Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-03-2014, 11:23 PM   #41
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
I don't care if he was Jack the Ripper; The Police are NOT the Executioners (Summery Execution).

peace
Yeah let's wait for the judge, prosecution and defense lawyer to get there to decide what to do with the guy shooting at them through a crowd.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 03:29 AM   #42
fanof2012
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Posts: 708
Likes: 57 (43 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
Yes they can. Whether or not someone has been paid has literally zero impact on how their driving affects my life. If someone is driving drunk or speeding, you don't ask "well were they getting paid?". You get that dumbass off the road.

In what possible circumstances would someone driving in a commercial capacity in any way whatsoever affect anybody else's rights? I'm legitimately curious.

For that matter, what right of yours is being infringed by the government regulating how people can access roads that the government built? Do you have a god-given right to unconditionally access infrastructures built by other people?

I also note that you've sidestepped the whole "individuals don't have authority so they can't delegate it" issue, again. Individuals don't have the authority to regulate commerce, either. That argument was a red herring.
The people built the government and the government built the roads. Therefore, the people built the roads.

And the love of money is the root of much evil. That in a nutshell is why people have less ability when others seek profit.

And that is why it is ok for us as individuals to regulate the commercial activity of those profit seekers around us whose profit-seeking activities around us affect us on a regular basis.
fanof2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 03:56 AM   #43
thinker2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 733
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
Yeah let's wait for the judge, prosecution and defense lawyer to get there to decide what to do with the guy shooting at them through a crowd.
I take it you are a member of; America's Largest Street Gang.

The racketeer is always the last to realize it’s a racket.

good buy
__________________
Don't FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!

Last edited by thinker2; 18-03-2014 at 03:59 AM.
thinker2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 03:57 AM   #44
moobs
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanof2012 View Post
The people built the government and the government built the roads. Therefore, the people built the roads.

And the love of money is the root of much evil. That in a nutshell is why people have less ability when others seek profit.

And that is why it is ok for us as individuals to regulate the commercial activity of those profit seekers around us whose profit-seeking activities around us affect us on a regular basis.
But how does a commercial driver affect us more than a non-commercial driver? If we're talking about individuals and individual rights, then you're going to need to be specific. You can't just generalize everyone in commerce as being equally liable to the rest of society.
moobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 09:25 AM   #45
k1w1
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 352
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
For that matter, what right of yours is being infringed by the government regulating how people can access roads that the government built? Do you have a god-given right to unconditionally access infrastructures built by other people?
And that sounds about as shaky as Thinker2’s freeman idea that operating a vehicle on the roads is a fundamental human right. (If it was then a blind person should also have the right ― every human should it if it’s a fundamental human right. But obviously every human born on Earth does not have that fundamental right, so it’s not one of them.)

But, problems, are you saying that because Thinker2 drives an unregistered vehicle on the roads he is not one of the “people who have paid for the roads to be built” and who therefore does not have the right to “access the roads” which the “government built”? Are you suggesting it’s a matter of paying to have the right to access the road network?

If so, at what point in a person’s life or at what point can a person claim to be one of these people who have “paid for the road to be built”? What about a visitor to the country who accesses the roads compared to someone from the country who has been one of the people who has been paying for “the roads to be built” for decades? How come they have to pay again and again and again for the road to be built once, yet the visitor gets to use it or have access to it essentially for nothing? And if Thinker2 once had a registered vehicle but now doesn’t can he still claim to be one of the people who has paid for the roads? If not, if he can’t still claim that even though he once paid, at what point exactly did his right to access the roads cease?

What about children? Or someone, such as a blind person, who might have never owned or driven a vehicle? What about people who are walking, or a person on a bicycle? Do any of those people have the right to access the network of roads? By your reasoning they would not have that right because, like Thinker2, they’re accessing the roads but aren’t people who have “paid to have the road built”.

And if you’re talking about tax dollars used by the government for the maintenance of the roads, then he’d be alright here in NZ ‘cause most of that comes from fuel tax which he’d pay regardless of whether he or his vehicle was licensed, so he’d be one of the people who paid for the infrastructure that vehicle traffic use. How would that square with your theory about who has the right and who doesn’t or shouldn’t have the right to access the roads?

It’s ludicrous to suggest that only people who have somehow “paid to have the road built” have the right to access the roads ― Freeman-like ludicrous.

Tax dollars that are used to maintain the carriageway of roads do not give the taxpayer any special right to access the road. It doesn’t even give them the right to use it in their vehicle if marching people want to use it instead. It doesn’t give them any special rights to the road; it’s just used to maintain the roads.

Funny how... ah, never mind. But did you even for a moment think about it before you said it? Obviously not, since I’ve seen you saying the same stupid thing for years now.

Thinker2, every time you purchase oil products to make your vehicle operate, what do you use to purchase it with? And don’t say chickens or carrots, ‘cause everyone knows you can only purchase oil with US dollars. And if your vehicle uses, say, 0.000001 litres of fuel each time the engine sparks and it costs you, say, 0.0001 cents to purchase that fuel each time, would you call that commerce or a commercial transaction?

Each time your engine sparks you’re in commerce purchasing fuel for US dollars; you buy it in bulk for your engine and store it in a tank. In theory, that sounds awfully commercial to me. How does that square with your theory?

And can you prove that you don’t fill your tank up for $1.50 per litre and then cruise around looking for stranded motorists to sell the fuel to at $3.00 per litre for a commercial profit? Why else do you carry so much of the stuff around instead of only buying some each time you go out and only taking enough for what you need for your trip?

And do you mostly use your vehicle to get to work on time so you can be in commerce for dollars? That’s what most people mostly use a vehicle for.

Look, everyone has, or should have, a fundamental right to move across the land from their home or residence to another place to get food or to escape endangerment or menace ― to flee for their life if need be ― and to be denied that right, or to have it regulated, would be a violation of their fundamental human right of movement, which violates their right to life, or the rights to seek food and to protect themself from threat or danger by movng away or fleeing. Exercising this fundamental right requires neither cash nor artificial motive power; you just walk or run or crawl or hop, skip and jump the way humans have always done since time immemorial (even before motor vehicles were invented, believe it or not), the way nature intended.

And since the land has been enclosed all round, everyone has the right to access the road network to move about. And not being allowed to operate a motor vehicle along the road at inhumanly high speeds, for whatever reason, is not a violation of that right; it does not stop a person from accessing the roads.

And neither does being allowed to operate a vehicle, or having money, give a person that right to access the roads and move about ― it’s fundamental, dummies.

Last edited by k1w1; 18-03-2014 at 10:32 AM.
k1w1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 11:19 AM   #46
k1w1
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 352
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I know you’re not all in New Zealand, but I’m sure you all have something you might call the pavement along the carriageway of a road. Here we call that the footpath, even the paved bits, and by old law that footpath runs along every roadway and along the high tide mark of the sea and along every river (even through private property), and the reason for that is so a person can leave their place and walk to a port to catch a ship and float away if they want.

Road makers are required by law to leave a footpath along the side of the carriageway, and if you ask any Kiwi about the Queen’s (or King’s) Chain they’ll know it means they have the right to walk along both banks of every river and along the high tide up to a chain length (which is about 65 feet) though they may not realise the reason for it ― which is so they can exercise their fundamental right of movement to get food and to leave the land if they want.

Oh, and the carriageway of a road... that has always been the part of a road that people who are in commerce use ― even before motor vehicles or New Zealand was invented, believe it or not.

Last edited by k1w1; 18-03-2014 at 11:32 AM.
k1w1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 01:52 PM   #47
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Keyword here was unconditional. Your one millionth of a contribution to infrastructures doesn't make you god king emperor of it. You're not going to be getting the red carpet because you're a taxpayer. You're sharing that stuff with millions of other people. The least you can do if you don't want to pay your share is at least respect the rules.

Just because a portion of my tax money goes into paying a portion of the library doesn't mean I can walk in there and talk as loud as I want, rent out books without getting a library card or take them out as long as I want. It's rock bottom common sense.

Gotta love the argument that the same contribution that they're fighting tooth and nail against paying is what is giving them the right to access them. Genius.
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 03:44 PM   #48
felixk
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanof2012 View Post
And that is why it is ok for us as individuals to regulate the commercial activity of those profit seekers around us whose profit-seeking activities around us affect us on a regular basis.
You are now contradicting yourself.
This is what you previously wrote:
Quote:
I can't order you or force you to do something in my individual capacity, then I can't get together with a group of my neighbors and do the same thing, because in our individual capacities, that's an authority we never had
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 03:49 PM   #49
felixk
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boodle's
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanof2012 View Post
I would prefer to not write everything Eddie said word for word in that interview; I shouldn't have to waste my energy doing that when I could simplify it by citing the specific part of a source where the answer can be found.

When I asked you that question I was not asking you to give me Eddie's opinion. If I had wanted that I would have asked you to give a summary of Eddie's opinion..
I was asking you the question and I wanted your own answer in your own words.
felixk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 05:51 PM   #50
k1w1
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 352
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
Keyword here was unconditional. Your one millionth of a contribution to infrastructures doesn't make you god king emperor of it. You're not going to be getting the red carpet because you're a taxpayer. You're sharing that stuff with millions of other people. The least you can do if you don't want to pay your share is at least respect the rules.

Just because a portion of my tax money goes into paying a portion of the library doesn't mean I can walk in there and talk as loud as I want, rent out books without getting a library card or take them out as long as I want. It's rock bottom common sense.

Gotta love the argument that the same contribution that they're fighting tooth and nail against paying is what is giving them the right to access them. Genius.
That's right, paying taxes doesn't make you anything except a taxpayer. It certainly doesn't give you the right to access the roads, which is what you're suggesting. It's got nothing at all to do with that right; you still seem to think it does. Taxes don't buy you your fundamental rights, fella.
k1w1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 06:29 PM   #51
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Oh hey congratulations on defeating that strawman that you built for yourself.

Maybe now you could move on to points actually being made.

Unconditional access to roads is not a fundamental right, dumdum. There are conditions and responsibilities associated with it, or any right, really.

Last edited by firstworldproblems; 18-03-2014 at 06:41 PM.
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 07:13 PM   #52
k1w1
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 352
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Yes, having access to the road network is a fundamental right, dumdum, and I explained why. It has to do with a person's fundamental right to movement.

Operating a motor vehicle on the road is not a fundamental human right and has nothing to do with a human's right to movement across the land.

Last edited by k1w1; 18-03-2014 at 07:14 PM.
k1w1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 07:35 PM   #53
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Ack, you're right. How shameful. I retract that statement, and further acknowledge that on this point, I was the dumdum.

Sorry about that.

Last edited by firstworldproblems; 18-03-2014 at 07:46 PM.
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2014, 08:52 PM   #54
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
Ack, you're right. How shameful. I retract that statement, and further acknowledge that on this point, I was the dumdum.

Sorry about that.
holy fuck...
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
commerce, eddie craig, police, travel, whistleblower

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.