Seriously.
I have shit better libertarians than these cocksockets.
They will rabbit on, if you let them, about Rothbard, Keynes, Rand, and God knows who else, until the cows come home, show you their clunges, and die.
And still they will witter on.
Ask them to put their undercarriages on the line, and they will run a mile faster than Roger Bannister. These are those fucks you come across in the Kings Arms, sipping gently on a half-pint (of some seriusly good real ale, no doubt), and avoiding your second hand smoke like it was Sarin Gas.
They will yarn on, endlessly, about how their way is the better way. They will convince retards that Libertarianism is the only way forward. And to do that, they will roll out mong, after mong, after mong, to tell you why, in their humble fucking opinion, that they, and only they, have the right of it.
Today I prove those fuckspoons wrong.
A little over 2 days ago, Dr Sean Gabb (who I like, by the way), wrote (the introduction) to this (pile of shite):
(Dozy cunt alert)
And a little over 10 hours ago I responded. Go look, already.
A few moments ago I replied to my (own) non-reply, and, at the time of posting, those sages, those fonts of libertarian wisdom, Britains finest minds, had yet to reply.
No surprise there.
Yon barrister, yon dispenser of wisdom, that all-knowing cunt of the court was probably crying like a girl, as he realised that we had caught him out. He knows (now) that we know his court system is a sham, directed by arseholes, produced by thieves, and acted out by twats.
I have made a series of indictments here, you pricks, and if you have the cajones to defend your pathetic selves, then do it here.
We have you beat, wankstains. Live with it.
Better yet, come here, and beg forgiveness.
It will NOT be granted, but you should beg anyway.
CR.
36 comments:
Wait, so, we don't believe legal woo with no basis and we're the cunts?
This is clearly about freeman stuff, so let's put it simply: Freemen put forward their claims as if they are statements of the legal system as a matter of *fact*: that is, they hold their theories are the correct interpretation of rights and duties, etc, under law.
So why have they never succeeded in using their claims in practice?
Mr CL,
This is not a question of beliefs. This is about what we can prove.
Freemen, in my opinion, have no real idea of just how powerful they are.
I produced evidence. Your lot have not responded. I don't think they have an argument. Do you? Really?
BTW, I have not failed, so far. If I have, please prove to me why I have. So far, I have wins across the board.
You guys keep on talking about it, but you never DO a damned thing.
I'll keep doing. You keep talking.
Your lot are spineless. They use all those arguments that are essentially meaningless, but sound ever so lovely. The post by Gibbons illustrates it perfectly.
Fur coat, no knickers.
CR.
"I produced evidence. Your lot have not responded. I don't think they have an argument. Do you? Really?"
Yeah, I'm looking for it, but I can't see anything that amounts to more than illogical rhetoric. No legal sources are provided, for instance.
As for failures, I refer you to this list of examples of Freemen not being successful in applying their theories.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land#Freeman_failures
Then you are not looking hard enough. We find what we seek.
I wonder who wrote the wiki thing? Probably a a disaffected libertarian dreamer. A lover of the state, in denial. Your lot have bitterly disappointed me. I want nothing to do with you.
Plenty of evidence in the link on Libertarian Alliance.
But, if you can write off 20 pages of solid lawfull evidence, then I will never convince you. Nor do I want to.
Go back to those Rothbardian dreams.
CR.
"Then you are not looking hard enough. We find what we seek."
I've been told this before. Apparently, advocates of these theories neither know of their own claims, or even where to find evidence for them, because apparently it's my job to research it. Well, I have. Guess what? I can find nothing even close to resembling substantive legal argument.
Can you, or can you not, present evidence of the applicability of Freeman legal theories to the English legal system?
"Can you, or can you not, present evidence of the applicability of Freeman legal theories to the English legal system?"
Nope.
I don't need to. I only need to prove that the courts lack legitimacy. Now I can.
I don't need anything other than that.
Your move.
CR.
Erm, hold on? You did this when exactly?
Never said I did anything.
But I fucking well will. The next time I get the chance.
Around 15th December, if I get my way. Keep watching.
Do you really mean to tell me that if you were handed a silver bullet you wouldn't use it? You'd just trust the courts to decide?
Say yes to that and I will think you are a total cunt.
Please say that you'd haul that document into court? Please tell me that you'd tell any lawyer/barrister to fuck right off?
We do not need them any more.
(Not that we ever did).
CR.
Are you asking yourself, or are you asking me?
It reads (to me) that you never bothered to read the document I linked to.
When/if you do read the document you will have the answer to "What the actual fuck?".
CR.
I too can come up with an argument against anything, that is the easy bit. However the hardest bit is doing something that has not been done before, no one to follow and no path. Mr civil libertarian you have take the easy route, it is easy to criticise but not so easy to lead.
History is made by those that do and not by those that follow or go the other way. Your rhetoric will never be read anywhere other than in cyberspace, I hear Capt'n ranty's name quite a lot. Funny that isn't it, I never hear yours.
"it is easy to criticise but not so easy to lead."
I'm not criticizing- I'm asking for a statement of your arguments. I haven't received anything to criticize yet.
"When/if you do read the document you will have the answer to "What the actual fuck?"."
I did read it- but here's the thing- there was nothing in there. I honestly don't get what you see in that document, as it contains no law at all- merely a long list of unconnected statements that do not amount to anything.
You should calm down a touch, Cap'n. You've not been doing yourself favours of late. You know this is from a cast-iron friend too.
Your reply is there, by the way, just an accident of my time of reading, yes, but remember that we've all got other demands on our time. Not being paid for this shit, and all.
CL,
If you saw nothing in there then I thank you for your opinion and invite you to put your faith in those who have a vested interest in things staying the way they are.
Good luck with that.
CR.
DP,
Calm down?
Those fucks tore us apart and I should stand by (because a barrister says so) and calm down?
I will not.
The author, F Gibbons, had not replied as of two minutes ago.
The Libertarians are not helping us one bit. I'd like them to shut the hell up if this is what they call help.
I know you are a friend but I am struggling to know why I have done myself no favours.
It is what it is. I never promised anyone soft soap.
No point gilding the lily now.
CR.
May the Good Lord bless you in your endeavours, Captain.
(btw I wouldn't let C H Ingoldsby get under your skin)
I've been quietly watching this Captain, and couldn't resist giving Sean a little of the vulgarity he was looking for :-)
"The Libertarians are not helping us one bit"
Captain - can I point out that "libertarians" includes an incredibly wide range of people. Its probably the broadest political church I know of.
Some libertarians will dismiss FMOTL and others won't. Neither position has anything necessarily to do with their being libertarians.
K,
When the blog in question is the Libertarian Alliance it is hard to distinguish the Muslims from the Baptists. Broad church or not, they do not seem to welcome my kind.
All,
I am not particularly proud of this post. I am also not too happy about giving the LA, or Ingoldby, or SBC, any oxygen at all.
Let me know if you think I should bin it.
CR.
I’d like to offer a view from a different angle as to why what Freemen are doing is entirely justified.
Parliament claim that their right to govern is based on consent and that continued participation in the social contract, rather than the democratic process, implies that an individual has granted their consent. Freemen are simply making an explicit statement that they do not wish to enter into the social contract. As contracts require mutual consent, Freemen (or anyone) are absolutely at liberty to reject the social contract and leave society, withdrawing their consent to be governed and hence becoming exempt from society’s rules (statutes) whilst giving up the benefits. This does not exempt them from natural law, but then they don’t claim that it does: being the first to use force against an individual or their property is still unlawful to a Freeman. The government cannot have their cake and eat it; either they govern each individual by consent and therefore that consent can be withdrawn, or they do not govern by consent. Claiming that consent can only be given or withdrawn collectively leads to the tyranny of the "majority" and makes a complete mockery of the notion of equality before the law.
"Let me know if you think I should bin it."
No.
That is not your style.
I am a libertarian AND highly respectful of those who have taken the full step to become a Freeman. It takes courage to actually do what you believe.
Part of being a libertarian must be to be open-minded and that they readily dismiss the Freeman movement is a shame on them.
As for all the abuse: well, I'm a big believer in freedom of speech. No violence has been inflicted so we're all big boys, so that is a red herring.
Anyway, it's their loss; but we must each walk our own path, and they are walking theirs.
Also, they may not WISH to accept Freemen as part of libertarianism, but it is not theirs to decide. Libertarianism is a broad church of principles and Freemen fall under that, whether they like it or not.
Their rejection is a bit like the religious rejecting Islam as a religion on the basis that they think that it holds no substance.
So, continue to tread your path and regardless who is right or wrong (as it is irrelevant), you are able to something that many are not: you are able to understand what it is to be, you are able to live your life accordingly and you are able to hold your head up high.
Cheers
FAV
At times its best to take a step back CR.
Defending your position is what you always do, which is admirable.
Trying to fight a system that has all the force of, THEIR, law will never be easy.
A barrister could make a argument for the opposition. If financial incentive was to be made.
Would the lawyers really want people to really know the power they possess?
Judge's are supposed to be impartial, but me thinks, when although the just outcome would effect the monies, justice becomes immaterial.
Strength is what is needed for change. The learning never gets any easier.
As for pulling the post....No.
Morgan.
Hmmm, this is the second hit piece that I have seen against the Freeman philosophy in the last few days, I wonder if they are starting to get worried?
Keep doing what you are doing Captain and yes, definitely, stand your ground and fight your corner.
Please do not pull the post.
Pete
goldberg is a libertarian?
sounds like an upmarket version of a chav,
i wonder if he wears tracksuits?.
to label freemen as 'nutters'is a disgrace to these brave men who fight the system with action not words.
the 'system' is broken friends if you cant see that get your face out of your wifes tits step back and take a comprehensive look around.
those with eyes to see,an open mind and do festidious research are revealing the magician behind the curtain on a daily basis,no amount of ad hom attacks can ever stop them,we have simply reached the top of the hill and are now decending with unstopable momentum.
well done to those and you are one of them cap keep up the great work.
nige.
"A barrister tells us why freemen are all the way wrong"
A Barrister who sucks off the tit of the state. Barristers = Parasites
“Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away
the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered.” — Luke. XI, 52
Bit off topic but I know this will interest you, Capt.
Smoking = Cancer???
Retired USAF veteran dismisses the myth of the link between smoking and cancer. And reveals the real reasons and the cure for major diseases
QUESTION: Colonel Joe, you have positively stated over the airwaves on the Tim Booker morning talk show and in letters to the Opinion section of the Morning News that smoking does not cause cancer. Can you justify that statement?
http://www.coljoe.com/smoking_and_cancer.htm
Question: Colonel Joe, can you site specific data from the 3 documents you identified as being used to support the position that smoking causes cancer, and that supports your finding that it does not; and that the data teaches that radiation (EMFs) is the cause?
http://www.coljoe.com/smoking_and_cancer%20ii.htm
What is it with labels?
I wish to submit my tuppence worth (without prejudice)…
I really do not understand what makes Freemen OTL think that they are right. I have seen all the arguments and then seen various refutaions of the arguments… Either of which may or may not be correct.
But what it boils down to in the end, is whether one ends up behind bars for bravely standing for one's principles against the representatives of "the establishment".
Sean Gabb points out that if the arguments were backed by a sheer weight of a majority of the public, it might have traction, but as you CR pointed out the other day, 32 million watch Corrie, and 40,000 watch your programme (I have never seen Corrie :) )…
A really good example of freemanism is the history of the Romany/Irish Traveller (I know there is a difference) but these groups are recognised by "the establishment" as being a special case, and even have the recognition that they are an "ethnic minority"… However, it does not stop them ending up being shoved around at will by the police, the courts and parliament.
'Cos what it all seems to boil down to in my simple man view is that….
THEY'VE GOT THE GUNS
The problem with libertarians are -the principles they evoke cannot be sensibly adopted at this stage of human evolution.
It's analogous to handing a five year old the keys to a Ferrari and setting him off on a M25 slip road.
Thanks guys.
It was a tad harsh, and I should have thought harder before venting.
Thanks also for the various links. I'll check them out.
Onwards.
CR.
Captn, Your assesment of the piece you linked to and the silence of those who aspouse it credibility when challenged speaks volumes.
Clearly you are making waves as those who profit from this corrupt system are now finding the need to try and counter your stance with pathetic spewings such as the article in question. The cry baby attitude and calling you agressive was a great excuse for them to dodge the issue which they did but you are right. They are on the most part a bunch of cunts who when push comes to shove will be cowering whilst freeman as yourself fight for their rights.
If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.
CR Still no response from the self styled "Libertarians".
Regards, John Hurst.
Hi cap'n,
Sorry for no replies for a while but I binned Virgin and as much as I hated to, joined Sky (I need an ISP).
Anyway, Libertarians = Wankjobs!
I came to this conclusion after reading more Tolstoy and Kropotkin (only really his stuff on anarchy as the rest of it's pants) of late.
Libertarians today are merely liberals and have no concept whatsoever of liberty and individual freedom.
The article by the fuckwit judge attacking the FMOTL principle had me laughing in stitches, purely because contempt of court could be translated into so many different ways, that any reasonable defence of the individual, getting one up on the system, could be smashed down as contempt. In other words, contempt was created to give the courts 100% control over the accused, should things not go their way in bringing about a successful case.
The situation I've come to realise within life is one that no one and I mean NO ONE, has the right to judge you whatever you do. Of course, those whom you have harmed do, but no one else does. People will say that you live within society and therefore must comply with the laws within, yut I say back - "who asked me whether I wanted to be part of that society and live within a cage and a totally controlled system?"
People have, through life, become completely indoctrinated, like good Pavlovian puppy dogs, to accept the constant abuse upon them as each day passes. The wages don't go up. The bills do along with everything else and no one complains. They just accept it. They'll happily work 40+ hours a week to pay 50% of their income straight off to rent. I'm diverging a little here but making a point that the ability to stop, think, look and assess one's environment and see something's terribly wrong is completely oblivious to most people today. They have happily accepted the state to be their consciousness.
When I got into Libertarianism, it was Sean Gabb whom I read first. I found him interesting, but now I've dived far deeper down the rabbit hole, this defence of the courts by him sadly proves just how fucked up Libertarianism is today and nothing more than a political ideology, hijacked by liberals, into creating the one world, dystopian hell, that's rapidly moving into place.
Watching these FMOTL videos standing up in court and rightly using common law against the cash making law of admiralty makes me see just how corrupt the whole thing really is. It's nothing more than the bullying of the individuals, by the corporations who now have authority over the human beings of this land, without ever being given the consent to do so.
The video also proves that the police are another tool of the bullying system, whom, upon being called to these farcical proceedings, should instantly be arresting the acting judge for wasting police time and trying to pull a fast one on a member of the public, into taking moneys from them illegally = criminal behaviour.
It's all totally fucked up.
Harbinger
Katabasis,
"Some libertarians will dismiss FMOTL and others won't."
And those who dismiss FMOTL are not libertarians, that is they do not believe in the principle of liberty, which I need not explain to you what it means.
The problem with society is that words meanings are being changed to suit the purpose, or should I say the agenda. The liberals have always taken a thumping, firstly because they're always looked upon as fence sitters and secondly because it and socialism are both one and the same in essence, a means with which to enforce their way of life on all, without all's consent whatsoever. Now we see that liberals, with their bad rep, have moved their agenda, lock, stock and barrel into the libertarian movement, to the point that libertarianism no longer has anything to do with liberty, but enforcing policy on those who disagree with liberalism.
It is interesting, but anyone who becomes a true libertarian will inevitably move into the anarchy camp. They at first believe in a minimal state without the intrusion of it into the private lives of the individual and then move into the realisation that as individuals we don't need to be governed by anyone other than ourselves.
It is the right of the individual, not the state or any self imposed monarchy rule, that they can live as freemen on the land, build their homesteads, raise their livestock, crops and family how they see fit, not how others do. The land is there to be lived on and farmed, not bought and sold to the highest bidder, most likely someone whose funds are through ill gotten gain.
I may have diverged slightly but, I stand by the point of liberty, and to dismiss the FMOTL is anti libertianism, not libertarianism.
Harbinger
I find wearing black, polished shoes helps, lace ups never Velcro, that's a rip off.
Bring me sunshine.
What Harbinger said.
Post a Comment