superskeptic
New Blood
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 11
Hi Agatha, does comment #64 not provide you with my understanding of the free man in practical terms..?
Thats really as simple as it is, a free for all
Merged Freemen and False Moral Equivalence
- Thread starter arayder
- Start date
Hi Agatha, does comment #64 not provide you with my understanding of the free man in practical terms..?
Thats really as simple as it is, a free for all
No, it really doesn't. Post 64 in its entirety reads
superskeptic said:
In practical terms, that doesn't address any of the following.
Whose land does the free man live on and "with"?
Does the free man live in a tent or a hut or a house or a caravan, and how is it paid for?
Does the free man have a vehicle, and if so is it taxed, MOTd and insured?
What source of clean water does the free man have and how is sewage disposal dealt with?
Does the free man use mains gas or mains electricity?
Does the free man pay income tax or council tax?
Does the free man claim benefits?
Does the free man use the NHS, the education system, do they avail themselves of the police/fire/ambulance/coastguard services if they need them?
Does the free man obey the law if fires are prohibited, as in Horatius's example?
Does the free man vote?
That's just a quick start on some of the practical aspects of the free man's lifestyle that isn't explained by "simply wishing to live with the land".
Why is this being framed in terms of "threat"?
Is the assumption that I should only (or preferentially) react to choices revolving around danger or some such? I see it as a political or law enforcement issue and find it difficult to recast everything in terms of threat and response (or even prevention).
Anyhow, to use the general language found in the OP, if FMOTL is immoral, no other motivation to resist it is required, so long as I wish to act in a moral fashion. Anything being done, described accurately (which we might not have done yet with FMOTL) would fall under the same mechanism. No threat needs to be implied.
Is the assumption that I should only (or preferentially) react to choices revolving around danger or some such? I see it as a political or law enforcement issue and find it difficult to recast everything in terms of threat and response (or even prevention).
Anyhow, to use the general language found in the OP, if FMOTL is immoral, no other motivation to resist it is required, so long as I wish to act in a moral fashion. Anything being done, described accurately (which we might not have done yet with FMOTL) would fall under the same mechanism. No threat needs to be implied.
Thermal
August Member
If a free man is not governed, he is not subject to law, yes? Everything from stopping at a stop sign while my daughter is crossing the street to law against theft, should you decide you like my car, and you deem it a free car. Freeman stuff negates the social contract, which is a threat to all, as we now have to trust each individually to do the right thing, like stopping for my street-crossing daughter.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That makes it extremely easy to respond then.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Because it makes them look like they might be reasonable.
There are legitimate arguments to be had about the proper role and scope of government*, with many in modern life seeing that the current scope of government has reached far beyond what many are comfortable with. In artificially restricting the discussion, he tries to piggyback the typical FOTL woo on the back of these legitimate discussions.
*See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
This is a good example of what many people see as serious overreach of governmental authority. Of course, we all know the FOTLers have nothing to say about this case, they just want to be able to drink and drive their unlicensed **** box cars with no consequences.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The basic issue with FOTLers is that they seem unable to distinguish between how they think things ought to be and how they actually are.
If they were a political movement advocating that we should change society to the FOTL model, that would be fine. But they aren't: they claim that that is how things already are. That's why they are conspiracy theorists. Their (apparent) world view requires a colossal conspiracy.
If they were a political movement advocating that we should change society to the FOTL model, that would be fine. But they aren't: they claim that that is how things already are. That's why they are conspiracy theorists. Their (apparent) world view requires a colossal conspiracy.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Yes, this is my concern also - framing a claim at odds with the definition and behavior of FMOTL, and avoidance of discussion on the point.
Smart, good or busy ain't got nothing to do with it. I have already responded to your question.
You are welcome.
Last edited:
Well there ya' go. . .the false moral equivalence thing again.
Freemen are no worse than every other group because some of them ". . .abuse others by whatever means they can get their hands on. . .". So by inference we are supposed to judge freemanary by the hypothetical "free man" who super skeptic says actually adhere to the ideals the freeman gurus tout.
If that's the standard why can't the worst police force in North America get a pass as long as one of their cops plays it straight and does some charity work? Why can't the worst legislature be tolerated as long as one representative is scrupulously honest?
It's the freeman race to the bottom again.
Menard (the subject of the OP) and superskeptic are reduced to trying to make freemanism look viable by opining that it is, at least, no worse than corrupt legislatures and bad police forces. Using this race to the bottom ruse freemen gurus cite the very real failures of society to dismiss any expectation of a good, decent civilization and ultimately, in a sort of twisted irony, excuse the careless and lawless behavior of freemen.
This hypocrisy ignores the freeman tenant to do no harm and seeks to excuse the well documented hurtful, dangerous behavior of freemen.
In this way Menard and superskeptic support and defend freemanism, a failed subculture.
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
This FMOTL business is all good and well, but when the ice zombies come, they'll want to be let through the Wall and take shelter in our castles.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Superskeptic, how, in your simple life on the land, are you accessing the internet?
Superskeptic and freemen (including "free men") struggle with the same question each man and woman has wrestled since the formation of human society.
That is: defining one's relationship to society.
From time to time freeman pseudo-philosophers pretend they are advocating life in man's natural state. That is life in the absence of political order and law in which everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things".
Then sometimes they talk about "good government" as if their idea is really a sort of libertarian social contract.
Sometimes freemanism is just anarchism in a new suit, complete with a fez.
We really shouldn't expect Superskeptic to have grappled with these thoughts since no freeman guru has ever summoned the brains or guts to get to the heart of the matter.
Hence, so as to avoid substance we are treated to Johnathan Livingston Seagull style quotes and the insistence that we explain a fear we don't have.
That is: defining one's relationship to society.
From time to time freeman pseudo-philosophers pretend they are advocating life in man's natural state. That is life in the absence of political order and law in which everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things".
Then sometimes they talk about "good government" as if their idea is really a sort of libertarian social contract.
Sometimes freemanism is just anarchism in a new suit, complete with a fez.
We really shouldn't expect Superskeptic to have grappled with these thoughts since no freeman guru has ever summoned the brains or guts to get to the heart of the matter.
Hence, so as to avoid substance we are treated to Johnathan Livingston Seagull style quotes and the insistence that we explain a fear we don't have.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Hmm, I've always had a fondness for the fez.
Is there perhaps a pamphlet or brochure available?
Is there perhaps a pamphlet or brochure available?
Last edited:
I do not think it should take superskeptic more than a few hours to examine and respond to the posts made in reply to him.
Since we have not heard from him in 3 days however, we must assume that he does not wish to answer questions asked of him or defend his statements since he has chosen to do neither.
Since we have not heard from him in 3 days however, we must assume that he does not wish to answer questions asked of him or defend his statements since he has chosen to do neither.
Maybe he's had a look at this and given up accessing the Internet.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I was mimicking the freeman guru/lawyer practice of sending a letter to an authority with a proviso at the end which claims victory if the authority does not respond within a prescribed length of time.
Freeman gurus developed this tactic after they realized their letters were being ignored. Using this method allows the gurus to fraudulently claim 100% success.
This falsely claimed 100% success is then touted when the gurus sell packages of legal advice.