Free Man Society

Penn · 19-08-2011 11:54AM

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Okay, so what about taxes?

If Freemen don't pay taxes, there's less money in the economy, money which goes towards hospitals, schools, emergency services etc. Now, if a Freeman who doesn't pay taxes crashes his car into a lamppost, Ambulance will come out. Fire Brigade will probably come out. Gardai will come out. He may be brought to hospital and need medical help. The lamppost will have to be replaced by the Council.

All this is at a cost to the government. All to help someone who does not pay taxes. They would be causing a loss to the government, and to the taxpayers. Sure, one can argue "Oh, taxes go to bailing out bankers" etc, but taxes also go to people who need them, and not paying them is not in the common good.

MagicSean · 19-08-2011 11:57AM

Wasn't there an incident in America last year where a family home went on fire and the fire brigade wouldn't go in because the householder hadn't paid the annual fee for the fire brigade?

EDIT: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/4809-familys-home-burns-after-not-paying-fire-fee

Blazer · 19-08-2011 11:59AM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Wasn't there an incident in America last year where a family home went on fire and the fire brigade wouldn't go in because the householder hadn't paid the annual fee for the fire brigade?

EDIT: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/4809-familys-home-burns-after-not-paying-fire-fee

excellent..don't you just love it when karma's a bitch

Monty Burnz · 19-08-2011 12:17PM

My name is URL wrote: »

So, if I sign an affidavit which means I can never be entitled to any sort of welfare payment or free healthcare etc, it mean that I would, in return, be exempt from paying taxes and allowed to grow a bit of weed? Sign me up!

Your taxes also pay for the Gardai, the roads and so forth. You can't fairly benefit from the environment a society provides without paying your way (unless of course you are a tax exile like JP McManus or Denis O'Brien, or a career doler or criminal).

Monty Burnz · 19-08-2011 12:21PM

conorhal wrote: »

This.

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

Conor, any further info in this? Sounds very interesting.

DeVore · 19-08-2011 12:21PM

Hello, I'm Old Spiceman.

I'm on a horse.

DeV.

Sergeant · 19-08-2011 12:23PM

seamus wrote: »

and this is why any such notions of allowing people to manage their own personal responsibility don't work.

The idea of not even allowing an individual to try and manage their own personal responsibility is a frightening one.

My name is URL · 19-08-2011 12:30PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Your taxes also pay for the Gardai, the roads and so forth. You can't fairly benefit from the environment a society provides without paying your way (unless of course you are a tax exile like JP McManus or Denis O'Brien, or a career doler or criminal).

Well I'm not sure what freeman's position is in regard to taxes, but personally I'm happy to pay taxes when I get something in return, like improved infrastructure and services. I'm not happy to pay taxes which are used to chase down and imprison people for not paying their TV licences or for growing small amounts of weed for personal use.

MungBean · 19-08-2011 12:33PM

Sergeant wrote: »

The idea of not even allowing an individual to try and manage their own personal responsibility is a frightening one.

People are allowed and the fact that they break the law shows that they are incapable. This free man thing is about the fact that some of those laws are unnecessary, and some of them like growing weed for instance are debatable, but the likes of road safety and taxation are necessary.

People are left alone take responsibility for themselves but if you cant contribute and adhere to what everyone else is doing considering your living in the larger community and benefiting from all that comes with it your judged to be incapable and your are reprimanded by the community at large for breaking those laws. Its not Gardai and Judges that are the overlords its the rest of the populace.

Should someone set up a completely self sustaining anarcho syndicalist commune or something then I would agree they need the freedom to set their own limits to personal responsibility, but not in society at large.

seamus · 19-08-2011 12:39PM

Sergeant wrote: »

The idea of not even allowing an individual to try and manage their own personal responsibility is a frightening one.

Who decides which individuals are OK to "try" and who aren't? Who decides which individuals have failed their trial, and which haven't?

The problem here is that we cannot operate society on an "everyone for themselves" basis, we have to apply a generic set of rules and regulations to some degree.

The individual has plenty of scope to manage their own personal responsibility. The purpose of regulation is to catch them and punish them when they don't.

Sergeant · 19-08-2011 12:49PM

seamus wrote: »

The problem here is that we cannot operate society on an "everyone for themselves" basis, we have to apply a generic set of rules and regulations to some degree.

Who decides the rules and regulations? Where does the application of these rules and regulations end? Do we regulate for the fact that some people enjoy a rare burger despite the increased risk of food poisoning? Or does this fall under the remit of personal responsibility?

MagicSean · 19-08-2011 12:59PM

Sergeant wrote: »

Who decides the rules and regulations? Where does the application of these rules and regulations end? Do we regulate for the fact that some people enjoy a rare burger despite the increased risk of food poisoning? Or does this fall under the remit of personal responsibility?

It's all layed out in the Constitution.

conorhal · 19-08-2011 01:01PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Conor, any further info in this? Sounds very interesting.

I couldn't find any details about the programme, I remember watching it out of intrest because I'd read T.C. Boyles novel Drop City about a counterculture California commune that welcomes anyone wanting to live off the grid, use drugs and practice free love.
Of course 'free love' becomes an excuse to coerce women into sex, the drugs attract an unwelcome and dangerous element and with no responsibility comes a lack of sanitation, lets face it, who actually wants to dig a latrine away (so naturally the commune is covered in human faeces).
When it all collapses a few of the idealists left move north, to Alaska, to reinvent their utopia, but soon learn the natural environment is more unforgiving of a lackadaisical lifestyle then sunny california and it all goes a bit 'Into the Wild' when they meet some true libertarians, the hunters and trappers that actually understand what it really means to live off the grid and be self sufficient.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 19-08-2011 03:30PM

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.

"Drugs are bad... mmmkay?"

"Oh shít we need money"

"Drugs are good... mmmkay?"

Why do you have to associate drugs with pizza faced crusties? Stereotyping for what reasons? Joints hanging from their veins? What?

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

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.

Well there are regulations, with drugs there are none. Both can cause serious harm, one is outright banned the other is regulated.

Quazzie wrote: »

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.

Yes, the law. The law prohibits the use of drugs. People still want to use drugs so they find alternative ways of getting their hands on drugs. The prohibition creates a black market, unregulated, run by less favorable people as they see there is a huge profit to be made by the demand. The law only reduces the demand and supply somewhat, as we have witnessed since the war on drugs has started. There are very strict laws in some countries, some include the death penalty, yet people still supply and use drugs.

When you remove this prohibition, regulate the manufacture, sale and use of drugs you will remove the majority of the criminal element. Drugs will still be available on the black market, but if you can get clean drugs legally from your local chemist/doctor/coffee shop, why would people take the risk of purchasing from the black market? One reason would be due to the fact that the governing body would become corrupt and greedy and the price would be too high, reintroducing a demand for the black market.

Laws create criminality, believe it or not

RichieC · 19-08-2011 03:32PM

Law school dropouts make the bulk of them I assume... and neckbearded libertardians.

DeVore · 19-08-2011 03:43PM

You know what reduced drug supply? Headshops... the gangs couldn't compete with them (or did you think it was anonymous concerned parents who burned them down.. lol).

They had strict opening hours, whereas my local dealer didnt hahah...

Seriously. Does ANYONE think that the supply of drugs in this country is IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER impeded by the prohibition laws?

Not even the cops think that. Ask one.

DeV.

Chuck Stone · 19-08-2011 03:57PM

Quazzie wrote: »

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.

Restriction will not stop idiots from mincing themselves and others in horrific crashes. How you reduce death is by information campaigns and safe roads.

Quazzie wrote: »

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.

The greatest problem with drugs is that they are illegal. If you're taking an ounce of weed from A to B for a party what is the most harmfull thing that can happen to you? Yep - getting stopped by the police, kidnapped and being locked in a room, criminal record and perhaps your life will take a negative direction it may never have because some people think that you shouldn't be allowed to take drugs.

seamus wrote: »

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.

In most parts of your life you do not need to be coerced. Everyone practices anarchy (without leaders and by voluntary association) every day in some way.

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 is true but you have bass ackwards. What is the best way of these people satisfying their dark needs? Yes it's to gain control of the state and shape the world in their way. Drug laws and wars are a great example of statutory evil. look at the multi-million dollar lobbying industry in the US. Concentrated intrests will trump diffuse ones every time when you have a monoploy of force (Weber's definition of the state).

conorhal wrote: »

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.

Of course when an oasis is created in a land of laws there will be all sorts of degenerates attracted to it.

Remember anarchy is not about free-for-all. It's about voluntary association. Voluntary association is how most of us live our lives even with government's monopoly of force.

Anarchy

a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

MungBean · 19-08-2011 04:03PM

DeVore wrote: »

You know what reduced drug supply? Headshops... the gangs couldn't compete with them (or did you think it was anonymous concerned parents who burned them down.. lol).

They had strict opening hours, whereas my local dealer didnt hahah...

Seriously. Does ANYONE think that the supply of drugs in this country is IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER impeded by the prohibition laws?

Not even the cops think that. Ask one.

DeV.

Of course its not impeded much but that's no reason to legalise it. Human trafficking still happens and as long as there's a market for exploiting vulnerable people it will never stop. That's no reason to legalise it in order to control it. It needs to be stamped out, same as the criminals that import and sell drugs, they will take a hit if weed is legalised but they wont be out of business and certainly wont go away.

And a lot of those head shops were owned or taken over buy the gangs and sold some pretty dangerous stuff. Even the legal stuff isnt controlled, or wasnt when the head shops were in business anyway.

Its a tough decision, its not a matter of theres no harm in it and ya cant control it. Legalising it will only promote it and lead to the sale of all that dodgy crap the head shops were selling again too and if you think it will stop the criminals think again. They will be the first ones opening shops and using them to sell a lot more besides a bit of weed.

By all means relax the law on growing it for personal use but legalising its sale isnt the route that should be taking because we have no clue what the knock on effects will be.

Chuck Stone · 19-08-2011 04:18PM

Skunkle wrote: »

Human trafficking still happens and as long as there's a market for exploiting vulnerable people it will never stop.

Human trafficking happens because of borders and poverty. Before WW1 you could move around much of the world without a passport. In an world of no state governments people would not have restrictions on movement and there would be no human trafficking.

same as the criminals that import and sell drugs, they will take a hit if weed is legalised but they wont be out of business and certainly wont go away.

This is wrong. Look at alcohol in the states. It was illegal for some years and it was boom time for all sorts of unsavouy characters. Now alcohol is sold in shops by honourable peolple providing a service. There is nobody on street corners selling home made brew.

And a lot of those head shops were owned or taken over buy the gangs and sold some pretty dangerous stuff. Even the legal stuff isnt controlled, or wasnt when the head shops were in business anyway.

I'm not sure this is true. Just because something is legal does not mean that bad people will not try to make money from it. But at lest when it's legal you can go to the authorities to complain.

Legalising it will only promote it and lead to the sale of all that dodgy crap the head shops were selling again too and if you think it will stop the criminals think again.

What was dodgey about it? I can't reacall anyone being killed or seriously injured by there stuff.

By all means relax the law on growing it for personal use but legalising its sale isnt the route that should be taking because we have no clue what the knock on effects will be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRs5mbOsEag

MungBean · 19-08-2011 05:00PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Human trafficking happens because of borders and poverty. Before WW1 you could move around much of the world without a passport. In an world of no state governments people would not have restrictions on movement and there would be no human trafficking.

I was talking more so of trafficking in regards slavery and the sex trade. In a world of no border restrictions people would be exploited beyond measure. If you left the decision in the hands of each individual as to what they should do a good majority of them will exploit anyone and everyone to achieve their aims. I think this can be limited and perhaps in the extremely distant future almost eradicated by eliminating the profit motive but the sexual motive will ever be a problem I think. I certainly wouldnt advocate movement without restriction as it would be impossible to monitor and protect individuals from such exploitation.

This is wrong. Look at alcohol in the states. It was illegal for some years and it was boom time for all sorts of unsavouy characters. Now alcohol is sold in shops by honourable peolple providing a service. There is nobody on street corners selling home made brew.

The abolition of the sale of alcohol which was already freely available left a huge gap in the market though. It was inevitable that a criminal element filled that gap. The same isnt really the case for drugs, it hasnt been widely available and used for hundreds of years as alcohol has in this country. The criminal element has grew up around it and filled the ever increasing need for it, they wont disappear when its legalised unless your planning on legalising everything and spending the equivalent of whats spent in the drugs department now on trying to monitor everything. I'd imagine it would be even more fruitless than trying to keep it out.

I'm not sure this is true. Just because something is legal does not mean that bad people will not try to make money from it. But at lest when it's legal you can go to the authorities to complain.

There was no regulation on what they sold, none. It was stuff classed at decorations and scented herbs and such. It was not for human consumption but was sold for that exact purpose. And the head shops also became a one stop shop for all manner of drugs. When your entire customer base is people looking for narcotics its inevitable that the sale of hardcore drugs will start.

What was dodgey about it? I can't reacall anyone being killed or seriously injured by there stuff.

It wasnt for human consumption, they were basically selling stuff with nobody knowing what the hell was in it, all people knew was that it made you hallucinate when you ate it, smoked it whatever. Thats dodgy.

Mr Hicks

I have taken many drugs too and I know a lot of people who have done the same and I can tell you why. It didnt seem so bad after having a joint, just seemed like a bit of fun. Weed is not the demon some people think it is but there is no doubt it softens peoples opinions on harder drugs. Like I said growing for your own use in your own home not bothering anyone is one thing. Selling it in shops is different.

fiinch · 19-08-2011 06:31PM

THE SPICE MUST FLOW

Greentopia · 19-08-2011 06:32PM

conorhal wrote: »

I couldn't find any details about the programme, I remember watching it out of intrest because I'd read T.C. Boyles novel Drop City about a counterculture California commune that welcomes anyone wanting to live off the grid, use drugs and practice free love.
Of course 'free love' becomes an excuse to coerce women into sex, the drugs attract an unwelcome and dangerous element and with no responsibility comes a lack of sanitation, lets face it, who actually wants to dig a latrine away (so naturally the commune is covered in human faeces).
When it all collapses a few of the idealists left move north, to Alaska, to reinvent their utopia, but soon learn the natural environment is more unforgiving of a lackadaisical lifestyle then sunny california and it all goes a bit 'Into the Wild' when they meet some true libertarians, the hunters and trappers that actually understand what it really means to live off the grid and be self sufficient.

I find ideas about alternative ways of living fascinating so I'd love to see that too.
A lot of intentional communities (as communes are called now) do end up splitting apart because they either don't plan the thing properly or set ground rules and adhere to them from the start, or there is a failure to take responsibility for the running of things, or there's drugs, personality clashes etc., many reasons.
But there are many more that are well organised functioning households and communities whose members are normal well adjusted people who just prefer to live in community with other like minded individuals rather than in a conventional housing arrangement.

They're not all dysfunctional households inhabited by hippy flakes and druggies. I've visited friends who live in eco-communities in Sweden and Germany that are thriving, healthy and vibrant self-sustaining communities.
They're some of the most well adjusted and happiest people you could meet.
I know you weren't saying they're all loons conorhal, just wanted to give my tuppence worth

Getting back on-topic-I don't know these Freemen but I imagine they're probably an offshoot or copy of a similar group of organisations in the U.K. I've heard of that fight for the primacy of common law and their constitution over E.U. law or U.K. statute law, and for land rights and adverse possession, and against such things as council taxes, paying a TV licence, land enclosure laws and the erosion of common land-it being sold off to private interests.

The latter I would have sympathy for. The Reformation and the various Acts of Enclosures that Henry Tudor brought into law destroyed peoples lives by evicting them from their land and robbed citizens of ancient rights to the commons for farming, grazing of their animals and gave it to wealthy landowners. It was a wholly criminal act.
I'm reading a book about this at the moment and it's shocking what went on in England during that time.

UsernameInUse · 19-08-2011 06:36PM

Quazzie wrote: »

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.

Then you've obviously never put five minutes aside to research the root of the problem instead of regurgitating what you hear.

Emiko · 19-08-2011 07:00PM

Teagan Angry Minion wrote: »

Why do you have to associate drugs with pizza faced crusties? Stereotyping for what reasons? Joints hanging from their veins? What?

And overdosing on the munchies, I dare say.

Chuck Stone · 19-08-2011 07:18PM

Greentopia wrote: »

I'm reading a book about this at the moment and it's shocking what went on in England during that time.

Name of book?

Greentopia · 19-08-2011 10:23PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Name of book?

It's Terry Jones' (yes the Python) 'Medieval Lives'. It's more of an introduction to the period (I confess to knowing little enough about that period of history) than an exhaustive academic work on the subject but I find it genuinely very interesting and a good starting point if that's what you're after.
He debunks a lot of myths and misconceptions about the Middle Ages that people have. Life wasn't half as bad as we think it was even for lowliest peasant.

prinz · 19-08-2011 10:30PM

DeVore wrote: »

Seriously. Does ANYONE think that the supply of drugs in this country is IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER impeded by the prohibition laws?

So you think the recent seizure of heroin with an ESV of €2.5 million or so will have no effect WHATSOEVER on supply? The GNDU are enforcing the laws after all..

jim90 · 20-08-2011 12:36PM

prinz wrote: »

So you think the recent seizure of heroin with an ESV of €2.5 million or so will have no effect WHATSOEVER on supply? The GNDU are enforcing the laws after all..

a very minimal effect. state seizures account for only a small percentage of the drugs in the country. definately less than 10%, possibly as low as 1%.
it'll have a large effect (possibly .45 caliber) on the guys who were entrusted with importing it.

also when hearing of customs seizures etc it's important to bear in mind that the ESV is marked up by a significant margin.
for example if a single ecstasy tablet is valued at €10 then one would expect that 100,000 tablets seized would have a ESV of €1,000,000 however when quantities are dealt discounts come into effect and the €10 ecstasy tablet has an actual value of €2 making the 100,000 seizure have a ESV of €200,000.
when putting a figure on ESV customs and the guards, etc will always quote the street value that is concurrent with the highest estimated price per dose.

Free Man Society

Comments