It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Right of Revolution

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

Hang on.

You don't know how a government is formed, yet you believe this imaginary person (you've supplied no evidence the moron even exists) is going to form an independent government?




posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I do not know if this man is simply another blip on the Sovereign Individual movement screen, or if he has higher goals. But it only takes one person to start an avalanche. If the time is right in populist terms, one person can ignite a fire storm all out of proportion to the individual initiating the action.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: fractal5

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: fractal5

Sounds like more Sovereign Citizen or Freeman on the Land bunk and if he does go to jail, as he requested, he is certainly a subject of New Hampshire.
So do you also dismiss the NH constitution as bunk? Explain your self, all you did was take a dump on the guys head without explanation. Is government by consent of the governed or not?


driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right....his point is moot....traffic laws are meant to protect everyone from being harmed by motorized vehicles.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: fractal5

The state. Do you even understand the specific constitutional article you quoted?

That was rhetorical.

When the USA revolted was it a legitimate government? Hopefully you have a yes or not answer to that.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

What does the Revolution have to do with the cretin in the Original Post who does not want to pay parking tickets?

He is no revolutionary, he is just a jackass.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

You're now talking about a revolt?

What's that got to do with a still fictional moron (you've still to prove he's real) trying (and inevitably failing) to make an independent government using the "freeman of the land" scam?

I'll help you out by answering the question.

Nothing.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: fractal5

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: fractal5

Sounds like more Sovereign Citizen or Freeman on the Land bunk and if he does go to jail, as he requested, he is certainly a subject of New Hampshire.
So do you also dismiss the NH constitution as bunk? Explain your self, all you did was take a dump on the guys head without explanation. Is government by consent of the governed or not?


driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right....his point is moot....traffic laws are meant to protect everyone from being harmed by motorized vehicles.
If traffic laws were meant to protect anyone from being harmed, then someone would go ahead and find out which laws prevent harm and which ones don't. New Hampshire traffic laws are meant to collect revenues by the state of New Hampshire. I can say this with confidence because its a provable fact that lots of money is collected without attention to whether the laws accomplish anything. The fact being that no laws undergo study to determine if they result in anyone being protected or not. Studies I've seen on traffic law show that removal of traffic lights and speed limit signs results in increased safety. So no, that cannot be the purpose of traffic laws or traffic lights. I don't believe you. Maybe I'm just that smart, or maybe I have motives besides taking other people's money without their permission for my own causes and am willing to live by principles and truth.

Go find me a case of the government deciding what policies actually work, and basing what they do on that. Never happens. What happens is they decide what would give them money and power, and do that in general. History shows that governments grow in power and scope until either they are collapse or conquered. So, governments motive is to grow in power and scope until self-implosion.

All good contracts contain a cancellation clause. I want out.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

Did you just dismiss something because you think you're "smart"?

I find that difficult to believe if you'll believe an idiot who pushes scams (freeman of the land is a scam). Definitely not the smartest thing to do.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: fractal5

What does the Revolution have to do with the cretin in the Original Post who does not want to pay parking tickets?

He is no revolutionary, he is just a jackass.

The topic is the right of revolution. So, when the USA revolted, was the USA a legit government? Was it right to revolt for the revolters? If the USA was illegitimate, so is the guy refusing to pay the ticket.

The two topics connect. First, find out if the USA revolt was correct. Then apply that principle to the guy refusing to pay the tickets. So again I ask, was the USA right to revolt? Did they have majority support in the British empire they were a government of? Is that not an important question?



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: fractal5

Did you just dismiss something because you think you're "smart"?

I find that difficult to believe if you'll believe an idiot who pushes scams (freeman of the land is a scam). Definitely not the smartest thing to do.
Is the United States a scam too or just the guy refusing to pay the ticket? You misread what I was saying... I was not saying I'm smart but rather that I am principled and value the truth.

It seems like if your a judge and you have the payment made out to the judge's employer, then that is a scam because its a conflict of interest. No?



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5


All good contracts contain a cancellation clause.


Laws aren't contracts, they're laws.


I want our.
So find a country with laws you agree with and move there.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

What are you ranting about?!

How about this. Show us this imaginary guy actually exists. You know what that's called, don't you? It's called evidence.

So far all you have is your misinterpretation of an act and a fictional character trying to bypass a traffic law by using a scam.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: fractal5


All good contracts contain a cancellation clause.


Laws aren't contracts, they're laws.


I want out.
So find a country with laws you agree with and move there.
Do I have the right to revolt or don't I?

I will also consider your plan for me to move. What place will I have where my rights are respected?



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

Now you're on about rights? You're all over the place.

First it's some fictional guy who wants to get out of parking fines by making his own independent government by using a scam. Then it was your bad understanding about the difference between contracts and laws. Now it's about a right to revolt.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: fractal5

Now you're on about rights? You're all over the place.

First it's some fictional guy who wants to get out of parking fines by making his own independent government by using a scam. Then it was your bad understanding about the difference between contracts and laws. Now it's about a right to revolt.
Sorry I thought "right of revolution" was the main topic. How silly of me. I guess not. I'll make another thread later about that.

So, back to the guy forming his own independent government. How does he do that? Or is that not allowed and okay for the USA but never again? How? You tell me because the mason has given up apparently.

Is it possible someone would say "you know, the government is corrupt, lets just start fresh" and maybe you know, not be a scam? Is that reasonable to believe? I think maybe I heard someone say that on ATS and get a bunch of stars. Maybe that was also a scam figment of my imagination? No? Yes?



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

But the thread isn't even about that. It's about a pretend person that you haven't proven exists, trying to get out of parking tickets by using a scam.
edit on 29102016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: fractal5

But the thread isn't even about that. It's about a pretend person that you haven't proven exists, trying to get out of parking tickets by using a scam.
How do you know its a scam? What is the importance of proving the man exists? Do I ask him to post on this thread?

Apparently the scam is that you are not allowed to escape the corruption of the government and trying to do that is a scam. But do explain the questions I asked and I'll see if he wants to be in this thread as a new member.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: fractal5

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: fractal5

But the thread isn't even about that. It's about a pretend person that you haven't proven exists, trying to get out of parking tickets by using a scam.
How do you know its a scam? What is the importance of proving the man exists? Do I ask him to post on this thread?
Because you said "Yesterday, a man filed a paper claiming that he is in formal revolt against New Hampshire and not be paying any of the driving fine he was demanded to pay."

You haven't linked to this even being a real thing.


Apparently the scam is that you are not allowed to escape the corruption of the government and trying to do that is a scam. But do explain the questions I asked and I'll see if he wants to be in this thread as a new member.
Actually, the scam is the "freeman of the land". Just give them your personal details and bank account numbers and they'll "help you". Help you be ripped off lol.
edit on 29102016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5




Do believe government does not require the consent of the governed? I'd like you to answer that question.


It requires the consent of society as a whole...not an individual.





The man in question proposes to be part of another government that has no association with New Hampshire. Now what? What is it that makes his government invalid but the New Hampshire government valid?


Then that is on him to prove.

But he will still go to jail.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: fractal5




Do believe government does not require the consent of the governed? I'd like you to answer that question.


It requires the consent of society as a whole...not an individual.





The man in question proposes to be part of another government that has no association with New Hampshire. Now what? What is it that makes his government invalid but the New Hampshire government valid?


Then that is on him to prove.

But he will still go to jail.

There is no "society" but in fact there are multiple societies. Rural society and urban society are a whole different world of people. How am I to draw the lines of the society in question? The mason said the state level is where I need my recognition to form a government. However, I question why he didn't say the national level or global level. So, do I need consent of the society of a neighborhood, a town, a city, a state, a nation? (1) Which society do I need consent from?

If government requires the whole of society to consent, then one person in society not consenting would then revoke the validity of the government in question as the whole of society would no longer be in consent. So you say "whole" but you actually seem to believe that certain parts of society, perhaps the majority, can require minorities to submit as their subjects without consent. When you say "the whole" do you actually mean about half (ie like a 50.00001% majority)?







 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join