KNOW YOUR RIGHTS:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/558


Watch, learn, investigate this shit!!!!!!!!!!!

xxx

I've watched and I've come to the conclusion this man doesn't understand anything to do with the legal system, government or WHY things are how they are.

He bitches about the government without suggesting alternatives and portrays them as those with only desire for profit and punishing you, without even giving thought of WHY a government is there. It is there to serve us, and the laws are there for reason. The focus on absolute freedom to do what you want, outside of statutes, regardless of why a statute may be in place, is annoying to have to listen to.

I don't see why he is arguing what he is, anyone care to share?

Idealistic oversimplification of the world seems to be the reason for how he feels. Life is not simple, nothing human is ever that simple. The humanity can't be so reductionist and "black and white" as he portrays. (Also why psychology is NOT a science and is not reliable due to the stupid amount of factors that affect our behaviours blah blah blah)

He does suggest alternatives - that's why he sent his afidavit to the Queen.
Have you checked out www.tpuc.org ?

You say he doesn't know anything about the legal system yet he seems to have avoided paying income tax, road tax, tv licence and avoided being convicted in a corporate court - that's fairly impressive for knowing 'nothing about the law'

I also don't think he ever states that you should be allowed to do 'whatever you want', especially not outside of statutes. Outside of statutes is criminal laws, which all involve harm damage or loss.

I think he merely wants to be a 'freeman on the land of England' which he seems to be doing fairly well so far.
Thoughts?

You've misquoted me with the "nothing about the law" and "whatever you want" by the way.

And what happens when we all become these "freemen"? By removing yourself from the society you relinquish all benefit of the society you reject . For example surely by no longer being a person, you can no longer trade with any legal or corporate entity? Which means no medical care, no general trading (i.e. shopping).

He asks at the end "why do we have borders?" etc etc, this to me sounds rediculously idealistic and ill thought out. Without a nation and societies, we all become just ourselves, but then through that societies will form again with hierarchy and power struggle. We currently have a relatively free society. We all have the basic freedoms, but our society is not completely capitalist. We don't just go by "rugged individualism" like the US in the 1920's before the great depression. We have a social support network which needs funding, that needs tax to finance. Here we require those to pay for their use through taxation, which is for the good of EVERYONE in the nation. What is wrong with that? If he wishes to avoid tax, he should move to the US where it is constitutionally illegal to be directly taxed on the basics of life (income tax is technically illegal there).

Too me he seems naive. The world is not so idealistic. Our societies have evolved how they have due to their service to those within them, we should not be forsaking them and complaining. We should be changing and moulding them through the system in place.

Parliament is very important, despite what he thinks. We no longer rely on a monarchy to guide us for our best, we elect representative (well those that bother to vote and participate). Parliamentary power is the highest it's ever been in this country, and if we need to change something, it should be done through them. He seems to just ignore this and write off MPs, due to them being represented as corporations and hence ASSUMES them to be self serving and after profit. A choice that is ignorant in my eyes, as are many such stereotypes.

"The focus on absolute freedom to do what you want" seems to me to be the same as "to do whatever you want", i just added 'ever' to the word.

And 'anything to do with the legal system', to me, seems to be the same as 'knowing nothing about the law'. Is that not right?

John states in his various other speeches that being a freeman on the land of England isn't for everyone and shouldn't be entered upon lightly. He doesn't want or expect the medical care or schooling etc.

I'd tend to agree with 'idealistic' statement for sure. It'll never happen, Peace will never happen nor will a giant community working in harmony, but you cannot blame the fellow for trying to make a small community of self sufficient freemen and women, can you?

I don't see how the plan could work at all.
I doubt they could find the land or actually be self-sufficient. As unless they fancy starting from the dark ages, they're going to struggle to deal with the life style change, a lot.

He already is living in a shelter he built himself and growing his own food I think.

What were your views on the Common Law part?

Views in what respect?

Umm, whether you think/know if Common Law can be used in the ways he did. Such as 'am I obliged to answer your question?' and about whether statutes can be 'trumped' by Common Law

I'm not certain whether it can, and I won't be unless I see someone I know use it in such a way lol.

But I would think a more important question would be if such statutes SHOULD be "trumped", as you put it. As I can understand frustrations, but our system of law is how it is due to how it was conceived. First of all parliament was only there as a way for the nobility to ensure they where not taxed for what wasn't necessary, and then over time it grew in influence being able to pass it's only proclamations and make it's own legislation. By the nature of it's origins, it wasn't made to create fully fledged laws as that was the job of the Monarchy. I'm not sure why it isn't now, but it may as well. Just because something CAN be challenged does not mean it SHOULD be challenged.

Do you think there are instances that it should be challenged?

Because, that seems to be the focus of www.tpuc.org - the search for truth and honesty when they feel they have been wronged. Hence the whole 'Lawful Rebellion' thing.

I agree that just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be in many cases.

From the talk you posted, I don't think a lot of it should be challenged. But I've not heard of any instances where they need to be. I don't have the effort to check at the moment.
Although I'm sure there are times where it is appropriate to do so.

That's fair. Maybe investigate it all a bit more after exams and stuff so we could talk about it more, because it's great to get an opposing view point because it definitely helps me to question things a lot more.

Also, when you get a chance watch Carts of Darkness that I posted on the Media section!!

Whatever. I know more than you anyway.

Typing WORDS in caps makes me feel SUPERIOR.