Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

squod

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Seems like we're falling into two distinct camps: those who want a society centred on freedom. And those who want a dictatorship.

+1

alastair

TalkieWalkie

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Seems like we're falling into two distinct camps: those who want a society centred on freedom. And those who want a dictatorship.

+2

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Seems like we're falling into two distinct camps: those who want a society centred on freedom. And those who want a dictatorship.

Yes because everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fascist.

studiorat

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Seems like we're falling into two distinct camps: those who want a society centred on freedom. And those who want a dictatorship.

Freedom? Freedom to do what ever you want? What do you mean when you say freedom, I'm free to travel to Mars if I want but that freedom is useless because I can't. The Nazi's were free to practice genocide, is that freedom as well?

Isaiah Berlin - Two Concepts of Liberty.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

The dictatorship spelled out in clear terms in the constitution?:rolleyes: I'll take that over a subscription to delusional FMOTL antics any day of the week.

Bunreacht na hÉireann


AIRTEAGAL 41.1.1

Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an Teaghlach is buíon-aonad
príomha bunaidh don chomhdhaonnacht de réir nádúir,
agus gur foras morálta é ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta
dochloíte is ársa agus is airde ná aon reacht daonna.

The Constitution of Ireland

[LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

ARTICLE 41.1.1

The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary
group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it
is a moral institution which has inalienable, invincible rights
which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

[‘Inalienability’ is defined as ‘not transferable’ in Henry Murdoch, A Dictionary of Irish Law]

TalkieWalkie

studiorat wrote: »

Freedom? Freedom to do what ever you want? What do you mean when you say freedom, I'm free to travel to Mars if I want but that freedom is useless because I can't. The Nazi's were free to practice genocide, is that freedom as well?

Isaiah Berlin - Two Concepts of Liberty.

No, nothing so exciting. Free not to be enslaved like a little sheepy weepie bah bah

IrelandSpirit

studiorat wrote: »

Freedom? Freedom to do what ever you want? What do you mean when you say freedom, I'm free to travel to Mars if I want but that freedom is useless because I can't. The Nazi's were free to practice genocide, is that freedom as well?

Isaiah Berlin - Two Concepts of Liberty.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but ehmmm, you do realise genocide is a crime?

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Bunreacht na hÉireann


AIRTEAGAL 41.1.1

Admhaíonn an Stát gurb é an Teaghlach is buíon-aonad
príomha bunaidh don chomhdhaonnacht de réir nádúir,
agus gur foras morálta é ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta
dochloíte is ársa agus is airde ná aon reacht daonna.

The Constitution of Ireland

[LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

ARTICLE 41.1.1

The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary
group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it
is a moral institution which has inalienable, invincible rights
which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

[‘Inalienability’ is defined as ‘not transferable’ in Henry Murdoch, A Dictionary of Irish Law]

So you're saying a father's rights supersede that of their child's? The childs right to grow up safe and secure?

IrelandSpirit

Di0genes wrote: »

So you're saying a father's rights supersede that of their child's? The childs right to grow up safe and secure?

What the feck are ye all on? lol! Where did I say that?

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but ehmmm, you do realise genocide is a crime?

Drat! The Irish legislation regarding genocide is merely an Act (1973) and therefore falls under maritime law, and readily ignored by the astute* who don't wish to 'contract' - knock yourselves out wannabe Pol Pots!



*For astute, read, deluded.

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary
group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it
is a moral institution which has inalienable, invincible rights
which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

[‘Inalienability’ is defined as ‘not transferable’ in Henry Murdoch, A Dictionary of Irish Law]

What does that do for the cause of FMOTL?

IrelandSpirit

drkpower wrote: »

What does that do for the cause of FMOTL?

Just highlighting the fact to alaitair that the constitution protects rights which are anterior and higher than statutes.

(Though I'm not too sure about the use of the word 'inalienable', as opposed to 'unalienable', if you get my meaning)

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Just highlighting the fact to alaitair that the constitution protects rights which are anterior and higher than statutes.

(Though I'm not too sure about the use of the word 'inalienable', as opposed to 'unalienable', if you get my meaning)

The two mean exactly the same thing.

Not sure how you interpret the constitution's (a statute itself) fuzzy rhetotic that the law of nature (for that's what the 'institute of the family' reference is to) overides man-made law (which encompasses common and statutory law). Last I heard, the law of nature didn't really come into play in any legal scenario.

studiorat

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No, nothing so exciting. Free not to be enslaved like a little sheepy weepie bah bah

Can you actually define either freedom or enslavement?

Seems to me like they are just buzz words you're using. Talking about freedom but not knowing exactly what it is. "Freedom fighters" got us the system of government we have now. China freed the Tibetan people from the tyranny that was the theocratic feudal state of Tibet. Does that mean they are free?


How does not being enslaved guarantee freedom? The slave can have all four freedoms and still be a slave. So without actually defining what freedom is it's pointless to rant on about it.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

The two mean exactly the same thing.

Not sure how you interpret the constitution's (a statute itself) fuzzy rhetotic that the law of nature (for that's what the 'institute of the family' reference is to) overides man-made law (which encompasses common and statutory law). Last I heard, the law of nature didn't really come into play in any legal scenario.

I don't get where you stand. One moment you're saying:

Originally Posted by alastair
The dictatorship spelled out in clear terms in the constitution? I'll take that over a subscription to delusional FMOTL antics any day of the week.

And in the next post you're calling the constitution 'fuzzy rhetoric' ...

(And no, I'm not sure the two words mean the same thing (legally), for reasons probably best discussed on a different thread)

IrelandSpirit

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes because everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fascist.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck!

studiorat

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but ehmmm, you do realise genocide is a crime?

Freedom is a buzz word a pointless term.

There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland.

That's Hitler talking about freedom...

I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.

- George Bush

Freedom is a myth that we are taught by Christians, Muslims, Communists, Democrats and every other group on this planet. We are all promised freedom if we follow this or that group or belief. It's nothing more than a unattainable goal for followers. It's relative, you may consider yourself more or less free that someone in the past or in another country, but you are always going to want that extra degree of freedom. Therefore you are always kept wanting by the group you decide to follow. The promise of freedom is the carrot and stick of humanity.

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Just highlighting the fact to alaitair that the constitution protects rights which are anterior and higher than statutes.

(Though I'm not too sure about the use of the word 'inalienable', as opposed to 'unalienable', if you get my meaning)

The consitution itself is higher than statute law. And yes the constitution does protect certain rights that are higher than statute law. But even those rights are not absolute. The supposed inalienable rights of the family dont get much of a look in when a court orders a child into care. So dont get tooo excited about big words in the constitution. Without knowing how the constitution works, its just an interesting book.

squod

drkpower wrote: »

The consitution itself is higher than statute law. And yes the constitution does protect certain rights that are higher than statute law. But even those rights are not absolute. The supposed inalienable rights of the family dont get much of a look in when a court orders a child into care. So dont get tooo excited about big words in the constitution. Without knowing how the constitution works, its just an interesting book.

What have we been discussing over the last 68 pages?



Forget it.

IrelandSpirit

studiorat wrote: »

Freedom is a buzz word a pointless term.


That's Hitler talking about freedom...

- George Bush

Freedom is a myth that we are taught by Christians, Muslims, Communists, Democrats and every other group on this planet. We are all promised freedom if we follow this or that group or belief. It's nothing more than a unattainable goal for followers. It's relative, you may consider yourself more or less free that someone in the past or in another country, but you are always going to want that extra degree of freedom. Therefore you are always kept wanting by the group you decide to follow. The promise of freedom is the carrot and stick of humanity.

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”Benjamin Franklin quotes (American Statesman, Scientist, Philosopher, Printer, Writer and Inventor. 1706-1790)


“The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.”Thucydides quotes (Ancient Greek historians and author, 460-404bc)


“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”ReadyWriterAlbert Camus quotes (French Novelist, Essayist and Playwright, 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature, 1913-1960)


“Man is free at the moment he wishes to be.”Voltaire quotes (French Philosopher and Writer. One of the greatest of all French authors, 1694-1778)


“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes (American Baptist Minister and Civil-Rights Leader. 1929-1968)

studiorat

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”Benjamin Franklin quotes (American Statesman, Scientist, Philosopher, Printer, Writer and Inventor. 1706-1790)


“The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.”Thucydides quotes (Ancient Greek historians and author, 460-404bc)


“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”ReadyWriterAlbert Camus quotes (French Novelist, Essayist and Playwright, 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature, 1913-1960)


“Man is free at the moment he wishes to be.”Voltaire quotes (French Philosopher and Writer. One of the greatest of all French authors, 1694-1778)


“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes (American Baptist Minister and Civil-Rights Leader. 1929-1968)

My point exactly, churned out by the barrel full in order to influence. Voltaire is the only quote that makes sense there. The word "freedom" is only a catch phrase to sell something. In this case a half baked white power theory from the 1980's ie freeman of the land.

IrelandSpirit

studiorat wrote: »

My point exactly, churned out by the barrel full in order to influence.

Well exactly, my point was that if you want to talk about freedom, there are other people to quote rather than Hitler.

studiorat

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well exactly, my point was that if you want to talk about freedom, there are other people to quote rather than Hitler.

Yet no one in the discussion has actually defined freedom. Why is Hitler's definition of freedom any more or less valid than Martin Luther Kings? They were both used in order to influence the masses.

IrelandSpirit

studiorat wrote: »

Yet no one in the discussion has actually defined freedom. Why is Hitler's definition of freedom any more or less valid than Martin Luther Kings? They were both used in order to influence the masses.

Because Martin Luther Kings' definition did not cause the genocide of millions of innocent people, whereas Hitler's did.

Hootanany

A bit off topic but in the last week i have seen and stopped for my tax at least twice a day revenue procedure or what open your eyes

studiorat

Still no definition of this freedom that the freeman loons keep harping on about...

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Because Martin Luther Kings' definition did not cause the genocide of millions of innocent people, whereas Hitler's did.

That's not an answer. Both persons offer the same thing to their listeners. They both offer freedom, are we to reject it because of it's cost?

Some people seem to be convinced that freedom is the only issue. When in fact most; particularly those who's theories are derived from the original Michigan Militia and they likes of Timothy McVey , that is to say the FMoTL movement etc. are primarily concerned with property rights and common law vigilantism. That's no more freedom than any other ideal. They are still concerned with ownership and governance and as a movement are ethically barren.

Esel

alastair wrote: »

Drat! The Irish legislation regarding genocide is merely an Act (1973) and therefore falls under maritime law, and readily ignored by the astute* who don't wish to 'contract' - knock yourselves out wannabe Pol Pots!

*For astute, read, deluded.

I see what you did there!

For 'astute', read 'statue'.

For 'statute', read 'tautest'.

For 'Freeman Of The Land', read 'Neanderthal Me Off' or 'A Half Fermented No'.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I don't get where you stand. One moment you're saying:



And in the next post you're calling the constitution 'fuzzy rhetoric' ...

(And no, I'm not sure the two words mean the same thing (legally), for reasons probably best discussed on a different thread)

Just to avoid any confusion - I don't believe that the constitution is a recipe for dictatorship, and yes, the stuff about the family is woolly rhetoric that has no relevance to actual law - it's not legislated for anywhere.

And no, 'inalienable', and 'unalienable' mean exactly the same thing - they're synonymous.

thecommander

Hootanany wrote: »

A bit off topic but in the last week i have seen and stopped for my tax at least twice a day revenue procedure or what open your eyes

Well tax is a revenue isn't it?

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

Just to avoid any confusion - I don't believe that the constitution is a recipe for dictatorship,

Don't worry, it's obvious you we're being sarcastic.

and yes, the stuff about the family is woolly rhetoric that has no relevance to actual law - it's not legislated for anywhere.

Not legislated for? Then maybe there lies the problem?

And no, 'inalienable', and 'unalienable' mean exactly the same thing - they're synonymous.

I think you'll find they do not, as regards legal terms. Would like to discuss that particular issue further, but maybe way off-topic ... actually maybe not but seriously fecking late for slavery work! Anon

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Don't worry, it's obvious you we're being sarcastic.

Then you do get where I stand.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Not legislated for? Then maybe there lies the problem?

No problem at all. The constitution lays out mechanisms for governance, and it lays out some lofty context. Just don't confuse the two.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I think you'll find they do not, as regards legal terms. Would like to discuss that particular issue further, but maybe way off-topic ... actually maybe not but seriously fecking late for slavery work! Anon

In legals terms they're just as synonymous. The law lends weight to the ordinary meaning of words, and to the context in which they were framed - 1940's Ireland understood 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' to be synonyms. Retrospective twisting by wingnut American bloggers intent on transplanting Jesus on legislation doesn't change that fact.

TalkieWalkie

This is comical- must listen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8F--VZurGM

phantom_lord

what alleged authority is he asking about exactly?

Esel

Can someone give a synopsis, because I'm not prepared to waste 6 minutes on another Youtube link in this thread.

Joshua Jones

esel wrote: »

Can someone give a synopsis, because I'm not prepared to waste 6 minutes on another Youtube link in this thread.

How long have you been waiting for a synopsis now? You could've watched it.

Of course someone could watch it and tell you what you want to hear i.e that the guys winding up some heads and has no bearing on reality and that the BAR is a bar in court that certain qualified people can come up to and that gives them certain privailages etc etc.

Or you could see something else.

alastair

esel wrote: »

Can someone give a synopsis, because I'm not prepared to waste 6 minutes on another Youtube link in this thread.

FMOTL phones up the Bar Council and bugs them about their 'alleged authority' and why they're not mentioned in the constitution. Given that they don't have any authority except internally, and the constitution doesn't mention any other private representation groups either, this isn't particularly surprising. The video is only 'comical' if you like laughing at deluded idiots who just don't get it. Nah - it's not even funny then - just tiresome.

phantom_lord

alastair wrote: »

FMOTL phones up the Bar Council and bugs them about their 'alleged authority' and why they're not mentioned in the constitution. Given that they don't have any authority except internally, and the constitution doesn't mention any other private representation groups either, this isn't particularly surprising. The video is only 'comical' if you like laughing at deluded idiots who just don't get it. Nah - it's not even funny then - just tiresome.

don't be ruining the fairy tale

Carra23

http://freemanireland.ning.com/video/epic-30-min-vid-not

Good video there , 30 mins long but worth every second when you see the end result. The video was taken by a US firefighter who had been stopped at a US border control check point. He refuses to allow his car be searched by the officers and what happen throughout the video gives some level of credit to the whole 'Free Man on the Land' movement.

I have been paying attention to the FMOTL movement and find their theories interesting , although I woudn't try it myself videos like that one make you think there is some merits .

TalkieWalkie

Embedded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFS7oZtE8Ks

alastair

Carra23 wrote: »

Good video there , 30 mins long but worth every second when you see the end result. The video was taken by a US firefighter who had been stopped at a US border control check point. He refuses to allow his car be searched by the officers and what happen throughout the video gives some level of credit to the whole 'Free Man on the Land' movement.

I have been paying attention to the FMOTL movement and find their theories interesting , although I woudn't try it myself videos like that one make you think there is some merits.

He's no firefighter - he's a pastor -with a sideline in weapons dealing, and here's what happened another day when he tried the same nonsense with less patient border guards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

Not much merit there.

And the guy's a (shock, horror) nutjob.

TalkieWalkie

Carra23 wrote: »

http://freemanireland.ning.com/video/epic-30-min-vid-not

Good video there , 30 mins long but worth every second when you see the end result. The video was taken by a US firefighter who had been stopped at a US border control check point. He refuses to allow his car be searched by the officers and what happen throughout the video gives some level of credit to the whole 'Free Man on the Land' movement.

I have been paying attention to the FMOTL movement and find their theories interesting , although I woudn't try it myself videos like that one make you think there is some merits .

Excellent video, thanks for that

I gotta commend the driver, very brave move and he stuck to his guns. Brilliant.

Anything to say diogenes ? Phanotom ? :rolleyes:

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

He's no firefighter - he's a pastor -with a sideline in weapons dealing, and here's what happened another day when he tried the same nonsense with less patient border guards:


Not much merit there.

And the guy's a (shock, horror) nutjob.

You look down on folk standing up for their rights ?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You look down on folk standing up for their rights ?

I look down on homophobe gun nuts who knowingly antagonise border checkpoint guards for their youtube entertainment. This guy isn't anything to do with FMOTL in any case - he's not claiming to be acting under 'common law' but rather he's claiming to be acting within statute law and disputing the 'probable cause' aspect of the statute that the guards are stopping him under. It's a nutjob trying to use 'actual' law to prove a point.

digme

alastair wrote: »

He's no firefighter - he's a pastor -with a sideline in weapons dealing, and here's what happened another day when he tried the same nonsense with less patient border guards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

Not much merit there.

And the guy's a (shock, horror) nutjob.

Do you condone murder yourself?

alastair

digme wrote: »

Do you condone murder yourself?

Unsurprisingly, no.

digme

why did you call him a nutjob so?

alastair

digme wrote: »

why did you call him a nutjob so?

Because he's a nutjob. I'm not suggesting anyone murders the idiot - just not pay attention to his sick anti-social rants.

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

I look down on homophobe gun nuts who knowingly antagonise border checkpoint guards for their youtube entertainment. This guy isn't anything to do with FMOTL in any case - he's not claiming to be acting under 'common law' but rather he's claiming to be acting within statute law and disputing the 'probable cause' aspect of the statute that the guards are stopping him under. It's a nutjob trying to use 'actual' law to prove a point.

Don't you have a comment on the first video posted ?

I doubt he carries a camera for youtube purposes alone, more for self defence. The first video he has a camera and it made all the difference, the second video he had no camera, and we see the results of that. He didn't claim to be acting under any law as far as I could see so I confused as to how you came to that conclusion.
He's not trying to prove a point alistair. He is standing up for his rights, that's all, what's your problem with that ?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Don't you have a comment on the first video posted ?

I doubt he carries a camera for youtube purposes alone, more for self defence. The first video he has a camera and it made all the difference, the second video he had no camera, and we see the results of that. He didn't claim to be acting under any law as far as I could see so I confused as to how you came to that conclusion.
He's not trying to prove a point alistair. He is standing up for his rights, that's all, what's your problem with that ?

Self defence? How's that going to work then? He had the camera with him when he was tazed too - do you never actually inform yourself on the basics of this stuff you propagate? And he quite clearly explains why he doesn't consider himself 'probable cause' within the law provided to him by the guard - the issue is whether there's probable cause to search - try to keep up eh?

As regards the first video - he made enough of a nuisance of himself that they just wanted rid of him - as they stated. The 'merits' of his approach are clear enough from the second video - pretty lacking.