You don't need to fight for your rights !

[alternative_answer]

You don't need to fight for your rights, you just need to know them. You have unalienable rights, "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

It is time to know your rights and begin to excercise your rights at every opportunity. Once you know them you become equal to the PTB who have been at every opportunity trying to subvert you and get you to submit to them. They have been able to acheive this because we have been ignorant, we have been told we don't have any and we believed it.

Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

We are a common law jurisdiction, law of the land, we are being governed under fleet/maritime law, law of the sea. We are being governed under statutes. Black's Law Dictionary states that statutes and acts only have the force of law with the consent of the governed. That as long as you caused no actual harm or loss to another there is no crime and to check www.tpuc.org to find out how to withold consent.
Begin your research here:
The United peoples Collective (http://www.tpuc.org)
FMOTL (http://www.fmotl.com/)
Free Man Highland (http://www.freemanhighland.co.uk/index.htm)

TheAntiTerrorist on dealing with the Police Part 1 of 2 - YouTube

TheAntiTerrorist on dealing with the Police Part 2 of 2 - YouTube

Filmed at the "Lawful Rebellion" Conference, The British Constiution Group, Stoke-on-Trent, 24th January 2009

John Harris - It's an illusion Part 1/5 - YouTube

[dondaz]

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!

Good thread mate.:)

[alternative_answer]

Bump!

[oiram]

Rights ..... Hah?
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/Laughing_Hyenaf.gif
Who had this fucking idea?
Who wrote the rules the Jews ... God?
I do what I have to do or get forced to do .... Rights or no Rights!
I decide what's Right or wrong not some rules written by nut cases!
Fuck them all.
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/lette_birdr.gif

[dondaz]

I decide what's Right or wrong not some rules written by nut cases!
Fuck them all.

Indeed. We are born with rights. They can not be givern. They can only be confirmed on paper. This is the entrapment, when we have written rights they will be changed to suit an agenda!

[Anders Lindman]

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.


Having the government deciding our rights is a social program that is being stamped into us. Even believers in Christianity for example, who follow "Thou shalt not kill" have no problem with: "Well, it's the government telling me to go and kill, so I guess it's okay then." :confused:

[dondaz]

Having the government deciding our rights is a social program that is being stamped into us. Even believers in Christianity for example, who follow "Thou shalt not kill" have no problem with: "Well, it's the government telling me to go and kill, so I guess it's okay then." :confused:

They've been blagged by Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

1 - Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 - Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3 - For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4 - For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5 - Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6 - This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

They forgot to mention governments require the consent of the people for there to be a government.

[flickflack]

I remember feeling the need to read up my own rights in front of ignorant people, blah.

[Anders Lindman]

They've been blagged by Romans 13



They forgot to mention governments require the consent of the people for there to be a government.

Ah, that's the Romans 13 I have heard people talking about. Yikes! The submission to authorities part looks like something the political and church leaders of the time sneaked into the Bible text to try to usurp for themselves the power of God; to cloak themselves with coveralls labeled "GOD".

[oiram]

Ah, that's the Romans 13 I have heard people talking about. Yikes! The submission to authorities part looks like something the political and church leaders of the time sneaked into the Bible text to try to usurp for themselves the power of God; to cloak themselves with coveralls labeled "GOD".
That's right & proves there involvement in writing the book definitely adding the book for there own agendas.

This should switches on some lights!

[Anders Lindman]

That's right & proves there involvement in writing the book definitely adding the book for there own agendas.

This should switches on some lights!



Yes, instead of talking about the power of the individual it talks about the power of authority, the power of control over people. The power of authority is like a child collecting butterflies in a jar going: "Look what power I have over these butterflies!"

[Anders Lindman]

I believe authority is needed, or at least useful. It's authority as power I question. Authority is a mechanical thing. So a human who has authority becomes mechanical. The future destiny of humanity is to become LESS mechanical. Authority will more and more become an automated process, controlled by artificial intelligence and things like that.

[danster82]

Its not about knowing your rights because to know your rights means someone has written them down for you to know. Your rights are innate the only way you lose your rights is if you chose to not excersice them or believe a lie that you do not have them.

So if no one tells you your rights you can only know them from within when you know who you are, How could anything in the universe have more rights than anything else, you owe your existence to nothing not even God you are not owned by anything and there in lies your rights.

I think the freeman movement is great but only for the fact it reminds people of their lack of rights and a need for sovereignty, but the freeman advocates actually believe your rights are wholly dependant on your knowledge of the law which Rob Maynard has made clear to me and which in my opinion is utter tripe, if it was true then you can never be anything but a slave just a slave that has been told what he can and cannot do also anything without the capacity in intellect to understand the law or maybe even understand the language would by default lose their freedoms... it obviously has nothing to do with true freedom.

And your absolutely right you cannot fight for rights if you was to fight for them you have already assumed they can be taken away so whatever you are fight for its not a God given right as who could take away a God given right? so you would have no fear of losing it and thus no need to fight whatever rights your fighting are rights handed you by Man and believed in as an illusion and thus are fragile and can be taken away and so we fight for them.

[tjohn]

http://www.tpuc.org/content/account-police-rioting-bank-england-wednes

(Must be something to do with monatomic gold)

[elysiumfire]

Rights? Inalienable rights? I'm sorry, did I just drop off the planet and land on some other earth-like rock filled with beings of empty heads?

There is no such thing as 'inalienable' rights, by neither ryhme or reason...if there are, then show me an inalienable right. The very fact of thinking of such things as 'rights', invokes reason and thought, and automatically consigns the issue to something requiring agreement. Rights are social contracts, nothing more. You cannot isolate yourself from society, because society commandeers every inch of the land for the good of society, so whether you like it or not...you are in society.

In that vein, you consent silently to the laws of the land society commandeers, simply by living on the land. The idea and concept of 'freeman' is total bullshit! It's not rocket science, it's easy to see and understand. Society will allow certain freedoms and liberties as long as you consent to the laws of the land, if you do not, society will not batter an eyelid at forcing you to do so.

You may know in yourself to be a peaceable man. You may know in yourself to be of fair mind and treat everyone equally, but society will not view you in that way. It defines for itself, for its status quo, what form of behaviour is conducive to that status quo. When men band together, they must do so out of agreements and shared benefits, otherwise it is nothing but anarchy, and even the anarchists know this. Total freedom and liberty to please one's self is wholly detrimental to one's health and happiness, and that of other's.

What we seek is a compromise between the individual, the community in which the individual lives, and the government. The problem is, a free society may be begun, but down the line sometime in the future, the noble sentiments that began the 'free' society, are not felt to be the same by future generations. The stability of societies is dependent upon mild and benign totalitarian governments (ie, democracies) whose policies enforce the laws of the land. Unfortunately, totalitarian governments pendulate through the years between benignity and dictatorships...it all depends on the agenda.

Inalienable rights...you can forget and drop the whole laughable concept.

[vladmir]

There is no such thing as 'inalienable' rights, by neither ryhme or reason...if there are, then show me an inalienable right. The very fact of thinking of such things as 'rights', invokes reason and thought, and automatically consigns the issue to something requiring agreement. Rights are social contracts, nothing more. You cannot isolate yourself from society, because society commandeers every inch of the land for the good of society, so whether you like it or not...you are in society.

In that vein, you consent silently to the laws of the land society commandeers, simply by living on the land. The idea and concept of 'freeman' is total bullshit!
Sorry mate, but if you want to try to challenge the freeman concept,
you will have to do better than that. :)

[earthwalkr]

In order to be here in this game of Earth, you had to make agreements to abide by the RULES of this game. Yes, it is all a game. A dark one. It is only when your awareness goes up enough that you can stand back and see how this game is being played.
When you realize the stupidity here, you can now CHANGE IT! You can make your own rules and no one can challenge that. It takes awareness and confidence to do so though.
Then, all Their plots and schemes and sleight-of-hand can be readily seen and stopped!
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PLAY ALONG ANYMORE!
YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THEIR RULES!
When you pull yourself out of this game, you become free of it. :D

[smariot]

I'm kind of unsure about this whole rights thing. Where did they come from? If they came from God, why are men capable of violating them? And why aren't they struck down by lightning when they do?

[demise_of_time]

Hell yes! Great thread :)

*approved*

[dondaz]

but the freeman advocates actually believe your rights are wholly dependant on your knowledge of the law which Rob Maynard has made clear to me and which in my opinion is utter tripe, if it was true then you can never be anything but a slave just a slave that has been told what he can and cannot do also anything without the capacity in intellect to understand the law or maybe even understand the language would by default lose their freedoms... it obviously has nothing to do with true freedom.

A freeman believes in natural birth rights. Learning about the law of the land as it has been developed and also the current legal system enables the freeman to opporate in the public and stand up for himself against deceptive legislation, such as acts and statutes.

People need to put more time and effort into learning Freeman Philosophy, this way the more people that apply it in their lives the less the fake 'authorities' will try to scam those that aren't educated in these things. It's a simple knock on effect. If people keep consenting to their slavery, the more they will do against us. The more people that revoke their consent to be governed the less they can do.

http://www.youtube.com/v/EdXEhof4xKQ

[vladmir]

I'm kind of unsure about this whole rights thing. Where did they come from? If they came from God, why are men capable of violating them? And why aren't they struck down by lightning when they do?
Its simple.
You cant ask anyone else "Where did they come from?"
If you ask others, they will tell you exactly what the society they live in (and cant name) has told them to tell you.
You have to rise up, and claim your inherent rights/duties/your purpose.
Then, let 'them' try to challenge your claim.
Thats where the ones doing the challenging will always lose, provided you abide by one rule in your life and that is
'not to cause harm to others or loss to others'.
Rob says it brilliantly.
'They' the 'authorities' are just people, people using words.
They cant order you, but only make an offer alsking to accept their offer as an order.
They have no inherent authority over you because all men and women are equal under common law.
Once you know that, they have to acknowledge that as well.
Thats when all the air goes out of their supposed authority.


Its like everyone around you is walking on all fours,
and have never known that they can walk upright.
Everyone just walks on all fours and its very uncomfortable compared to walking to walking upright on 2 feet, but nobody has attempted that.
Why?
Maybe they just accepted that thats how you walk.
Now suppose i come along and you see me walking upright.
If you now ask me "who gave you the right to walk on 2 feet"
i will smile and say no-one gave it to me, i simply stood up.

[elysiumfire]

Vladmir:Sorry mate, but if you want to try to challenge the freeman concept, you will have to do better than that.

Not at all, goodfellow. What I stated cannot be challenged, because that is the situation. Freeman philosophy is a noble sentiment, but the name is a misnomer, particularly in context with its principles.

Above all else, bear this in mind...'rights' are social contracts, nothing more. Freedoms and liberties are determined by the 'rights' agreed to or consented to by the individual wishing to live within a society. Laws, rules, and regulations are meant to safeguard those rights. The problem is, you cannot live outside of society, and thus, whether you engage with society or not, it certainly engages with you to such an extent that one's consent and compliance to societal law is taken as a 'given'. We are never truly 'free'. Freeman philosophy merely seeks to educate the individual on how to play the system, knowing the laws, the rules, and the regulations.

True freedom would mean your neighbour stealing whatever you own and never having to be brought to trial and judged by his peers. That way leads to chaos and anarchy, so for men to live together, there is a need for them to agree to abiding principles, not simply out of honour, but knowing that transgression of those principles brings upon them some form of punitive retribution. If we were all conscientious individuals, we might not need laws to keep us in check, but sadly we are not all of the same nurturing and co-operative psychology.

[vladmir]

What I stated cannot be challenged
lol sure it can!
Because you are a human being and so am i,
and we are both equal (in terms of common law) i can simply question your assumption that what you have stated 'cannot be challenged' and it is valid.
The question of me submitting a 'challenge' dosent arise, as you dont have inherent authority to impose your viewpoint on me. :)
Now of course,
if you believe that we are NOT equal and somehow you have authority over me, you will have to prove your claim.
(As it turns out, you never will be able to, because my inherent claim of right and my duties will always trump over your policy-enforcement right claim.)
The difference is ,where you state your viewpoint and i state mine,
it can become a dialogue,
and both of us agree that we disagree, at worst.
It becomes a matter of perspective,
and i dont have any 'authority' to impose my concepts/rules over you,
and even if i say i do, you don't have to submit to them,
if you feel i am violating your rights.
That means that in a much broader situation, 51% of the people cannot decide to hang 49% of the remaining people, because they are in the majority.


If you dont like the name 'freeman' you can make up your own one,
people use the term to identify where they are coming from, thats all.
Plus, its not a 'noble sentiment' but a way of life, its something that you embody,
and to choose or not choose to do so by the man or woman.
No 'society' can prevent you or me from claiming that one believes in those principles of the freeman society.
Remember, we are men and women, living together with mutual consent to discuss and deliberate over a common goal, and its course.
We are not slaves, and cannot be forced to accept slavery because the majority accepts it.

True freedom would mean your neighbour stealing whatever you own and never having to be brought to trial and judged by his peers.
you have forgotten the golden rule.
You can live your life, (and it is yours) as long as you remember to
"not to cause harm to others or cause loss to others".

[alternative_answer]

lol sure it can!
Because you are a human being and so am i,
and we are both equal (in terms of common law) i can simply question your assumption that what you have stated 'cannot be challenged' and it is valid.
The question of me submitting a 'challenge' dosent arise, as you dont have inherent authority to impose your viewpoint on me. :)
Now of course,
if you believe that we are NOT equal and somehow you have authority over me, you will have to prove your claim.
(As it turns out, you never will be able to, because my inherent claim of right and my duties will always trump over your policy-enforcement right claim.)
The difference is ,where you state your viewpoint and i state mine,
it can become a dialogue,
and both of us agree that we disagree, at worst.
It becomes a matter of perspective,
and i dont have any 'authority' to impose my concepts/rules over you,
and even if i say i do, you don't have to submit to them,
if you feel i am violating your rights.
That means that in a much broader situation, 51% of the people cannot decide to hang 49% of the remaining people, because they are in the majority.


If you dont like the name 'freeman' you can make up your own one,
people use the term to identify where they are coming from, thats all.
Plus, its not a 'noble sentiment' but a way of life, its something that you embody,
and to choose or not choose to do so by the man or woman.
No 'society' can prevent you or me from claiming that one believes in those principles of the freeman society.
Remember, we are men and women, living together with mutual consent to discuss and deliberate over a common goal, and its course.
We are not slaves, and cannot be forced to accept slavery because the majority accepts it.


you have forgotten the golden rule.
You can live your life, (and it is yours) as long as you remember to
"not to cause harm to others or cause loss to others".

Some fine points made here!

[tjohn]

Vladmir:

Not at all, goodfellow. What I stated cannot be challenged, because that is the situation. Freeman philosophy is a noble sentiment, but the name is a misnomer, particularly in context with its principles.

Above all else, bear this in mind...'rights' are social contracts, nothing more. Freedoms and liberties are determined by the 'rights' agreed to or consented to by the individual wishing to live within a society. Laws, rules, and regulations are meant to safeguard those rights. The problem is, you cannot live outside of society, and thus, whether you engage with society or not, it certainly engages with you to such an extent that one's consent and compliance to societal law is taken as a 'given'. We are never truly 'free'. Freeman philosophy merely seeks to educate the individual on how to play the system, knowing the laws, the rules, and the regulations.

True freedom would mean your neighbour stealing whatever you own and never having to be brought to trial and judged by his peers. That way leads to chaos and anarchy, so for men to live together, there is a need for them to agree to abiding principles, not simply out of honour, but knowing that transgression of those principles brings upon them some form of punitive retribution. If we were all conscientious individuals, we might not need laws to keep us in check, but sadly we are not all of the same nurturing and co-operative psychology.Going off on a tangent for a moment, what's wrong with anarchy? I think we would do better without govern-ments but we are given the impression that anarchy means crime and chaos and yes to some (not all) people it would - but why?

People are not born evil. So in regard to "the same nurturing and co-operative psychology" what is it that is conditioning people to not be nurturing and co-operative?

Suppose there were no authorities, governments and military in the world? Why do we need them? To 'protect' us from the authorities, governments and military in the world! It's all a game.

Even with crime and chaos caused initially in our back yard by a lack of 'authority,' at least we would not be waging war on other countries, murdering countless innocent people and a nuclear war would not be possible. The result would be a much safer world.

[alternative_answer]

We are not talking about the complete eradication of law and order and the suggested chaos and anarchy. Being a Free Man under common law holds great responsibility to those who are under it.

[vladmir]

We are not talking about the complete eradication of law and order and the suggested chaos and anarchy.
Exactly.
But aren't the assumptions so quaint?
Like this is as good as its ever going to get, so its best to just live with it.
Meanwhile, Totalitarian Tiptoe continues unabated, swalling inch by inch of our freedom to think, freedom to be.

Where has this deep-rooted fear of freedom in some people come from?
Its almost like people are afraid to think for themselves along the lines that the 'society' dosent approve......
"oh what will other people think if i do this....or do that....no, no i must not stray from group-think, no no, otherwise there would be total chaos!!"
Somehow some people are convinced that the only way to live is to be in a well defined box, a box of what you are supposed to think,
what you are supposed to feel,
what you are supposed to do, what you are supposed to aspire to be.......and its all rubbish because the fact is we are massively programmed to suppress the very emotions that cause you to question this whole bloody mess...........:mad:
People are always comming up with justifications to continue to be in self-imposed shackes, its just insane!!

[sade]

I wonder how this would work with Codex Alimentarius?
The newspaper just had an article that said how they are trying to stop holistic treatments here where I live. Got a bit pissed off...

[alternative_answer]

Exactly.
But aren't the assumptions so quaint?
Like this is as good as its ever going to get, so its best to just live with it.
Meanwhile, Totalitarian Tiptoe continues unabated, swalling inch by inch of our freedom to think, freedom to be.

Where has this deep-rooted fear of freedom in some people come from?
Its almost like people are afraid to think for themselves along the lines that the 'society' dosent approve......
"oh what will other people think if i do this....or do that....no, no i must not stray from group-think, no no, otherwise there would be total chaos!!"
Somehow some people are convinced that the only way to live is to be in a well defined box, a box of what you are supposed to think,
what you are supposed to feel,
what you are supposed to do, what you are supposed to aspire to be.......and its all rubbish because the fact is we are massively programmed to suppress the very emotions that cause you to question this whole bloody mess...........:mad:
People are always comming up with justifications to continue to be in self-imposed shackes, its just insane!!

Because life and living is an individuals responsibility, but while others tell us how how we should live our lives we don't need to be responsible When things go wrong, as they invariably will, we can blame others for the way things are. We give our power away to others and allow them to dictate and we wonder why we are tiptoeing into a facist dictatorship

[alternative_answer]

bump!

[alternative_answer]

By historic precedent our Constitutional Rights Cannot be Given Away without our consent...Ever! This is the message Albert Burgess has for the European Union and politicians in the United Kingdom who do not want the people to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and want to keep the people in the EU despite the peoples wishes to the contrary.


http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/5264/Our_Constitutional_Rights_Cannot_Be_Given_Away/

[elysiumfire]

Vladmir:Originally Posted by elysiumfire View Post
What I stated cannot be challenged lol sure it can!

No! It cannot be challenged, only disagreed with, and that is the point. We are talking about concepts that can either lead one to a 'better' state of freedom, or to a 'worse' state of enslavement. It is about 'consent' and 'agreement', implicit or explicit.

As I stated in a earlier post...Freeman philosophy merely seeks to educate the individual on how to play the system, knowing the laws, the rules, and the regulations....this does not make you 'free-er', it makes you more adversarial in the society you don't agree with. It doesn't place you 'outside' of the society, able to live your life 'outside' of its laws, its rule, its regulations. Like I have stated, you may not want to engage with society, but it certainly engages with you. Only when you cut the ties to society, and society cuts its ties to you, will you be free. Freeman philosophy does not cut ties, but plays the system by becoming educated about the system. It is purely a 'response' philosophy, not a 'freeing' philosophy. Which is why I state the name 'Freeman' to be a misnomer...because it cannot provide its ultimate goal...to be 'free' from the society you do not agree with.

Nevertheless, I do consider 'Freeman Philosophy' to be an important adjunct in the relation between the individual and society. What it is doing is reminding the individual on the importance of educating oneself to be an ever-watchman on the forces and agendas that would seek to usurp the founding principles on which society is supposed to be based. Ever since 9/11 I have engaged a number of arguments on American forums on the necessity of the individual to be ever alert to the machinations of government and large corporations. I have always maintained a principle that for America and Americans, their most prime requisite was to return and forever uphold the basic principles of their founding Constitution. Here in the UK, I believe we need a constitution, but created and delivered by whom?

You have to understand that whenever, wherever a society is created pertaining to be 'free', its very creation and the act of it dilutes the idea of the 'freedom' it proposes to offer. Societies are only as strong as the bonds that bind them, and those bonds are the agreements, and the 'agreements are only as strong as the self-subjugations (consent) of the individual to those agreements. Perhaps, on this particular principle we can agree? It is the job of government to influence those agreements to the betterment of society as a whole, but we know even this principle has been usurped to that of influencing our agreement by coercion and pressure, not for the betterment of society, but for the betterment of those seeking to control society to their own ends. This is where we are at right now, and are well on the path to being wholly dominated through a doctrination of fear and loathing.

My current concern is to provide a bedrock foundation for freedom and liberty that will stand up to all forms of reasonable criticism, to clear and erudite examination, and not be found wanting. A foundation that all would look upon as genuinely equal and fair, and would willingly participate in. That does not mean looking towards the future and setting up some form of pantisocracy, but to looking at the past, at the conflicts and the miseries wrought in the struggle by those once enslaved, but who now enjoy a liminable freedom. Only in the past lies the road to both present and future freedom.