|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Nov 30, 2004 20:19:03 GMT -5
"And now for something completely different."
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Nov 30, 2004 20:44:37 GMT -5
Yes, R, I'm starting a True Freedom Lovers Dating Service, TFLDS, for short. See my new thread with that name (because this one has gotten off track from the subject, "Love, Sex and Freedom") for answers to your questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Nov 30, 2004 22:19:00 GMT -5
Also, I am wondering what are your thoughts on the right to travel? It appears that you believe that people who believe that they have a right to travel are in error. On what facts do you base this opinion? Would you state them please? What is it that you see "wrong" about patriots? Could you make a list? Start with a definiton of "patriot" if you would. Thanks in advance, KT While the research in regards to the right to travel may be accurate, I agree with Mr. Stevens when he says it is not effective because it is taking a position. Also, it attracts attention and can get you thrown in jail if you take the plate off your car. I define a "patriot" as someone who is justified in not liking government oppression, but, uses irrational arguments and thinks the system is great we just have to get the bad apples out. All the "arguments" based on the system being legitimate. Such as the show me the law stuff Schiff does. The name in all CAPS, the federal corporation stuff Kegly in Washington talks about. What I see wrong are people, justifiably upset and bothered by government abuse, being taken by con men like Karl Granse. "pay me $1,350.00 and I'll give you a 3 inch thick manual that has been recopied 50 times and you can be a patriot too". There is one from Right Way Law who was getting paid $5,000 a person to make them "unprosecutable." A number of people went to prison by taking his advice. People like Schiff, Meredith, Granse and others are cons that are interested in taking your money and playing on your emotions to get it. To buy into what they preach is dangerous. "patriot": no Libertarian: yes |
|
|
|
Post by weishaupt1776 on Nov 30, 2004 22:31:04 GMT -5
good Post, Rizz. I believe that Schiff & Meredith are legitimate students that honestly think that their method of arguing the code was it. I do not believe it is reasonable to lump those 2 into the category of "con". Stubborn & Stiffnecked, definitely. I first started studying Schiff and his material makes sense if you think code is the law. Their research is great, but their method is flawed. They are under the erroneous presumption that the Government plays by the rules & that we are subject to statutes. Marc accurately points out that we are "subjected" to the "written will" of men & women at gun point, not because of any contractual arrangement between "citizens & their guardians".
I am battling one tax year & fell victim to trying to argue the code. This past year, I approached things differently & have had no such problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Nov 30, 2004 22:31:52 GMT -5
R, you're wrong. I've met many of these people and they are very sincere in their beliefs. They are not intentionally trying to "con" anyone. Whether they're arguments are "right," "wrong," "logical," or not is an important but different issue. Whether they're methods are effective or not is also an important but different issue. Even Marc's methods don't always work. Even so, they will, at the very least, expose the "proceedings" as a hoax and "wake up" some who read his writings. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Nov 30, 2004 22:33:21 GMT -5
Great reply Riz, thanks. I can't comment of the intentions of the people you mentioned.
Weis,
How is your traffic situation coming along? It's been quite a while now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Dec 1, 2004 8:46:59 GMT -5
R, you're wrong. I've met many of these people and they are very sincere in their beliefs. They are not intentionally trying to "con" anyone. Whether they're arguments are "right," "wrong," "logical," or not is an important but different issue. Whether they're methods are effective or not is also an important but different issue. Even Marc's methods don't always work. Even so, they will, at the very least, expose the "proceedings" as a hoax and "wake up" some who read his writings. Peace. I am expressing an opinion. So I think you are wrong too. They are intentionally trying to con people. I think it is very dangerous to be a part of a "patriot community" . The "patriots", "constitiutionalists", "freeman" are a hoax. They want to invade your very life and tell you what to think and how to feel. Talk about control. It was never my intention to buy and read Mr. Stevens' book to win in court. He makes it very clear that his book is neither "patriot" type arguments nor is it a self help book. I liked that. He is libertarian, I liked that too. So as far as "Marc's methods" not always working, Mr. Stevens' has never put himself out to be the one and only method to use to fix all the legal messes you have gotten yourself into. (if you have follwed Schiff, Meredith or others like them, you have caused your own legal mess.) I read his book like I was reading a story, his story. So I think you are way off base to say he has a "method". That is grouping him in with those "patriots" and that is not accurate or fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 1, 2004 11:08:17 GMT -5
Please feel free to believe whatever you want to believe.
|
|
heidi
Junior Member
first, a peaceful heart
Posts: 82
|
Post by heidi on Dec 1, 2004 18:13:01 GMT -5
How many of you have a partner that accepts your views about freedom and how many that don't? Do you see that changing? Would you like to know how to find a like mind? My man & I are certainly like-minded on so-called "freedom" issues, and virtually all other issues. I'm rather more active in seeking out solutions, and he's a bit more creative in evaluating likely outcomes, but our views are eerily alike. That said, I'm always happy to find others with similar views on the nature of reality and compatible goals. They're as rare on "freedom" forums as they are in any average neighborhood, amusingly enough. So many individuals have a similar basic idea, but have some stumbling block preventing full rationality -- such as insistance on a specific form of religious expression as THE ONE, or difficulty comprehending concepts such as responsibility for one's own acts. I'll never forget the day Dave Champion passed some comments which finally cured me of any interest in his radio program. In a discussion of how horrible the widely-covered Guantanamo torture tapes were, rational and freedom-loving Dave professed that he'd dance with glee if those torturers were strapped down and subjected to a nice full session of CANING. There's a solution for you. That would really inspire them to evolve their attitudes away from violence, eh? A lot of otherwise fairly reasonable and mature people have these kinds of... what Ayn Rand called 'blank outs.' I can look over at the guy I live with and a few other friends and people like Marc Stevens, and feel very grateful they're in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Dec 1, 2004 21:57:54 GMT -5
Please feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. You mean like the rest of the world does? |
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Dec 1, 2004 22:03:19 GMT -5
How does Mr. Stevens feel about "Love, Sex & Freedom"
Is Mr. Stevens married? And even if he is, does he exercise his "freedom"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 1, 2004 23:29:51 GMT -5
No, R, like you do. This is for you:
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:35:46 -0800
From: Frederick Mann
Subject: Responding to Information
There are many ways to respond to the information you
receive. One way is to instantly and automatically
reject it. Another is to instantly and automatically
accept and believe it.
I've truncated this because R is right, way too long. If anyone wants to read the rest, use google to find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 1, 2004 23:32:17 GMT -5
This is also just for you, R.
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:51:10 -0800
From: Frederick Mann
Subject: Responding to Information #2
To: Friends of Freedom
From: Frederick Mann
I'm a practicing anarcho-capitalist. I not only advocate anarcho-capitalism,
I also live anarcho-capitalism and do business as an anarcho-capitalist.
This is another way of saying I'm a "sovereign individual" and I'm involved
with "sovereign businesses."
I've truncated this too because R is right, way too long. If anyone wants to read the rest, use google to find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Dec 2, 2004 9:20:53 GMT -5
Neo, your posts are too lengthy. It just seems very important to you that I agree with you 100%, or just that you have to be right and I have to be wrong.
Everyone is always free to believe whatever they want. To single me out is silly. Consequences for actions that follow a personal believe is a different story. I feel lawyers are liars for the most part. I feel "patriots" are too. Libertarians are not "patriots".
While some "patriots" feel justified and have honest hearts, following "patriot" advice is dangerous and causes more trouble than it is worth.
Now Neo, you feel free to believe whatever you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 2, 2004 18:47:22 GMT -5
I always have, although I tend not to confuse my own opinions about others with facts. As far as what "seems" to be the case and what you "feel" ... well, thats just more speculation - opinion on your part, i.e., that is what you say.
By the way, in this case, I am right, and you are wrong. Not all those patriots and or others who "seem" to be con artists are. They just seem to be, to some. To you, for example.
Gossip can be as bad as a con, or perhaps worse. Be nice.
|
|
