Freeman on the Land?

[brihard]

I get it, the point being there is a slight level of legitimacy to these nut jobs from a philosophical standpoint.

Canada is a nation founded upon a monarchy forcably taking control of the land. That monarchy was founded by someone at some point going I am the king, you all will follow me. Our customs and laws are all based off of a flawed starting point.

At no point was it based off the consent of the governed, as even today from a legal standpoint it is up to the monarch to approve or deny all laws written.

The constitutional doctrine of ‘responsible government’ would like a word.

From a philosophical view, where is the legitimacy of our system other than the brute force behind maintaining it? If you don’t follow the rules created by people you don’t know, or are long dead, enforced by people you also likely don’t know who are willing to use violence to bring you into compliance, that doesn’t sound like too legitimate a system.

You just described literally any functioning government above perhaps village tribal level. The alternative is one of those academic fantasies like anarchy or libertarianism.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I get it, the point being there is a slight level of legitimacy to these nut jobs from a philosophical standpoint.

Canada is a nation founded upon a monarchy forcably taking control of the land. That monarchy was founded by someone at some point going I am the king, you all will follow me. Our customs and laws are all based off of a flawed starting point.

At no point was it based off the consent of the governed, as even today from a legal standpoint it is up to the monarch to approve or deny all laws written.

From a philosophical view, where is the legitimacy of our system other than the brute force behind maintaining it? If you don’t follow the rules created by people you don’t know, or are long dead, enforced by people you also likely don’t know who are willing to use violence to bring you into compliance, that doesn’t sound like too legitimate a system.

 

[ueo]

I was just going to say the same thing - it mentions him driving around on (I am assuming) public roads. So can I assume he is forsaking all the responsibilities of being governed (being a citizen) but still enjoys the benefits?

Lots like him around.

 

[BrianWL]

Lots like him around.

my favorite is when they call 911 for the cops to come because one of their FMOL buddies is kicking the shit out of them......and they want government help ie) Paramedics/Police. Pretty sure they would fight their house fire solo either. Whack jobs.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The constitutional doctrine of ‘responsible government’ would like a word.



You just described literally any functioning government above perhaps village tribal level. The alternative is one of those academic fantasies like anarchy or libertarianism.

Or you could also have a legitimate democracy not based off the power of a individual. When technically your vote doesn’t matter because it can be always overruled, where again is the legitimacy of the system. We talk about the legitimacy of the courts when again it is simply someone appointed by the monarch to enforce his laws. That doesn’t sound like a very effective legal standard.

I like the monarchy, much more than the average citizen. I swore a oath to follow and defend it. I also understand how absurd it is as a concept and how some can and do consider it to be a illegitimate method of governance.

Just as I don’t care for the freeman on the land, I think they should get a job and pay their taxes. If they want to ignore the law they should go into the bush and carve out a living on their own. But again philosophically they do have a slight amount of legitimacy, basically them along the lines of the social contract.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Or you could also have a legitimate democracy not based off the power of a individual. When technically your vote doesn’t matter because it can be always overruled, where again is the legitimacy of the system. We talk about the legitimacy of the courts when again it is simply someone appointed by the monarch to enforce his laws. That doesn’t sound like a very effective legal standard.

I like the monarchy, much more than the average citizen. I swore a oath to follow and defend it. I also understand how absurd it is as a concept and how some can and do consider it to be a illegitimate method of governance.

Just as I don’t care for the freeman on the land, I think they should get a job and pay their taxes. If they want to ignore the law they should go into the bush and carve out a living on their own. But again philosophically they do have a slight amount of legitimacy, basically them along the lines of the social contract.

The whole system of government and finance is really just a social contract that only exists so long as the population continues to play by the made up rules that or society is using. Its a fragile deck of cards.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In the end, it's either might-makes-right or majority-rules. We're stuck with no practical options under which everyone gets exactly the degree of government he wants. Hence my incessant clamouring for small government, one status of citizenship, no special privileges, rigorous impartiality in the application of laws.

 

[dapaterson]

Every time this topic pops up, for a fraction of a second...

 

[lenaitch]

In the end, it's either might-makes-right or majority-rules. We're stuck with no practical options under which everyone gets exactly the degree of government he wants. Hence my incessant clamouring for small government, one status of citizenship, no special privileges, rigorous impartiality in the application of laws.

Even with "small governments" and a rigorously impartial application, there would still seem to be the lack of legitimacy the Eaglelord seems to crave because no one rule can make everyone happy. A small town, 3-member council passing a bylaw on back yard chickens still won't please everyone because there will be at least two positions on the issue, and any rule that you can opt out of simply because you don't agree with it isn't a rule.

I didn't read this current court case completely but did read the lengthy Mead case. This isn't just a single event of a participant giving a symbolic finger to the court. This was the culmination of a somewhat lengthy string of actions/inactions that frustrated a key system we have that keeps a civil society, well, civil. Was a one-year custodial sentence appropriate? I can't say and I'm not sure there are a whole lot of sentencing guidelines in this area. Maybe six months; who knows, but when the basis of the argument is that the system, any system, has no legitimacy to a person simply by their choosing, what's a system to do?

Our system, like most others, is representative; wherein we pick (elect) other people to represent us in the rule-making process. Short of having a 35+Mn referendum on every single thing a government does, and an opt-out provision for those who still don't agree, no system of civil society can be 100% responsive to 100% of the population 100% of the time.

The fact that our current system has its distant roots in a more despotic system doesn't take away from its current legitimacy. We've evolved from clubbing our neighbour over the head to take his food or wife as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I met people in the Yukon that really went out of their way to avoid other people and government. When I crossed paths with them, was always polite and mindful that they had made efforts to avoid society as much as possible.

 

[lenaitch]

I met people in the Yukon that really went out of their way to avoid other people and government. When I crossed paths with them, was always polite and mindful that they had made efforts to avoid society as much as possible.

There are many areas of the country with people who, for whatever reason, have stepped outside of society to at least some degree, and are quite happy with that. There was a item this morning about an 80+ year old who lives off-grid in an old school bus somewhere in BC. He likes to run marathons.

Most of these people are quite happy to avoid interaction with the rest of society, but when they do, seem to be quite happy to recognize or at least comply with the rules involved in their brief encounter. Some want to enforce or maintain their isolation with extreme measures, and that can be a problem.

SC/FMOL seem to want to exist in society yet at the same time be apart from it. I'm not sure how that is supposed to work.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I met people in the Yukon that really went out of their way to avoid other people and government. When I crossed paths with them, was always polite and mindful that they had made efforts to avoid society as much as possible.

I found the same; interesting people. Didn't necessarily seem to have anything inherently wrong with the concept of society, just wanted to basically be left alone and minimize interaction with most people.

Which is fine, but they still payed property taxes, had plates on their vehicles etc.

The FMOL are delusional, and think that somehow saying they didn't agree to society means the rules/consequences don't apply. There may be some small pockets of the planet where that might happen, but they are pretty lawless. And self regulating communities still fall under the overarching laws of the country, so it's a strange concept that is disconnected from reality. Even if you go live in the bush you can't just hunt whatever you want and build shelter in random spots; someone owns the land.

 

[Remius]

Build a raft go to sea. Stay in international waters and enjoy being a jackass out there.

 

[brihard]

Build a raft go to sea. Stay in international waters and enjoy being a jackass out there.

At least they’ll finally have a valid claim to admiralty law.

 

[Navy_Pete]

At least they’ll finally have a valid claim to admiralty law.

Maybe I can finally apply for a Letter of Marque and do condoned piracy of FMOL?

 

[OldSolduer]

Maybe I can finally apply for a Letter of Marque and do condoned piracy of FMOL?

I'll happily join you. But I am no sailor.....I'd look good with a cutlass and a flintlock pistol I bet.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'll happily join you. But I am no sailor.....I'd look good with a cutlass and a flintlock pistol I bet.

Don't forget the jaunty half cape! After spending some days standing in the driving rain the tricorn and greatcoat with half cape just seems really practical tbh, and get why cowboys wear the big hat and the duster with a cape and gussets for sitting on a horse.

I wouldn't bet against them calling the coast guard or someone though, but don't need to go full age of sail; I think modern armaments and a radio jammer would be allowed as long as you throw in the odd 'arrgh' to stay in the spirit of the thing. As long as we had something that could go 18+ knots we could outrun most of the RCN.

 

[lenaitch]

Parrot. You need a parrot.

 

[OldSolduer]

Parrot. You need a parrot.

I absolutely agree - a bright blue one pinin for the fjords......

 

[Good2Golf]

I'd look good with a cutlass and a flintlock pistol I bet.

I thought you were a Mopar man?