I like this and believe it to be true. However, it seems that some people try this with success and others end up jailed, especially when they use it to exempt themselves from taxes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. It just seems like a very tricky game to play with people who don't even follow the rules of their own stupid game.
Freeman, I have Black's Law Dictionary ABRIDGED EIGHTH EDITION, and Person is not defined in this edition, BUT, Persons are defined. Human Being is not defined and says refer to Person. I can't refer to Person when it has no definition. I believe they have adjusted the terms and I would like to know which edition you are using so that I can understand the language as it was written. Thank you friend.
On the other hand, I hate statues such as not using a cell phone while you are driving. I think if you manage to do it without hurting anyone else, fine, you should be left alone. But if you are using a cell phone & you cause an accident, you should then have a severe consequence.
However, wouldn't the accident itself already be a consequence for using a cell phone while driving? Or higher car insurance?
Adding a "severe consequence" wouldn't prevent the accident from happening nor would it repair any of the damage to the car.
A "severe consequence" would most likely be a fine paid to the state. That money would only increase the size of goverment and thus perpetuate tryanny.
I was thinking of a "severe consequence" as a deterrent. If you know the consequence is high, then you will be very careful & only use the phone if you are positive you can do it safely.
The consequence doesn't have to be money to the government, it could be money to the person you harmed. On the other hand, the gov has to pay for emergency services for the accident you caused.
Hard to figure out how to stop careless accidents & save lives w/o stomping on liberty.
@imsailing2 Thats called restitution it doesn't exist in our government anymore. They benefit from everybody people that harm others mistakenly or meaning to and the people harmed or killed along the way!
A friend was struck and killed while walking in a crosswalk (on a green walk light) by a careless driver who was using a cellphone. The driver was stopped at the green light waiting for a car to pass prior to driving into and killing my friend.
That's horrible, I'm sorry to hear. I think about things like that & wonder. Do cell phone laws stop things like that from happening? I mean if we can see that it is true that less accidents happen with a law like that then I we would have to agree it is a good idea.
But the police are still allowed to use cell phones & drive, so it is assumed that some ppl can do it safely. Also, there are other laws on the books for ppl driving recklessly, wouldn't those cover everything?
It was horrible, she was a kind person who had many plans. The person who hit and killed her admitted he was inattentive while driving.
Would the number of people killed by inattentive drivers be reduced if it was illegal to speak on a cellphone while driving? Probably not. IMO, a car is a weapon and needs to thought of as such. If a person hits and/or kills someone with their car, then they need to go to jail. However, there are situations when the driver is not at fault.
The man "admitted" his guilt and "inattentive" behaviour while driving his car. He was talking on his cellphone while he was stopped at green light waiting for cars to pass. Once the cars passed he then proceeded to turn left into the crosswalk without looking to see if anyone was in the crosswalk and struck and killed my friend. He admitted that he was engrossed in conversation and was inattentive. This is fact.
How many more will die by inattentive drivers talking on cellphones?
Very interesting. I like the asking questions advice, that makes a lot of sense. But some of this to me seems like a lot of play on words, such as another like video where he states, I am not driving, I am traveling. Well, he was doing both, traveling & operating a motor vehicle "driving".
So in this freeman way, do you accept a ticket if you actually were speeding or driving/traveling irresponsibly? Or do you get to decide what irresponsible driving is? Not sure that would really work.
Freeman is a beautiful 'philosophy'. It seems to me though that the authorities (particularly in Britain which is a very complex system of politics) simply wait patiently for Freemen gamers to screw up sooner or later,and screw up they usually do. It seems the only way would be to cut ALL ties. No contract whatsoever.That would mean no request for services that requires contracting with authority / service as a birth certificate identity. That leaves immense personal responsibilty.
...and freedom. True freedom="total" responsibility,is the crux of the matter. I'm not sure if masses truly want that. I think many many people are content to be nannied to varying degrees,for the convenience it hands exhausted bodies and minds. The price of that deal means we subject ourselves to all manner of their petty statutes. It IS voluntary, I agree. The apathy and 'voluntary' aspect of this is the hurdle that humanity needs to get over first, before freeman could spread like wildfire.
If I had kids,I'd homeschool. It has been said that Road Tax is not spent solely on roads,but ends up in central coffers (but that's another story). But yeah,the more I look it seems that living in the midst of a 'settlement' so to speak, is a contract in itself. Without a lifetime of playing stressfull chess with threats from authorit, escaping is probably a log cabin in a remote forest in Canada, with rifle & fishing rod. But I may even be wrong on that. There may be a "cabin / forest tax" :D
I just had a flashback from that movie Conan the Barbarian,where Subotai and Conan encounter a settlement on the steppes. Subotai comments - "Civilization.Ancient and wicked". Conan hasn't seen one before,and after a while of wandering around inside,he comments on how unhealthy it is there and they wisely decide to get out of there, pronto.
Here he is on the daily commute and 40 hour working week, before becoming a freeman :D
wouldn't it be nice if we were actually free. Unfortunately perception is reality. As long as people in this country think they are free, none of us will ever be.
I love Mr. Mitee!
RandallSteen 5 months ago
BECOME A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN...check it out!
tbecker1256 1 year ago
I like this and believe it to be true. However, it seems that some people try this with success and others end up jailed, especially when they use it to exempt themselves from taxes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. It just seems like a very tricky game to play with people who don't even follow the rules of their own stupid game.
dave3z 1 year ago
Freeman, I have Black's Law Dictionary ABRIDGED EIGHTH EDITION, and Person is not defined in this edition, BUT, Persons are defined. Human Being is not defined and says refer to Person. I can't refer to Person when it has no definition. I believe they have adjusted the terms and I would like to know which edition you are using so that I can understand the language as it was written. Thank you friend.
JustinnPWalker 1 year ago
a vey powerful video spread the word of love and freedom to the Freeman on the land
RainstormGB 2 years ago
Really good. We as people need more of this. Free the human race from the oppression that binds us.
PirateSygnal 2 years ago
On the other hand, I hate statues such as not using a cell phone while you are driving. I think if you manage to do it without hurting anyone else, fine, you should be left alone. But if you are using a cell phone & you cause an accident, you should then have a severe consequence.
imsailing2 2 years ago
However, wouldn't the accident itself already be a consequence for using a cell phone while driving? Or higher car insurance?
Adding a "severe consequence" wouldn't prevent the accident from happening nor would it repair any of the damage to the car.
A "severe consequence" would most likely be a fine paid to the state. That money would only increase the size of goverment and thus perpetuate tryanny.
Kapan60 2 years ago
@kapan:
I was thinking of a "severe consequence" as a deterrent. If you know the consequence is high, then you will be very careful & only use the phone if you are positive you can do it safely.
The consequence doesn't have to be money to the government, it could be money to the person you harmed. On the other hand, the gov has to pay for emergency services for the accident you caused.
Hard to figure out how to stop careless accidents & save lives w/o stomping on liberty.
imsailing2 2 years ago
Ah. I like those ideas.
Kapan60 2 years ago
@imsailing2 Thats called restitution it doesn't exist in our government anymore. They benefit from everybody people that harm others mistakenly or meaning to and the people harmed or killed along the way!
tza420 1 year ago
A friend was struck and killed while walking in a crosswalk (on a green walk light) by a careless driver who was using a cellphone. The driver was stopped at the green light waiting for a car to pass prior to driving into and killing my friend.
RIP Margo
hplaserjet2001 2 years ago
@hplaserjet:
That's horrible, I'm sorry to hear. I think about things like that & wonder. Do cell phone laws stop things like that from happening? I mean if we can see that it is true that less accidents happen with a law like that then I we would have to agree it is a good idea.
But the police are still allowed to use cell phones & drive, so it is assumed that some ppl can do it safely. Also, there are other laws on the books for ppl driving recklessly, wouldn't those cover everything?
imsailing2 2 years ago
It was horrible, she was a kind person who had many plans. The person who hit and killed her admitted he was inattentive while driving.
Would the number of people killed by inattentive drivers be reduced if it was illegal to speak on a cellphone while driving? Probably not. IMO, a car is a weapon and needs to thought of as such. If a person hits and/or kills someone with their car, then they need to go to jail. However, there are situations when the driver is not at fault.
hplaserjet2001 2 years ago
@hplaserjet2001 There are far to many things to consider before you just throw someone in jail for that! I know from first hand experience!
tza420 1 year ago
@tza420
The man "admitted" his guilt and "inattentive" behaviour while driving his car. He was talking on his cellphone while he was stopped at green light waiting for cars to pass. Once the cars passed he then proceeded to turn left into the crosswalk without looking to see if anyone was in the crosswalk and struck and killed my friend. He admitted that he was engrossed in conversation and was inattentive. This is fact.
How many more will die by inattentive drivers talking on cellphones?
hplaserjet2001 1 year ago
Very interesting. I like the asking questions advice, that makes a lot of sense. But some of this to me seems like a lot of play on words, such as another like video where he states, I am not driving, I am traveling. Well, he was doing both, traveling & operating a motor vehicle "driving".
So in this freeman way, do you accept a ticket if you actually were speeding or driving/traveling irresponsibly? Or do you get to decide what irresponsible driving is? Not sure that would really work.
imsailing2 2 years ago
Play dumb blonde, hahaha! Wuh, who, where?
IntiHehlua 2 years ago
Brilliant vid :o)
GuildF40 2 years ago
very powerful, clever and inspiration from that speach, Freeman is a great man
Ashl3yRul3s 2 years ago
Freeman is a beautiful 'philosophy'. It seems to me though that the authorities (particularly in Britain which is a very complex system of politics) simply wait patiently for Freemen gamers to screw up sooner or later,and screw up they usually do. It seems the only way would be to cut ALL ties. No contract whatsoever.That would mean no request for services that requires contracting with authority / service as a birth certificate identity. That leaves immense personal responsibilty.
Qorab 2 years ago
...and freedom. True freedom="total" responsibility,is the crux of the matter. I'm not sure if masses truly want that. I think many many people are content to be nannied to varying degrees,for the convenience it hands exhausted bodies and minds. The price of that deal means we subject ourselves to all manner of their petty statutes. It IS voluntary, I agree. The apathy and 'voluntary' aspect of this is the hurdle that humanity needs to get over first, before freeman could spread like wildfire.
Qorab 2 years ago
Very well said.
To live totally with out the state would be a very hard an costly thing to do. No NHS, no schools, no rubbish collection ect...
The roads are funned by tax, could a freeman still use the roads?
nkey01 2 years ago
If I had kids,I'd homeschool. It has been said that Road Tax is not spent solely on roads,but ends up in central coffers (but that's another story). But yeah,the more I look it seems that living in the midst of a 'settlement' so to speak, is a contract in itself. Without a lifetime of playing stressfull chess with threats from authorit, escaping is probably a log cabin in a remote forest in Canada, with rifle & fishing rod. But I may even be wrong on that. There may be a "cabin / forest tax" :D
Qorab 2 years ago
I just had a flashback from that movie Conan the Barbarian,where Subotai and Conan encounter a settlement on the steppes. Subotai comments - "Civilization.Ancient and wicked". Conan hasn't seen one before,and after a while of wandering around inside,he comments on how unhealthy it is there and they wisely decide to get out of there, pronto.
Here he is on the daily commute and 40 hour working week, before becoming a freeman :D
watch?v=kIPlaor68DU
Qorab 2 years ago
wouldn't it be nice if we were actually free. Unfortunately perception is reality. As long as people in this country think they are free, none of us will ever be.
DigitalSkyline 2 years ago 2
inspiring words .dno if you edited all that together but very nice.
TulwarKahn 2 years ago
The person doing the voiceover doesn't know what they are talking about.
notbored12 2 years ago