• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Freemen and False Moral Equivalence

Thanks Norm, I realised that I should have offered some basis for this position in the first place for the reasons you've mentioned, my mistake :)

I'll try my best, but I'm not much of a writer I'm afraid. So, a man who simply wishes to live with the land and who recognises that everyone is free to live the same way should they choose to. As I said you are a man who can do anything you want, we are absolutely responsible for the outcome of our actions.

Hi Kid Eager, can you explain why my way of life is a threat to you considering the above..? Sorry I didn't provide this in the first place.

And hi arayder, I don't know what your referring to. The above being a way of life, please explain how it is a threat to you.

Thanks for the input guys, please comment base on the updated position. I can see that your replies may well have been different if I had provided that information to begin with.
 
Last edited:
superskeptic said:
Thanks Norm, I realised that I should have offered some basis for this position in the first place for the reasons you've mentioned, my mistake :)

I'll try my best, but I'm not much of a writer I'm afraid. So, a man who simply wishes to live with the land and who recognises that everyone is free to live the same way should they choose to. As I said you are a man who can do anything you want, we are absolutely responsible for the outcome of our actions.

Hi Kid Eager, can you explain why my way of life is a threat to you considering the above..? Sorry I didn't provide this in the first place.

And hi arayder, I don't know what your referring to. The above being a way of life, please explain how it is a threat to you.

Thanks for the input guys, please comment base on the updated position. I can see that your replies may well have been different if I had provided that information to begin with.
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us about your way of life?

You, at first infer, you are not a freeman. Then you suggest you are, or maybe something like it. Then you ask us to comment on your way of life when you haven't told us what it is.

You ask what's the matter with freemen, then you ask what's the matter with your way of life. Are we supposed to talk about freemen? Or you? We know all about freemen, even if you don't.

What about you?
 
Last edited:
A free man, a man who simply wishes to live with the land, who recognises that everyone is free to live the same way should they chose to.

Please explain how a man choosing to live that way is a threat to you?
 
superskeptic said:
A free man, a man who simply wishes to live with the land, who recognises that everyone is free to live the same way should they chose to.

Please explain how a man choosing to live that way is a threat to you?
Click to expand...

So far the only threat you pose is to disappoint somebody expecting straight talk.
 
I'm not here to make any claims, I'm not saying your opinions of the freeman are incorrect or unfounded. If you ask 1000 people for the definition of a word how many different opinions would you receive and who would determine which is correct!

I'm not here to exchange definitions because neither of us is wrong if you don't know why, please go back to the start of this comment.

Let me ask again, given the definition of free man I've provided, #64, then what threat does this free man pose to you...?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
superskeptic said:
I'm not here to make any claims, I'm not saying your opinions of the freeman are incorrect or unfounded. If you ask 1000 people for the definition of a word how many different opinions would you receive and who would determine which is correct!

I'm not here to exchange definitions because neither of us is wrong if you don't know why, please go back to the start of this comment.

Let me ask again, given the definition of free man I've provided, #64, then what threat does this free man pose to you...?

Thanks
Click to expand...

It would probably help if your question was better formed.

1. You claim a "recognition", but you are in fact stating a belief without evidence of any entitlement.
2. Your description of the concept is inconsistent with both the accepted definition and demonstrated behaviors of those that subscribe to the belief system.
3. You avoidance of substantive discussion thus far on the above points, and instead focusing on "what's the harm" puts you in the "just asking questions" category.

So, you want to know what's the harm? Let's first have disclosure on "what's your behavior, and what is YOUR interpretation on the boundaries of entitlement as a freeman?".
 
superskeptic said:
. . . what threat does this free man pose to you...?
Click to expand...

I think you are giving yourself too much credit by assuming you threaten society or anybody in it.

Now I’ll talk straight about freemen and what I think of them.

The real, genuine freemen, are very often fine people who don’t need to be governed. Good for them.

But too many wannabe, phony freemen use their “way of life” as an excuse to harm others and act dishonorably. When they get before a judge they opine that the court has no authority over them and that the law doesn’t apply to them.

It doesn’t work that way.

The guru class is even worse. Lentz, Clifford, Menard, Belanger, Duncan and rest are low life con men who never met a sucker they wouldn’t fleece. If you want to look into it you can contact Menard and ask him about the harm he caused Lance Thatcher, John Morgunus, Alexander Ream, Brian Alexander and the rest.
 
Last edited:
I think its impossible to know what anyone else is thinking/experiencing at any given moment and would never be so bold as to make such a claim, but thank you for your honesty.
 
superskeptic said:
I think its impossible to know what anyone else is thinking/experiencing at any given moment and would never be so bold as to make such a claim, but thank you for your honesty.
Click to expand...

The thing is about self proclaimed Freemen like Menard is that you don't need to know what he is thinking, because he says so on line with complete certainty and uses his "fame" as a Freeman to solicit money (read: fleece the true believer bunnies). so that he can afford to buy more beer. Oh, and never delivers what he promised!

You seem to have a different concept of the generally accepted "Freemen on the Land" idea to the rest of us. If I take your basic definition, that I live on the land, and take full responsibility for my actions, then I can also be defined in the same way.

But then so would most people.

Norm
 
Last edited:
fromdownunder said:
The thing is about self proclaimed Freemen like Menard is that you don't need to know what he is thinking, because he says so on line with complete certainty. . .
Click to expand...

It's ironic that we have seen the same know-nothing argument twice in this thread.

Menard doesn't grasp the reality that nazism is an evil, amoral philosophy and in not knowing assigns that abhorrent precept the moral equivalence of every other idea known to mankind.

Then as if bitten by the same bug superskeptic tells us he doesn't know beans about the public misdeeds of freeman gurus and wouldn't dare speculate about them because he just doesn't know.

Go figure, eh?
 
superskeptic said:
Both of the points raised rely on the assumption of my having a desire to hoard water and possessing a car.
Click to expand...


You're forgetting: you aren't actually a FOTLer, you are just assuming the role for the purposes of Just Asking Questions.

Only a minimal amount of research is needed to establish that driving a car without a licence, registration, or insurance is one of the principle goals of FOTLers.
 
arayder said:
Then why did you ask a question assuming anyone else thinks of freemen as personal threats?
Click to expand...

No assumption here. Putting labels aside, the question is structured in reflection of the overall animosity directed towards what is no more than a simple and humble existence. Is it not up to every man to determine the course of his own life, is that not the free choice which every man does posses...

If I may draw your attention to a few of your previous comments,


"Freemen gurus routine sell useless legal advice, including model documents, and when they fail blame the courts when client after client is sent to ruin."

"for many freemen a rejection of government and law isn’t about responsible self-governance, but rather a license to do as they please whether it be legal, lawful, or right."

"The plain truth is the freeman movement from its gurus to its rank and file members is rife with con artists, wife beaters, welfare cheats, drunken drivers and thieves."

"Freemen are a threat to the rest of us because they steal and act irresponsibly. Their gurus rip off the gullible for phony advice and money for hopeless "projects" that are little more than scams."

"genuine freemen, are very often fine people who don’t need to be governed"

You are not a stupid man. You know that there are men in all walks of life who abuse others by whatever means they can get their hands on, and in this instance the men you refer to have decided to go with the label "freeman".

Shouldn't you with all your intelligence be capable of distinguishing between the men causing the harm and the current label they have decided to adopt as there is the danger of inciting great harm to the ones you claim to be "very fine people who don't need to be governed"...

A free man has no leader and any free man knows this.

So you know my question, why is this way of life a threat to you?

Please feel free to either change the subject, or simply ignore the issue and pretend you're too smart, too busy or too good to reply.

Thanks.
 
Until you explain what you understand by the free man way of life, including things like whether free men will tax and insure their motor vehicles, whether they pay income tax on earnings, whether they accept government benefits, whether they use state-provided services, whether they pay for the gas, electricity and water they use where these are provided by utility companies - and many more aspects of the free man way of life that you are discussing, then I don't see how anyone can answer your loaded questions.

You make the assumption that this way of life is seen by others as a threat. If you refuse to explain what is involved in this way of life, you can hardly complain that others make an assumption based on the FoTLers who have come and gone in discussions here and on other websites such as Quatloos and The Fogbow.

So the ball is in your court to lay out what you believe the "free man way of life" is all about - not in abstract terms, but in practical terms.
 
superskeptic said:
No assumption here. Putting labels aside, the question is structured in reflection of the overall animosity directed towards what is no more than a simple and humble existence. Is it not up to every man to determine the course of his own life, is that not the free choice which every man does posses...

If I may draw your attention to a few of your previous comments,


"Freemen gurus routine sell useless legal advice, including model documents, and when they fail blame the courts when client after client is sent to ruin."

"for many freemen a rejection of government and law isn’t about responsible self-governance, but rather a license to do as they please whether it be legal, lawful, or right."

"The plain truth is the freeman movement from its gurus to its rank and file members is rife with con artists, wife beaters, welfare cheats, drunken drivers and thieves."

"Freemen are a threat to the rest of us because they steal and act irresponsibly. Their gurus rip off the gullible for phony advice and money for hopeless "projects" that are little more than scams."

"genuine freemen, are very often fine people who don’t need to be governed"

You are not a stupid man. You know that there are men in all walks of life who abuse others by whatever means they can get their hands on, and in this instance the men you refer to have decided to go with the label "freeman".

Shouldn't you with all your intelligence be capable of distinguishing between the men causing the harm and the current label they have decided to adopt as there is the danger of inciting great harm to the ones you claim to be "very fine people who don't need to be governed"...

A free man has no leader and any free man knows this.

So you know my question, why is this way of life a threat to you?

Please feel free to either change the subject, or simply ignore the issue and pretend you're too smart, too busy or too good to reply.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


We can just go back to the issue of unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured idiots driving around in vehicles that they don't think require safety certification.
 
superskeptic said:
A free man has no leader and any free man knows this.

So you know my question, why is this way of life a threat to you?

Please feel free to either change the subject, or simply ignore the issue and pretend you're too smart, too busy or too good to reply.

Thanks.
Click to expand...



Okay, let's ignore the fact that you don't want to discuss actual FOTLs as they exist, and want only to discuss these hypothetical FOTLs, who have the advantage of not actually existing, and as such can be paragons of virtue.

Okay, so how can someone living off the land by himself be a threat to others?

Well, I have a friend who has been posting this map to Facebook a lot this summer:

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/public_alerts/forest_fire_watch.html

That's a map that shows where fires are permitted in New Brunswick, Canada. This week it's mostly okay, but for most of this summer, it's been almost totally red, with yellow being the next most common colour. There have been several weeks where there was literally no green at all, anywhere in the province, which means it's not safe to have a fire anywhere, and any fire that does start has great risk of touching off forest fires that could engulf large portions of the province, risking the lives and properties of many people.

Would your hypothetical FOTL who "has no leader" allow a governmental website* like this tell him when he can have a fire while he's just "living on the land"? Fire has been an essential part of human life for hundreds of thousands of years, how could it possibly be so bad?


*And how does someone living "on the land" even check a website, if they were willing to follow its directives? Even if he had a cell phone, lots of rural areas where you could live off the land have ****** cell coverage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom