Talk:Freeman on the land movement

Source laundering

This article is largely based on the RationalWiki article of the same name, which used to be listed in the sources here. (Disclosure: I've worked on it a lot and just nominated it as cover-worthy on that wiki). The material from RW has been source-laundered through the Benchmark article. Although RW doesn't pass "reliable sources" muster (you have to copy it wholesale and put it up as a PDF for that, apparently), if you're looking for more stuff for this article then that's the place to go searching for more of the details that Benchmark didn't use - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Total bollocks. The Benchmark article is a reliable source produced by a UK government department for the Judiciary of England and Wales and written by legal practitioners; as such it has RS status. The bulk of the article is based on Benchmark. Other parts are based on press reports of legal cases. The RationalWiki article you claim was the source was not used in the creation of this article, nor was it listed as a source at any time. It was listed as an external link when I crated the article (though I hadn't read it) and deleted 10 minutes later (after I had). Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Freeman article on RationalWiki was in existence long before February 12, and existed in its current state, and that the Benchmark article varies little from it.--24.251.69.25 (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Emeraude, David is not trying to accuse you of anything untoward here. He's simply pointing out that the benchmark article has not simply just plagurised rationwiki as a source but has completly lifted the entirety of it's text from rationalwiki. The text of that Benchmark article has been copied and pasted from various parts of the rationalwiki article with the occasional edit for tone and format. You can see for youself by doing a quick search for sentences from that article against the rationalwiki and see just how much matches. Being one of the main authors of that article I can assure you I recognise my own words. As such it's not fair to say written by legal practitioners. Stolen by legal practitioners might be more accurate.

While Benchmark might usually constitute a reliable source, in this instance it doesn't as it's just copied an unreliable one.  YDAM TALK 13:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean - not that you took this article from RW, but that Benchmark took their article from RW. Before you claim "total bollocks", I strongly suggest that you actually compare the two - the Benchmark article is blatantly a cut-down version of the RW article (and cites it as the first source, though in the opinion of many RW contributors they lifted enough that their article should be CC-by-sa as well). I am noting that if you want detail Benchmark didn't include, that's a good pointer to sources. e.g. if someone puts a "citation needed" on that first sighting in 2008, RW actually has said sighting - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm here from the copyright problems board. The close paraphrasing tag listed this for automatic review. If the Benchmark article had not been taken from RW, then the close paraphrasing issue would need to be addressed and the article rewritten to separate it from the source, since the Benchmark article is not compatibly licensed. The only reason we can retain this content is because of the RW article, which must in accordance be attributed to meet the conditions of their license, and to note that due to the close following of a CC-By-SA source this article is not licensed under GFDL. If it is not acceptable to the editors of the article to reference Rationalwiki, then the article must be rewritten to separate it from the Benchmark piece. If they have not licensed the content (even if they should have), we can't follow their expression as closely as this article does. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias

The tone of this article is very obviously against the subject matter. This article needs a significant re-write to make it more neutral. UKWikiGuy (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Can you point to a specific innacuracy? 121.45.254.104 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The hell? This isn't "against the subject matter" anything like enough. The article needs to make it clear just how delusional these people are. At the moment it almost reads as though this is an acceptable legal theory rather than ga-ga dribblings of the lizard pig Egg Centric 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You know you come across as just as delusional, slathering like a right moron, as if you have everyone on your side, sorry but you don't people tolerate you and your imposition of half-wit backwardness, most people live life, as long as they're happy enough they don't care, they avoid psychos spouting this is reality, they're anything but on your side, you're tolerated.--81.98.90.134 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Though why anyone would even acknowledge the existence of the physical people who make up the lying, parasistic British criminal 'justice' system is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.90.134 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The article, if anything, is rather generous to this cockamamy idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do these nuts even have an article on Wikipedia?! If I could be bothered I would put it up for deletion. David (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The subject of this article is indeed another legal or political equivalent of the argument, in astronomy, that The Moon is made of green cheese. However, the world is full (and Wikipedia is replete) with articles on nonsense theories even more goofy than this one -- for example, lizard people, tax protesters, etc. Hopefully we can eventually find more information about the subject and more sources.

I would agree that there is no need to give goofy stuff like this "freemen on the land" idiocy more weight than it deserves. Famspear (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reason freeman are considered nuts, is because as usual, the individuals such as the ones that have posted here are obviously the sheeple of the blind blissfully ignorant American society, that have nothing better to do than have a bigoted view of the "whole" concept. you lot shot Martin Luther King who cited common law,to be used as an example that free speech,ideas,and or movements have no place in your corrupt, on its "last legs" pseudo constitution. Have a good look at the freemen cited in the article that wikipseudopedia reports that freemen killed and shot police officers. it happened in YOUR country not mine, and has never happened in mine. its a typical misrepresentation by someone that has a flawed opinion of the entire concept, and dares to air it without a grain of evidence it is unusable in a court of law. so go back to your "world series baseball" because I can guarantee if it was "world series" you lot would be relegated to the BOTTOM of the league. ignorance is bliss and its plain to see, your blissfully IGNORANT...114.74.207.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point being...? You're right - it's totally, to use your description, "goofy", but it has a better base in reality than green cheese, lizard people etc. The article doesn't give it more weight than it deserves. It does, I feel, state the issue and thoroughly debunk it as the nonsense it is. Personally, I'd extend your argument to limit all coverage of religions and associated topics - equally goofy - but nevertheless a suitable topic for coverage, though try editing any such topic in that way. Emeraude (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 114.74.207.218: No, if so-called "freemen on the land" are considered "nuts", it would be because of the nutty things they say they believe -- some of which are described in the article. And, no, the editors who post here are not "sheeple of the blind blissfully ignorant American society" -- whatever that is supposed to mean. And, by the way, please refrain from personal attacks on your fellow editors. Famspear (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

so what do YOU believe Famspear? obviously what you type. the article i question is a bias,unresearched, disappointing view from someone that's just a tourist on the subject. my response was inspired by the "nut" "goofy" "delusion" comments. so before YOU comment, READ the articles posted before MY initial post and preach to them. dig deeper my friend, dig way deeper, make sure when you comment on something you have no knowledge of, don't make a fool of yourself by totally dismissing it..... that's ignorance if you think nutty is standing up for your human rights, you must live in fear and on your knees and have no concept of what "free" is. go ahead and plod along with your daily ostrich routine,because I can assure you one day you will see and hear the truth, and that my friend is inevitable..... MARVIN 114.74.248.87 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marvin: Thank you for sharing that with us. No, I don't need to "dig deeper." And you, Marvin, do not have any knowledge of what I do or do not know about this subject. And no, I am not engaged in a "daily ostrich routine." Further, you have no idea what my daily routine involves. And no, nothing about the subject of this article involves "standing up for human rights." And, no, you cannot assure me that "one day" I will "see and hear" what you believe to be "the truth." That is not "inevitable," and it's not going to happen. Finally, please restrict your comments to suggestions about how to improve the article, and refrain from comments about your fellow editors. Famspear (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is very disturbing that a group who are raising serious questions have been treated by wikipedia in this way - this article does not serve as a portal to greater and balanced understanding of the issues at hand and is so biased as to lack any credibility with any reasonable person who wishes to be educated as factually as possible. The only knowledge to be gained from this article is that wikipedia is a victim of corruption. As a novice on this subject seeking balanced enlightenment, I am saddened by this article which clearly does not represent the ideals and aims of wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.5.207 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Dear user at IP 77.103.5.207: Thank you, but you have not identified anything in the article that violates a Wikipedia policy. Perhaps if you could be specific. What "serious questions" are you talking about? What do you mean by "bias"? What do you mean when you say that "wikipedia is a victim of corruption"? What do you believe the "ideals and aims" of Wikipedia are, and how is this article not representing them? Please be specific. Famspear (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias and University Education

There is a large conflict of interest in the research and presentation of this topic, as the practice of law is effectively monopolized by University graduates. Universitatis is the proper Latin word for Corporation (8 Mod. 164), so University is an anglicized word for Corporation. The basic freeman principle, so far as I have been able to research, is that they understand the different sorts of law. Law is a word, and words have various uses. "Law", "a Law" and "the Law" may all have quite different significations.

Sorry, but I find this argument totally unpersuasive. 1) Languages evolve and citing a Latin root to suggest two concepts are equivalent is simply wrong, either due to naiveté or an intent to mislead. 2) Languages change and evolve over time, and meanings can change. 3) If a word is used incorrectly, then it does not mean the incorrect usage thus makes the things referred to the same (i.e. even if the word for "company" is used to refer to a university, it does not turn the university into a company). Consider, for example, that the word "Greek" is derived from a Germanic root used by Aristotle to refer to Dorians in Epirus; then your kind or argument would suggest people referred to as Greek as actually Dorians in Epirus. See also Semantic_change. Nexus501 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Note also that universities and companies are different words, and different ideas, because as commonly understood the activities, responsibilities, mechanisms, and make up of "companies" and "universities" are not identical. It is possible that some universities are, in fact, also companies, but it is improbable that all companies are universities and hence these words have a different meaning. Nexus501 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Further, there is no Classical Latin word for a corporation. Corporations did not exist in ancient history, thus there is no word. Universitatis is the genitive singular of universitas, which refers to the whole of something or the universe. Your argument is worthless, not even the Latin is correct. --Paul Anderson (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Therefore, anything that reduces Corporate, that is, University power, is seen as "nutty" by the University educated. In fact, just like some accuse the right-wing of having "code words" whereby they say things that sound innocuous but which are racist, I would say that the Corporate people have the same sort of code-words. Their code-words, however, tend to use the language of "mental health," as circularly defined by the University types. A nut is someone who does not accept that he is a nut as defined by a University graduate, more or less---that is a sign of real lunacy, failure to submit to your degree-holding betters.

The notion of "code words" refers to words whose meaning or connotation, when used within some community, if different from the normal meaning in English (if any). That's what the "code" parts is about. Nexus501 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We could even go further and accuse those who purport that Universities (corporations) exist are mentally ill. They are a species of mendacious psychotic that lack insight into the obvious fact that Universities are lies. They make up all sorts of ends-oriented justification for their illness and mendacity, including "mind expansion" and so on and so forth, but, in the end, what they are is a cult of child molesters who molest children until they will believe in test-taking and Universities, or they'll basically write them off and make them unable to do anything but the meanest of manual labor because every decent helpful office is monopolized by psychotics, that is, people who purport to hold degrees.

I find this argument ridiculous in the extreme. Even if you doubt the value and/or merit of universities, it seems delusional to suggest they do not exist. Note that I am not making comments about the author's personality, simple about the rationality of suggesting that structures that have both legal as well as physical form "do not exist". Nexus501 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The law that defines proper liberty is now all online---but, as it says in the holy writ, the work is heavy and the reapers are few. Most prefer to drop out of reality and ensconce themselves in a wholly artificial world of Universities, Degrees, etc. etc. Everyone "on the land" is a "nut." Except, that is obvious flim-flam. The people on the land are in touch with reality. Those who insist they're not on the land but, for example, "in Dallas, Texas", a municipal corporation, are the lunatics. And lunatic hand-waving, saying things like "Dallas doesn't exist? Try jaywalking, see what the police do to you!" underscores exactly how these mendacious psychotics maintain control: through violence.

They create lots of retarded rules that are for no purpose but allowing them to observe who isn't accepting their hypnotic propaganda. Jaywalking is a good example---if you're free, you can cross the street wherever. Pedestrians have the right of way. But the psychotic university man with appointments to keep, that enrages him. He wants everyone to be enslaved for the sake of his convenient travel, and he sees no problem with that. He will even tell himself a lie about how it is for "the safety of the pedestrian." This is, of course, stark nonsense. It's all about his convenience. Absent jaywalking bylaws, driving would be way too big a liability, because the drivers would be liable for the pedestrians they'd kill due to their lack of care for others.

This article needs a rewrite. People who hold University degrees are in a conflict of interest on this topic---I don't know if Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy, but you must at least allow the view that suppression of these sorts of ideas is how the University system stays in power. Certainly, printing slanders like "nutty" is inappropriate. But it does show the "against the wall" position that the University educated are in---anyone who isn't like them, they suffer from some sort of pathology. I guess I could adopt this view. People who believe in Universities and other corporations need to be given pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy until they abandon their mendacity. Or they must be locked up, so that people who are not so psychotic won't be pulled into their psychotic long-cons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.207.79 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 174.6.207.79: Thank you telling us how you feel. I'll respond to just a few of the things you have written.

The article does not say that the people who espouse the views described in the article are nutty, or that their views are nutty. My personal opinion is that some of the views of these people are nutty -- as has already been stated on this talk page. The rules for what can be written on the talk page and what can be written in the article itself are different.

The term "slander" is a legal term, and it has legal definitions. Merely writing the word "nutty" in a Wikipedia talk page to describe a particular viewpoint without reference to a named individual is not "slander" in any meaningful sense.

No, there is no "conflict of interest" as you have described it. Please review the Wikipedia rules on exactly what is a conflict of interest. Persons who hold university degrees are not, by holding such degrees, engaging in a "conflict of interest" by editing Wikipedia articles.

The article may or may not need a re-write. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Famspear (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

yes Famspear a very bias work in progress, it needs a shot of the truth, and the truth of this so called "pseudo law" is incontrovertible42.241.197.166 (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 42.241.197.16: What "truth"? And what "pseudo law" are you talking about? And what "bias"? By the way, I and other editors of Wikipedia will decide what's "controvertible" and what's "incontrovertible." Famspear (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This theory is malarkey. It's akin to the characters who think they don't have to pay taxes, and get the surprise of their lives when they get tossed into the slammer. If you live in the US, you are subject to its laws, whether you like those laws or not. Unlike some other places, though, if you don't like it here you are free to leave. There's no anchor holding you back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Baseball_Bugs, if your jurisprudence is seriously so unsophisticated that you think the martial capacity of an entity to put people into jail somehow justifies the words that they call "laws", I think you may be a danger to others---like many of the mendacious psychotics who are threatened by freedom. I could just as easily say you to that if you do not like the "law of the land", that is, the Law of God (Keil. 191), you may leave planet earth. There is one land, one law for all of that land. No matter how psychotic you are, and no matter how many psychotic friends you can manufacture or aggregate or draft into a military, police force, court system or other entity, the fact remains unchangeable: there is one land, and there is one law of that land.

You have described coercion. Coercion is the power to enclose, so, nobody will argue with you, Bugs. US has coercion-over-the-top. But there is another power: jurisdiction, or the power jus dicere, that is, the power to speak law. God gave Moses jurisdiction. Jesus had jurisdiction, we can see that by the woman he let go quit without day, telling her to "sin no more." But any corporate actor using human beings as his stock and trade, where does his jurisdiction come from? Coercion isn't jurisdiction, Bugs, that's why they sound so different.

Broadly, people who believe in municipal corporations are psychotic. The issue is whether or not they are dangerous. If they believe in using violence to enforce the artificial will of municipal corporations, as expressed in the publications of the purported officers of those municipal corporations, they are probably dangerous. And, if you don't understand what these words mean, there is another psychiatric-style term for that: you "lack insight" into your condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.207.79 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 174.6.207.79: Thank you for sharing that with us -- whatever it was that you shared with us. I believe this interchange has drifted a bit too far from the proper purpose of this talk page, which is to discuss ways to improve the article. Famspear (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The best way to improve this article is the removal of it!....why is there not one references/link to any of the freeman sites so research can be assisted not hindered by closed minded editors that have an arrogant and bigoted view of something they have no understanding of. The references in the article are all negative and basically sway the view of a concept that many many people consider to be the truth. and Famspear you are accomplice to hiding that truth. So i vote to have you go write something else, maybe something on yourself and title it "ostrich memoirs" MARV42.241.160.201 (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to remove it, as we have plenty of articles on similar mythical ideas, such as the Loch Ness Monster. And sourcing to the looneys that believe this fantasy would not be appropriate. Sourcing to reliable sources would be good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 42.241.160.201: Please restrict your comments primarily to comments about the material, and refrain from personal attacks on other editors. The fact that "many many people" consider something to be the "truth" is of relatively little significance. Wikipedia operates under three basic tenets: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. Neutral point of view, or NPOV, does not mean "no point of view," and it does not mean ascribing equal weight to each point of view. Verifiability means that we use reliable, previously published third party sources. No Original Research for purposes of Wikipedia is something of a term of art, and means in part that we -- as Wikipedia editors -- do not cobble together Assertion A from Source X and Assertion B from Source Y to assert Conclusion C, where Conclusion C was not a conclusion formulated by Sources X or Y.

Accusing experienced Wikipedia editors of trying to "hide the truth" is a mistake frequently made by newcomers, and doing this -- along with engaging in personal attacks on fellow editors -- is one of the quickest ways to lose credibility here.

Please review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any constructive comments on how to improve the article are appreciated. Famspear (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Credibility? Hmmm Baseball bugs has credibility?.. I agree with the "your a danger" imagine if you had both sides of your brain working sheesh! Famspear take source G reference it to source O then cross reference it with F, assert conclusion U formulate it with C then assert k then cross reference that with "yourself". your all a bunch of whacko's, who think that they know it all...all of your responses have been copied and pasted on many freemen sites and you are the laughing stock, because you are a bigot and support the bullshit that we will endeavour to uncover. I couldn't give a rats about your precious wickywackypedia, incontrovertible truth is what is out there in its purest form, and you are too lazy to research it and have a "credible" article about it, but no you damn well suppress it!....soldiers from Iraq have woken up and are throwing their insignia back at the billionaires that don't send their kids to the front line,what does that tell you? banks around the world diddling the books! educated freemen are the hero's of real people. you lot are probably paid to undermine and smear the very concept,because you are a slave to the system, your narrow-minded and brainwashed, kept in the dark like the mushrooms you are...open your eyes Dopey and have a good look around then comment with a fair and open article..oh by the way ban me, lock me out, whatever you want.... I thought this site was the best, but now I see that you, the "editors" are as useful and uninformative as a "hat full of ass-holes" MARV \m/ PS, I wont bother with wasting my time on wikiwackypedia as there are so much more credible sources available...GGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.156.124 (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 114.74.156.124: Thank you for sharing that with us. Famspear (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP's comments are par for the course for conspiracy theorists and the like. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. There's just no getting around that, no matter how much wishful thinking someone does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the US Constitution is the Charter of a Terrorist Organization, like Hamas. "Le lei de Dieu et le lei de terre sont tout un et lun et lauter prefer et favor le comon et publike byen del terre." -- "The law of God and the law of the land are all one, and the one and the other prefer and favor the common and publike good of nations." What you're showing, Bugs, is how Corporations, like US, redefine terms for their members. So for you, Bugs, a franchisee of USCorp, "law of the land" might mean the US Constitution. But for those of us outside of your corporation, on common ground called 'the land', it is plain that the law of the land is another term for the law of God. God made the land, so why would the land God made be governed by anything but the law God made? More or less, Bugs, your view is the same as any mugger's view: for the few moments he points his gun at his victims, his will is the supreme law of the land. USCorp is the same sort of demon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.205.221 (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like America, you're free to leave at any time. There's no anchor holding you back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

America? That's not what it's called. It's called "earth." The artificially bordered region you call america is wholly fictitious. Why should it not be you who leaves earth, if you don't like the customs of the folk of earth? Because you're violent, we should think like you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.205.221 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Or if you don't like Canada, you're free to leave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a psychotic corporatist, so I don't live in Canada. I live on the land. Using violence to force people to mis-identify their homeland is pretty sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.205.221 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your IP locates to Canada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And we could just as easily correct the IP registry to avoid terrorist territorial designations. As you've outlined, Bugs, these divisions are maintained only through terrorism and violence. Just as an Islamic Theocracy maintains islam by enacting violence, so, too, are national borders maintained by enacting violence against those who know they're fictional. I think you are reaching, Bugs, and I wonder why. How much money do you derive from the fiction of statute law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.207.79 (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

None that I know of. In any case, your very existence and mine were made possible only by some amount of violence in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Really, so you only barter or trade in things that have value in themselves? You don't use legal tender/credit cards? I bet your bank account is denominated in fictional USD, backed by nothing but moonbeams and the continued enslavement of the human resources of USCorp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.207.79 (talk • contribs)

I don't do money. I use Beanie Babies as currency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Best laugh I've had all day, Bugs you got owned big time....maybe we'll see some fact and truth yet.. MARV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.241.168.238 (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're funny, Marvin. So, how are things on Mars? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wikiwackypedians have stolen the TRUTH modulator!...MARV42.241.128.41 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.207.79 (talk • contribs)

• Actually, one is not free to leave America any time one wants. Just try getting through JFK without a passport. This is the sort of point that the so-called Freemen are making - without a passport (contract with the state) you cannot leave. (And getting into the US for a foreigner is even more difficult - I need a passport and a visa and am required to give details of my credit cards and bank accounts to the US government before I can even get on the plane: even the UK government does not require this personal detail from me.) The basic premise of the Freemen movement is that people do not automatically have a contract with the state, and citing the US Constitution in no way diminishes their argument, since none of them (and, indeed, none of the contributors to Wikipedia) were involved in its drafting, passing or acceptance, nor that of te Declaration of Independence, signed by a very small group of people and not the population at large (and certainly not slaves or native Americans). The Freemen movement is logically absurd, but do not attack it by using the very documents and protocols that serve only to bolster its case. I would suggest that a study of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, et al might be more productive. And another thing, this talk page is intended for discussing improvements to the content of the article, not for slagging of or supporting its subjects, however wacky they may or may not be. Emeraude (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no constitutional right to fly on someone else's airplane and there is not necessarily any constitutional right in any country for you to just walk in. However, you are free to get into your boat and set sail for the open seas. Or to get into your private plane and take off, providing you follow the rules (i.e. get a pilot's license, file a flight plan, and all that FAA stuff). There's no border patrol stopping you from leaving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks for proving my point. What the Freemen claim is that they are not subject to laws made by a state/government that they have not consented to. So, by obtaining a pilot's licence, they are contracing with the state. By filing a flight plan they are contracting with the state. By following the FAA rules you are contracting with the state. And you must be crazy if you think there's no border control in the US to stop people leaving!!!. You Americans (or, to be precise, some of you) have a weird idea of what your Constitution does and does not do. That anyone can say that "there is no constitutional right to fly on someone else's airplane" beggars belief. Why should it? Or say anything about buses, trains, horses or swimming up the Potomac come to that? The fact is, getting into (and out of) the USA is fraught with legal difficulties imposed by the federal government and its agencies, even for US citizens. The "Freemen" argument is that they should not be subject to these laws, or any others, because at no time have they consented to them or contracted to them. It may be a crazy idea, but quoting the US Constitution at them does nothing to deny their spurious claims. Emeraude (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You're wrong. The US border patrol does not stop anyone from leaving. The Canadian or Mexican border patrol might stop you from coming into their countries, but that's not the USA's problem. We are not the old USSR. You are free to leave anytime you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Emeraude that some Americans do have weird ideas about what the Constitution does and does not do. Part of the problem is lack of proper education, or failure to remember what should have been learned in a grade school civics class or government class. Having said that, I would say that quoting the U.S. Constitution may or may not do something to "deny" the spurious claims of those who believe the wacky "freemen on the land" theories; I guess it would depend on which spurious claim is being spouted, and whether that claim is contradicted by something in the Constitution.

Using the term "contracting" with the state is a bit problematic. By obtaining a pilot's license, a person is not "contracting" with the state in the technical legal sense. But, I believe Emeraude is using the term in a more general non-technical sense and, in that way, I agree with the thrust of Emeraude's comments on that.

I think what Emeraude may be trying to say is that quoting the Constitution (and other legal materials) generally does not convince the adherents of "freemen on the land" beliefs that they are wrong. And my experience (which is pretty extensive) with people who believe in these kinds of things confirms that; there is no amount of accurate information that you can throw at those kinds of people that will persuade them that they are wrong. Famspear (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. As the article says, ""Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law." Accepting any form of government document (birth certificate, pilot's licence) is seen as contracting with the state. So they would claim the right to drive without a licence, or fly without one. And it's interesting that a number of court case involving "Freemen" are centred around the defendant's lack of these docs, no insurance etc. Emeraude (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. And some of these people improperly "mix and match" their theories. Like a lot of legal terms, the term "contract" has more than one technical meaning. Adherents of the "Freemen" nonsense theories like to believe that statute law is "contract" in the ordinary sense that a person can legally decline to enter a "contract." If we're talking about the purchase of a product or something like that, the term "contract" is perfectly correct. The purchase of a car, for example, invovles a "contract" in the ordinary, every day legal sense. And you can decide you don't want to buy the car.

However, the scope of a statute -- a piece of legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress or a state legislature -- does not involve a "contract" in that same legal sense. If a state legislature passes a statute making a driver's license mandatory for driving on public roads in that state, that's not a "contract" in the same legal sense as described in the preceding paragraph. It is not something that a given individual can legally decline to enter if that individual is driving on those public roads.

For most people, this legal reality is not at all difficult to understand. Indeed, it also happens to be common sense. Adherents to the "Freemen" theories and similar kinds of "wackodology," however, seem to have a difficult time coping with some basic legal concepts, and with using common sense. Famspear (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that, as per this section heading, their belief is that in order to buy into this theory you have to be poorly educated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Famspear (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I love this thread

No one with expertise, such as a law degree, or even just with the (fairly limited) intelligence needed to get an undergraduate degree in anything, is allowed to contribute. Ony people with their own special theory. Egg Centric 14:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "The Freemen movement is logically absurd, but do not attack it by using the very documents and protocols that serve only to bolster its case...." There are no documents and protocols that serve to "bolster the case" of those who believe in the theories of the "Freemen movement." Nonsense is nonsense.

Similarly, tax protesters in the United States constantly and persistently cite documents that they believe bolster their arguments, even though they lose every single time, without exception using those very documents.

No, we do not need to cite Locke, etc., in order to refute "Freeman" theories. For example, much of what the Freemen cite as authority is actually the law -- but the law doesn't say what they claim it says, and the law doesn't mean what they claim it means. More to the point: refuting Freeman theories and other wacky nonsense is not the proper role or purpose of Wikipedia anyway. Previously published, reliable third party sources refute the theories. The "freemen on the land" theories, like tax protester theories, or theories that The Earth is flat, or that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, are fringe theories -- at best. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are designed to deal with articles on these kinds of subjects. Famspear (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As a reader, I like the fact that these screwball ideas have a place in wikipedia. As an editor, the downside is that the nuts who take them seriously often try to use such articles for advocacy, and little battles flair up from time to time. As regards these theories, I recall once when a co-worker tried to tell me that the income tax was unconstitutional. I had to point out to him that it was unconstitutional... until they amended the constitution to specifically allow for it. I also recall a colleague who had bought into the idea that the US had caused 9/11. And I got my baptism here dealing with characters who were trying to make wikipedia argue that the Apollo flights were faked. The problem with most of these characters is that they believe what they wish were true, and no amount of logic, reason or reality checks will set them straight. Even the tax dodgers who end up in prison still fantasize that they are somehow legally "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've been studying this kind of nonsense pretty intensively for about thirteen years -- mostly on the federal income tax side of things.

Actually, the federal income tax, as a general proposition, has always been constitutional, even before the Sixteenth Amendment. The Amendment was ratified in 1913 to nullify the effect of an 1895 Supreme Court decision (the Pollock decision -- actually, it was two decisions) in which the Court held that a particular kind of income tax on dividends, interest, and rent income (specifically, an "unapportioned" income tax on those items) was unconstitutional. Even after that decision, the Congress could have constitutionally re-imposed the income tax on compensation for personal services, etc. (such as the ordinary income that you and I receive for working for a living) without the need for the Sixteenth Amendment.

I have found the same thing you have found: For 99.9% of these people, no amount of logic, reason or reality checks will set them straight. They believe what they want to believe, and they suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, their innocent families often suffer as well. As soon as they get out of prison, they typically go right back to same nonsense, and some of them end up right back in Federal prison. Irwin Schiff, for example, is serving his third term in federal prison. Famspear (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I began studying U.S. federal income tax and other taxes about 35 years ago. I only really got into the study of tax protesters and their arguments about 13 years ago. Famspear (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, income tax could have been legal if apportioned equally. The income tax as we know it would not have been. That's why the amendment was written so broadly. It's funny they call themselves "tax protesters". There's no law against protesting taxes. There's only a law against not paying taxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Baseball Bugs: Yes, the theory under the Pollock decision was: Had the income tax on interest, dividends and rental income been imposed so that the total amount of that tax that was collected from the people of each state was proportional to the population of that state (compared to the total U.S. population), then the income tax on interest, dividends, and rental income would have been constitutional, even during the period from 1895 to 1913. Of course, such a result would be virtually impossible, since it would be extremely unlikely that the income tax realized by the people in each state would just happen to coincide with that state's population in relation to total USA population. The mere fact that State A has twice the number of people as State B does not mean that the income of everyone in State A will be twice that of the income of those people in State B, for example. But that rule -- which applied only from 1895 to 1913 -- never applied to "regular" income that someone earned from working for a living, etc. So, you're right: The income tax as we know it could never have been apportioned that way. It just wouldn't have worked mathematically.

From 1895 to 1913, the Congress could, however, have still enacted a federal income tax on compensation for personal services, and that kind of income tax would have been perfectly legal (just as it is today) even without having to be apportioned (even without have to be "apportioned equally" as you put it).

Part of the problem that led to the Sixteenth Amendment was probably that Congress did not want to impose an income tax on compensation for personal services (the "working man's" income) while letting the "rich" fat cat folks not have to pay income tax on interest, dividends and rent income. The other problem was -- I surmise -- that Congress really did want to again be able to tax interest, dividends and rent income, just as those kinds of incomes were taxed prior to 1895. Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment was proposed, and was ratified by over three-fourths of the states by February 1913.

On the term "tax protester," many tax protesters hate the term. The history behind the use of the term is explained here: Tax protester (United States). Famspear (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: You're quoting what I wrote in reply to someone who wanted to refute the Freemen by using the US Constitution. My point was that using the Constitution bolsters their case, not the document itslef. Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And my point would be that using the Constitution --whether I'm the one doing it or they're the ones doing it -- does not bolster their case. Famspear (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of some of their "non-violence":[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Why should this article be separate from Sovereign citizen movement? I cannot see any distinction between the legal theories. They believe they are subject only to common law. They believe the ignorant masses have unwittingly "consented" to oppression. They believe the strawman/all-caps nonsense. Where is the difference? 24.22.217.162 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The British version is quite different culturally - David Gerard (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

LMAO

All I have to say is WOW, whoever wrote this article is flipping retarded. Citations aren't even provided to prove that the UK had it after the US and that it originated in the US. Human rights are inherent to ever man and given to every man by God Almighty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.67.20 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

All I have to say is WOW, Wikipedia does not work the way you seem to think it should. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and it's fairly common to find unsourced material. And thanks for the illuminating commentary on human rights. WOW. Famspear (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess, as the original author of the article, I must be the one who is flipping retarded. But not half as loopy as an anonymous scribe who has not noticed that the article is very heavily referenced and that the "US before UK" assertion is already tagged, and not particularly significant anyway. Incidentally, since God Almighty doesn't exist, I must suppose that none of us have human rights!!! Emeraude (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Organized pseudolegal commercial argument"

From RationalWiki: This case in Alberta is interesting, in terms of (a) what the judge is calling for (b) the publicity it's getting. PDF - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well done Emeraude, I think you extracted absolutely the key para from the judgement. So good I nicked it under CC by-sa for RationalWiki ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection: Freemen on the land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• That seems an over-reaction to a non-problem. Where's the high level of IP vandalism? I've reverted or altered some good faith edits, and there have been very few anonymous edits at all. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Most of the contents of this page appear to have been uncritically imported (via a plagiarised article in Bechmark) from "RationalWiki" a wiki with a confirmation bias as strong as that of Conservapedia, just in the opposite direction. After reading the wikipedia page on the US equivalent of the "Freeman" movement - Sovereign Citizens Movement - it's clear that this article fails to present the ideas and history of the "Freeman" movement with a NPOV. I have begun to improve it by adding a paragraph to 'Beliefs' giving the philisophical context of the "Freeman" theory of political legitimacy, and an external link to a representative "Freeman" website. A further paragraph on "Freeman" practice as a form of civil disobedience against a perceived unjust use of the law, and state power, might also be justified, referenced to the article by Professor John Kersey in External Links. Strypey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.184.171 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)