Free Man Society

MagicSean · 18-08-2011 08:04PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Drug prohibition laws are just plain evil and punish individuals, families, communities and societies.

The same can be said of drug dealers.

Frank Black · 18-08-2011 08:06PM

From a brief flick through the boards thread when I was bored I'm pretty sure it's something to do with not paying parking fines.

Emiko · 18-08-2011 08:08PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

In actual fact he did not walk free. He was granted high court bail and was back in court on Wednesday. This was as a result of him dropping all his ideals and hiring a legal team.

He had a barrister with him the whole time, afaik.

This, as posted on tirnasaor, from his brother apparently...

Ken Ofthefamily Sludds ‎@charlie

Bob was sitting at the back of the high court, the judge never addressed him.
The barrister who asked could he handle the case, submitted an affidavit to the judge, and the contents of that affidavit were twisted and turned against bobby by the media. I'v been in contact with the irish independent to inform them of their error in print, and asked them to submit a retraction, as it is classed as defamation
I'v been handling and advising on the case, and i have a copy of the affidavit that was submitted by the barrister..

The media also said that he MUST appear in wexford district court on wednesday.
However, the high court granted unconditional release!!
Unconditional release means there can be no more said about the charges..
The reason the high court released him is because Anderson had no lawfullauthority to issue the order demanding his detention, because he had not acknowledged his oath, or gained jurisdiction in the matter.

This means that Anderson is deemed to have vacated his office, but it turns out he is the residing judge for the case on wednesday...

Come to wexford on wednesday if you have any doubt about who won, or who will win..

I didn't see the outcome of the case anywhere online, though.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The same can be said of drug dealers.

The same could be said of suppliers of alcohol during the Prohibition era.

FlutterinBantam · 18-08-2011 08:10PM

Nah.. just the crusties trying to re-invent themselves.

Since they were shaken out of the trees down in the Downs, fcukers have been trying to get a bit of traction.

Just a bunch of freeloaders, trying to leech JQTaxpayer.

Of no consequence, the economic climate won't help them.

Chuck Stone · 18-08-2011 08:12PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The vitriol is towards their extreme hypocrisy.

I agree that there are probably many freemen who are just agitators 'just because'

Some of their grievances seem to be pretty well founded. Like being stopped for going 15 kph over the speeding limit on an empty safe road at 2am in the morning. Who wouldn't feel like telling the police to fuck right off in this type of situation?

As regards hypocrisy I guess it's difficult to not be some sort of a fish when all you have to swim in is water.

Emiko · 18-08-2011 08:12PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Of no consequence, the economic climate won't help them.

The economic climate has caused, and is causing, a rethink of the drug laws in several U.S. states.

The hospital wards will soon be overrun with pizza-faced crusties with joints hanging out of their veins.

Chuck Stone · 18-08-2011 08:16PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The same can be said of drug dealers.

No. How do you make that out?

It's the demand for drugs that gives rise to drug dealing and it's the illegality which gives rise to the violence which orbits illegal drugs.

Drug disputes cannot be settled in courts so they tend to be settled with violence.

Drug prohibition creates criminals and drug taking is a victimless 'crime'.

FlutterinBantam · 18-08-2011 08:23PM

Emiko wrote: »

The economic climate has caused, and is causing, a rethink of the drug laws in several U.S. states.

The hospital wards will soon be overrun with pizza-faced crusties with joints hanging out of their veins.

Joints?:rolleyes:

I will say though that Mexico is totally fcuked with drugs wars.

Can see the border states getting exited in fairness.

Chuck Stone · 18-08-2011 08:35PM

Emiko wrote: »

The economic climate has caused, and is causing, a rethink of the drug laws in several U.S. states.

The hospital wards will soon be overrun with pizza-faced crusties with joints hanging out of their veins.

The only thing, imho, which will end the US drug war is out and out bankruptcy of the state.

Here's why.

Let's say the drug war is worth $20 Billion a year to the state apparatus - well that's 20 Billion dollars worth of inducement to keep the farce going.

That's the tax-payer paying the wages of a lot of cops, lawyers, prison officers, customs officials, parole officers, judges and (ironically) drug dealers too.

Now when you have all that ^^ 'professional' self-interest versus a couple of thousand stoners and a few thousand e/speed/acid-heads and people who smoke it for medical reasons, well, then you won't get much movement.

Killer Pigeon · 18-08-2011 08:39PM

Don't go, it's already been infiltrated by the Illuminati.

MagicSean · 18-08-2011 08:52PM

Emiko wrote: »

He had a barrister with him the whole time, afaik.

Not on the first day. He had been brought in on a bench warrant as far as i know.

Emiko wrote: »

This, as posted on tirnasaor, from his brother apparently...

I didn't see the outcome of the case anywhere online, though.

The outcome was reported in a number of national newspapers. He was remanded to custody and applied for high court bail which was granted. His case was up for mention last week and was put back to a future date. He is still on bail. His brothers post is a prime example of the bull**** and lies in the Freeman movement.

Emiko wrote: »

The same could be said of suppliers of alcohol during the Prohibition era.

That it could.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. How do you make that out?

It's the demand for drugs that gives rise to drug dealing and it's the illegality which gives rise to the violence which orbits illegal drugs.

Drug disputes cannot be settled in courts so they tend to be settled with violence.

Drug prohibition creates criminals and drug taking is a victimless 'crime'.

Really? Have you ever dealt with a family torn apart by the actions of a heroin adict? Have you seen Amy Winehouse? Look at a before and after picture.

Panty_thief · 18-08-2011 09:38PM

I thought this was gonna be about some new anti-feminist crowd (free man) who wanted to get rid of all this 'equality' and 'harassment' stuff and get back to the good days when women were kept in the kitchen and their panties were kept on the line til morning.

Chuck Stone · 18-08-2011 10:53PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Really? Have you ever dealt with a family torn apart by the actions of a heroin adict? Have you seen Amy Winehouse? Look at a before and after picture.

There are people who will destroy themselves no matter what you try to do. The state adding a criminal record on top and wrenching them away from their loved ones and locking them in a room with other desperate people is hardly going to help. No, in fact it's wholly sadistic.

Some people will cause death and destruction to themselves driving cars. Even worse, some will even take the lives of others in the process. Does that mean that cars should be banned? Of course not, that would be a patently stupid thing to do.

Regardless these are futile circular arguments. The only thing people should be concerned with is whether people who mean no harm to anyone should be violated by the state because of the ****ing vegetation they have in their pockets.

Quazzie · 19-08-2011 08:17AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people will cause death and destruction to themselves driving cars. Even worse, some will even take the lives of others in the process. Does that mean that cars should be banned? Of course not, that would be a patently stupid thing to do.

No. Cars shouldn't be banned but restrictions should be placed on their use to prevent such deaths. Such restrictions include speeding fines and licensing.

MagicSean · 19-08-2011 08:41AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There are people who will destroy themselves no matter what you try to do. The state adding a criminal record on top and wrenching them away from their loved ones and locking them in a room with other desperate people is hardly going to help. No, in fact it's wholly sadistic.

Are you talking about rehab or prison? I've never seen anyone get a prison term for a first offence of drug use. In fact mostly they seem to get probation.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people will cause death and destruction to themselves driving cars. Even worse, some will even take the lives of others in the process. Does that mean that cars should be banned? Of course not, that would be a patently stupid thing to do.

That's why we have a licence system. And traffic offences. So that if someone is a danger they can be banned from driving. Don't think you thought that one through.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Regardless these are futile circular arguments. The only thing people should be concerned with is whether people who mean no harm to anyone should be violated by the state because of the ****ing vegetation they have in their pockets.

I wouldn't consider ecstasy to be vegetation.

Fukuyama · 19-08-2011 09:11AM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The same can be said of drug dealers.

It's the whole chicken or egg things mate. Only this time it's a lot easier to know where the problem starts; the law.

Fukuyama · 19-08-2011 09:13AM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Are you talking about rehab or prison? I've never seen anyone get a prison term for a first offence of drug use. In fact mostly they seem to get probation.

That's why we have a licence system. And traffic offences. So that if someone is a danger they can be banned from driving. Don't think you thought that one through.

I wouldn't consider ecstasy to be vegetation.

Ecstacy is one of the safest drugs you can take. Don't do it myself - don't think I'd enjoy that kind of high. But scientifically speaking, it's safe as houses.

But I suspect you read the Star and have been misinformed otherwise.

Quazzie · 19-08-2011 09:13AM

Dean0088 wrote: »

It's the whole chicken or egg things mate. Only this time it's a lot easier to know where the problem starts; the law.

So the drugs problem is caused by the law and not by the drug dealers/trafficer/users? That has to be the most retarded thing I've ever read on Boards.

humanji · 19-08-2011 09:35AM

Having read a fair amount of stuff on Freemen I've come to the conclusion that in theory it's a good thing. It's people just wanting to be free from what they see is an unfair and soul crushing system.

But in practice, it's only used to try and wriggle out of minor offences such as drug possession, speeding, illegal parking etc, and the supposed Freemen still feel that they should have full access to everything society can offer without giving anything back.

So they're kind of like an unsuccesfuly Fianna Fáil.

seamus · 19-08-2011 09:58AM

humanji wrote: »

Having read a fair amount of stuff on Freemen I've come to the conclusion that in theory it's a good thing. It's people just wanting to be free from what they see is an unfair and soul crushing system.

It's like anarchism. Built on noble idea and concepts and workable in theory, but it requires the co-operation of people and is based on the idea that the individual works for the greater good.

These systems fail in practical use because the individual is largely only interested in their personal good, with community good deeds being a side-effect.

There is a certain subset of humanity who will always do their best to screw everyone else over and look after themselves, and this is why any such notions of allowing people to manage their own personal responsibility don't work.

Morgan Freeman · 19-08-2011 10:04AM

Fago! wrote: »

Hello, I'm Morgan Free man. You are reading this in my voice.

Oh really.

You see, there are many people emulating me. As far back as the summer of '52, my father and his drinking buddies would sit on the porch playing cards. The wind was warm and we had a good crop season. My father was celebrating to an extent.

He and Sandy Lowes would imitate my voice. It never got to me as they sounded like drunken fools. Which, at the time, they were.

I guess some things will never change. Not in my lifetime anyway.

ItsNoAlias · 19-08-2011 10:58AM

seamus wrote: »

There is a certain subset of humanity who will always do their best to screw everyone else over and look after themselves, and this is why any such notions of allowing people to manage their own personal responsibility don't work.

Totally agree. I would screw anyone if I felt there was a windfall which would positively effect me or my family in some way.

I met a group of these "freeman" people in the pub about two years ago, my mate goes out with one of them and their theories do not hold up to arguements.

They got annoyed when I questioned their motivations and political ideals. They seemed almost cultish. Every member getting their backs up when I questioned them but they had no problem with ramming their politics down mine, and everyone else in the immediate vacinities throats.:mad:

In the ned I argued them down but i knew they didnt take anything away from my ideas and were very put out that I still didnt agree with them at the end of the night.

My name is URL · 19-08-2011 11:17AM

seamus wrote: »

There is a certain subset of humanity who will always do their best to screw everyone else over and look after themselves, and this is why any such notions of allowing people to manage their own personal responsibility don't work.

So then, what exactly is personal responsibility?

ItsNoAlias wrote: »

Totally agree. I would screw anyone if I felt there was a windfall which would positively effect me or my family in some way.

That says more about you than the ideologies of others tbh.

seamus · 19-08-2011 11:22AM

My name is URL wrote: »

So then, what exactly is personal responsibility?

What I mean is that these ideologies largely rely on the individual to conduct themselves in a responsible manner, befitting that of a member of a society, and to take responsiblity for their own actions.
Something which will never happen.

The fact that most of the "freeman" cases being taken relate to traffic offences and non-payment of taxes goes to show that the ideology is specifically being used to try and escape personal responsibility.

Penn · 19-08-2011 11:22AM

My name is URL wrote: »

So then, what exactly is personal responsibility?

Take speeding for example. Freemen think they should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want so long as they do no harm to others.

But regardless of the speed limits, you have a personal responsibility to drive in such a manner to reduce the chances of you killing someone while driving. If you are driving at 150km/h, you're causing no harm. But if someone pulls out in front of you, your excessive speed means you can't stop in time and you cause harm.

So just because Freemen think they should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want, does not mean they should drive at those speeds, and as such they have a personal responsibility to themselves and others for safety.

jim90 · 19-08-2011 11:32AM

Executive Steve wrote: »

On a global scale, after a quick Google anyway, it's would appear to be a really really odd hotchpotch of crusties, libertarians, the Jim Corr brigade, anti-semites, black gang members in Baltimore, white supremacists, David Icke, the singer from East 17 and anti-water fluoridation campaigners.

Basically it's one of those odd little memes that seep out from the crazier corners of the internet from time to time now that Geocities is gone and the crazies have to share the internet with the rest of us.

That you have thrown the issue of water fluoridation in with lizard men and racists betrays your ignorance of the facts about fluoridation of municipal water supplies. It is a public heath issue that should be given proper credence not lumped in with conspiracy talk.

Most countries in the western world have outlawed or are in the process of outlawing water fluoridation and with good reason.
The amount of fluoride in the municipal water supply is a health hazard especially to children under 5, indeed the Californian medical association states, on record, that if a GP were to prescribe a dose of fluoride to a child age 5 or under equivalent to what is found in a glass of municipal tap water that GP would be guilty of malpractice. the association also states that municipal fluoridated tap water should never be used to prepare bottles for infants. (i'm quoting the Californian medical association as to my knowledge there have never been in-depth studies undertaken in to water fluoridation by an equivalent Irish organisation)
Furthermore there is the issue of the State indiscriminately medicating the populous, for which i can see no mandate in the constitution. If it was decided that prozac was beneficial to public mental health and therefore added to the water supply would you not see grounds for protest?
Finally Fluoride is beneficial to teeth only when applied topically hence the effectiveness of fluoride toothpaste (do you remember when all tubes of fluoride toothpaste had warnings not to swallow or consume?) ingesting fluoride into ones bloodstream is not of any benefit to one's teeth.
Would you drink shampoo and expect you hair to be well nourished?

I know this goes well off topic but it angers me to see this issue, which is deserving of fresh scientific appraisal here in Ireland and concurrent policy evaluation derided and relegated to conspiracy lunacy.

conorhal · 19-08-2011 11:32AM

seamus wrote: »

It's like anarchism. Built on noble idea and concepts and workable in theory, but it requires the co-operation of people and is based on the idea that the individual works for the greater good.

These systems fail in practical use because the individual is largely only interested in their personal good, with community good deeds being a side-effect.

There is a certain subset of humanity who will always do their best to screw everyone else over and look after themselves, and this is why any such notions of allowing people to manage their own personal responsibility don't work.

This.

There was a really intresting documentary on C4 a while back that interviewed some ex (and still) hippies about the communes that they had set up or joined in the 60's and 70's in which they wanted to create with a 'free society' without leaders or rules. Predictably the communes descended into a horrific nightmare of bullying, abuse and violence that more resembled Zimbardo's 'Stanford Prison Experiment' then a utopian community, none lasted more then a couple of years.

My name is URL · 19-08-2011 11:45AM

Barrington wrote: »

Take speeding for example. Freemen think they should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want so long as they do no harm to others.

But regardless of the speed limits, you have a personal responsibility to drive in such a manner to reduce the chances of you killing someone while driving. If you are driving at 150km/h, you're causing no harm. But if someone pulls out in front of you, your excessive speed means you can't stop in time and you cause harm.

So just because Freemen think they should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want, does not mean they should drive at those speeds, and as such they have a personal responsibility to themselves and others for safety.

Yeah, I've seen that argued in the CT forum. I wouldn't have thought it's a view held by most of the people who hold the 'freeman' ideal, though. Speeding puts other road users in direct danger. That seems to go against what many 'freemen' believe is right or acceptable (the common good). I'm sure there's a load of chancers that use the freeman argument to wiggle their way out of trouble but it doesn't mean that their attempts are representative of anybody else.

seamus · 19-08-2011 11:48AM

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm sure there's a load of chancers that use the freeman argument to wiggle their way out of trouble but it doesn't mean that their attempts are representative of anybody else.

It's an example of why the system is doomed to failure.

amacca · 19-08-2011 11:53AM

bonzodog2 wrote: »

Don't bother asking about this in the Legal Discussion forum, they'll throw a fit !

in that case do!

Free Man Society

Comments