men obey traffic laws or do they drive on whatever side of the road they like.
Do they drink and drive?

Rather bizzarely, some of them pretend that they consent to be bound by those statutes. When they are convicted, they will say "I consented to the law and the judge offered to fine me €500 but I counter offered €300 and this was accepted by the judge".

loremolis wrote: »

I haven't come across this before so forgive my incredulity and trivial questions.

Not at all. I find particularly interesting the emails and facebook assertions that you don't have to pay the household charge. No reasoning is given for it, they just email everyone saying "by the way, legally you don't have to pay". I would be concerned that they will lead the poor and vulnerable into a greater fine because of their loose words.

loremolis wrote: »

In relation to the child abuse laws, surely they don't think that paedophiles and the like are acceptable?

If so, then there is no place for them in normal civilised society.

Well they won't admit it, but that is the logical conclusion of the theory that statute law is not binding unless you specifically consent to it and the law doesn't apply if you publically declare that you are not bound by it.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

Fremen as you call them quoting Frank Herberts Dune.

You are familiar with the work of philosopher John Locke. You could not debate the Freeman position unless you at least knew of this man's theory's as the Freeman hinge on very similar theories to his philosophy.

Basically Locke believes that we have all consented to a society where we agree to it's laws. Without this consent we would fall under the natural law which is enforced by the individual. So if a person threatens you or your loved ones then you kill them. You enforce the natural law. No homosexuals, no child molesters or sex pest's and no kerb crawlers or sex tourists. They would all be slaughtered..all but a few very charming and well behaved homosexuals might be left alone..

{SNIP} MOD: What on Earth kind of accusation is that?! Unacceptable

I hope this is not seen as questioning a Moderator. I am not nor an i objecting to any moderation and I am just responding to the question marks directed to me by the moderator posing exactly that question.

It's a well publicised and national accusation.

http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/az-of-sex-scandals-119664.html

Excerpt from the national newspapers ( link provided above for reference) :

STAGG IN THE PARK In 1994 Emmet Stagg, a Minister of State in the Fianna Fail and Labour coalition government, openly admitted indiscretion with a rent-boy in the Phoenix Park.

For weeks Stagg's resignation seemed imminent but eventually salvation came in the form of support from Tanaiste Dick Spring and Taoiseach Albert Reynolds who said "charity and restraint" should be shown to the government minister.

The Labour Party demanded a Garda inquiry into who told the press about Mr Stagg's late-night trips to the Phoenix Park. Emmet Stagg is still Labour TD for Kildare.



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50818314

In the same government (i think) A minister (Stagg) was arrested for activities related to procuring rent boys in the Pheonix Park. He was stopped with a young man (17 year old I believe) in his car and the 17 year old was a rent boy. Anyway he remained in cabinet but as a junior minister and the matter was declared (unlike Mc Daid) "an internal matter for the Labour Party". M G Quinn, minister of justice subsequently lowered the age of consent for homosexuals to 17. Before she did it was illegal sex with a minor.

Do any of these count as "mistakes while in office"?

@ Pirelli: You say you base your Freemanism on, among other, the work of Immanuel Kant.

If that is so then just universalise any of the Fremen principles and I think you'll quite quickly realise they don't actually fit within Kant's framework for ethics, nevermind practical governance.

Freemanism is open to interpretation, it's a term that has been bandied around this forum like a it's a social disease. I am concerned with how hastily persons are being labelled as Freeman.

Freemansim rose ( probably from it's battle ground with the IRS over paying taxes) to prominence in response to the financial crisis and you have to see it in that light first. It is chiefly concerned with fractional banking and would like to see the return of the gold standard. This obviously would require laws so there is the trending Freemanism and extreme Freemanism.

Extreme Freemanism would appear to be at least a constructive from of protest and better than riots on the streets.

I neither support the gold standard nor advocate freemanism. What i was conveying in my post was that I would learn the works of these great philosophers that have shaped and built American democracy rather than just adopt Freemanism. There is no proven form of banking so we would ideally have to improve and improvise to form new standards. I think essentially that is what the people want but are angry.

FreudianSlippers

pirelli wrote: »

I hope this is not seen as questioning a Moderator. I am not nor an i objecting to any moderation and I am just responding to the question marks directed to me by the moderator posing exactly that question.

As I said in the PM, I see no evidence to support the statement you made. The poster you are quoting is incorrect in identifying the "rent boy" as 17 and is also incorrect about the age of consent for "homosexuals" being lowered following the Stagg incident - the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 decriminalised buggery and did not change the age of consent which was 17 since 1935.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

I neither support the gold standard nor advocate freemanism. What i was conveying in my post was that I would learn the works of these great philosophers that have shaped and built American democracy rather than just adopt Freemanism. There is no proven form of banking so we would ideally have to improve and improvise to form new standards. I think essentially that is what the people want but are angry.

Pirelli you have an odd way of jumping between seemingly unconnected topics you know that?

Freemanism has its gurus. Mary Elizabeth Croft chief amongst them. It's a fools philosophy because it hides a total lack of critical analysis to the underlying dearth of logic upon which it is predicated.

Literally nothing they say stands up to actual analysis. It does have the excellent ability to sound reasonable and logical while actually being the complete opposite. It's a neat trick really.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Pirelli you have an odd way of jumping between seemingly unconnected topics you know that?

Freemanism has its gurus. Mary Elizabeth Croft chief amongst them. It's a fools philosophy because it hides a total lack of critical analysis to the underlying dearth of logic upon which it is predicated.

Literally nothing they say stands up to actual analysis. It does have the excellent ability to sound reasonable and logical while actually being the complete opposite. It's a neat trick really.

Kayroo, your a neat little trick actually!

You pick the word Freemanism out of my post and then give long and scathing criticisms of it twice now. I am not a Freemanism....The thread is about household charges and whether they are legal or as I enquired constitutional.

This has got to be like going for a walk in the phoenix park..I will not sit in discourse with anyone about Freemanism...look where it got Emmet Stagg.

loremolis

Pirelli, what aspects of the Freeman "philosophy" do you consider to be the best part of the whole thing?

While you appear to object to the household charge, do you pay any taxes?

pirelli

loremolis wrote: »

Pirelli, what aspects of the Freeman "philosophy" do you consider to be the best part of the whole thing?

While you appear to object to the household charge, do you pay any taxes?

I agree with the part where I can kick your ass for asking me, but think better of it, and run away to help some poor soul crying in the distance.

I never gave any objection to paying the household charge.

I pay all of my taxes but I also have to pay overseas taxes on my investments/financial activities abroad.

I have zero debt and above average savings and i get a blow job every weekend. Life's a charm.

loremolis

pirelli wrote: »

I agree with the part where I can kick your ass for asking me, but think better of it, and run away to help some poor soul crying in the distance.

So you're a Freman and a Superhero?

I never gave any objection to paying the household charge.

That's why i said "appears".

I pay all of my taxes but I also have to pay overseas taxes on my investments/financial activities abroad.

So you're a capitalist not a Freman?

I have zero debt and above average savings and i get a blow job every weekend. Life's a charm.

You work in the Phoenix Park at the weekends?

I'm not sure whether you're a Freman, but I am sure that you're an assh*le.

pirelli

loremolis wrote: »

So you're a capitalist not a Freman?

loremolis wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you're a Freman, but I am sure that you're an assh*le.

I am not sure whether your reading my posts that your engaging me in but if you care to read my last few posts on this page alone I have stated several times I am not a freemanism. Your definitely have to rethink what an ass** is.

pirelli wrote: »

I neither support the gold standard nor advocate freemanism.

pirelli wrote: »

I am concerned with how hastily persons are being labelled as Freeman.

pirelli wrote: »

I am not a Freemanism.

pirelli wrote: »

I will not sit in discourse with anyone about Freemanism.

pirelli wrote: »

The thread is about household charges and whether they are legal or as I enquired constitutional.

loremolis wrote: »

So you're a Freman and a Superhero?

I decided you were just trying to be cynical and had no interest in my opinion about the philosophy of Fremanism and when I avoided your question you have reverted to being abusive. That is why I avoided getting into a discussion with you in the first place and it "appears" I was correct.

loremolis wrote: »

So you're a Freman and a Superhero?
So you're a capitalist not a Freman?
You work in the Phoenix Park at the weekends?

Am I Bill Clinton

benway

pirelli wrote: »

Extreme Freemanism would appear to be at least a constructive from of protest and better than riots on the streets.

No, it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots

Riots and active, focussed protest belatedly brought down one of the most evil world leaders of the past half century, and overturned a law not dissimilar to our household charge. You can acknowledge that the legal and political system exists in its true form and adopt suitable tactics of active resistance, or you can wander off in cloud cuckoo land pretending that it's an optional system and that it takes a form that it most clearly does not ... acting for all the world like a delusional moron. Two very different things.

What I mean by Fremenism is these kinds of things:

http://freemanireland.ning.com/video/freeman-on-the-land-1-8
http://www.fmotl.com/

I have all the time in the world for dissent, protest and critical thinking, but this stuff is just absurd.

People are angry, and rightly so, but taking Fremenism as a legitimate form of protest is like declaring war, shouting "bang, bang, you're all dead" then sitting down for a nice cup of tea, and somehow being surprised when your antagonists come streaming over the hill at you.

People would be better off getting involved with some of the more legitimate protest groups, or even better organising on a local level. I would even say Occupy, but it does seem that the lunatics are running that particular asylum, unfortunately.

pirelli

benway wrote: »

People are angry, and rightly so, but taking Fremenism as a legitimate form of protest is like declaring war, shouting "bang, bang, you're all dead" then sitting down for a nice cup of tea, and somehow being surprised when your antagonists come streaming over the hill at you.

benway wrote: »

What I mean by Fremenism is these kinds of things:

http://freemanireland.ning.com/video...n-the-land-1-8
http://www.fmotl.com/

Em-Ploy Em:For Ploy: Deceit

Black law dictionary definitions- Human Sea- Monster, Monster - one that can not own or inherit property.....
All corporations have Human resource departments!!:eek:

benway

FreudianSlippers

Enough of the handbagging. Keep it civil.

lmimmfn

can we claim mortgage supplement when we go to prison for not paying this?

johnnyskeleton

lmimmfn wrote: »

can we claim mortgage supplement when we go to prison for not paying this?

if you qualify on means and can convince revenue that your ppr is not now mountjoy.

Although This is probably bravado, if you do end up in prison for that, mortgage supplimentary is the least of your worries