Basejumper.com - archive

I'm not sure you actually understand what you have written here. Your use of the term 'free citizen' is an oxymoron. You cannot claim to be free and be a citizen at the same time. Just look at the definitions...

Free: not subject to the control or domination of another.

Citizen - a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized:

Subject - one that is placed under authority or control: such as
a : vassal
b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state

Vassal - one in a subservient or subordinate position.

I think if you are claiming to be free or sovereign you need to look more closely at your understanding of the terms you use to describe yourself.

Citizens do have freedoms but only the freedoms afforded to them by their masters. Most everyone alive chooses to be a citizen. There are very few true sovereigns but so many Americans think they are free and sovereign. When you say you are a 'free citizen', what exactly are you saying? Are you claiming to be a U.S. Citizen? If so then you are pledging your allegiance to that entity. It may interest you to know that there was no such defined entity until the 14th Amendment was enacted. it created a new class of citizens called U.S. Citizens. Before that, national citizenship was derived through state citizenship.

Sooooo, according to your analysis of a "Free Citizen", then we, as "subjects" shude blindly follow whatever the rules our country lays down and obediently accept them as all good "subjects" do.
Sure glad the founding fathers never read this.......

Not to digress too far into politics, but I'm pretty sure 570 doesn't feel that way at all.

I can't speak for 570, but if you are thinking about what the founding fathers would have wanted (which is a fairly laudable line of reasoning, in my view), you owe it to yourself it read an opposing point of view like this one.

I just love how everyone and their brother are out to educate me in what personal freedom means. I'd say thanks but, instead I'll say no thanks. I don't need it. I'm well aware of what my personal idea of freedom is and I'll stick with it. If you want to research it for yourself, be my guest. Pretty surprised this came from you Tom. Without Twin Falls being as open as they are, you wouldn't have a business. Try taking yer operation to BD and see how far that goes.
Just what re trying to say here?

That citizenship in the modern USA and freedom are often very opposed concepts.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's roughly the point 570 was trying to make as well.

I don't think regulations are a good idea, and I'm generally in favor of more freedom, not less. I also think that the biggest threat to my personal freedom is the government of the country I reside in, although if my residence changed that might shift, because the government of the country I currently reside in threatens the freedom of many people who reside in other geographic areas as well, sometimes to a degree greater than the entity claiming sovereignty over those geographic areas.

I'm going to split this discussion off and move it into the Hangout forum, to reduce further digression.

No, I never said to blindly follow anyone. You should however, have a firm grasp of just who or what you claim to be and who has jurisdiction over you. If you knew me then you would understand that i absolutely do not promote being a blind follower. I was only telling you that your terminology does not make sense. It's two opposing words stuck together that you think you know what the definition is.

If you want to rebel against the rules of the country or government effectively, you have to first understand who you are and what your relationship is with that entity and how they are controlling you, not just overtly but also covertly. And you absolutely must know the definitions of the words you use and they use. In everyday colloquial speech it's not as important but if you start stepping into legal waters with your protestations, you better damn well know the exact definition of every word that comes out of your mouth because they certainly do and you will be playing in their ball field and using their definitions.

Our Founding Fathers would not be upset at all with what I wrote. They would, however, be appalled that the Freedoms and Rights they fought for and secured for us are just blindly given away for privileges granted by a de-facto government who gained power and continually usurp freedoms not by force but by our agreement and our tacit acquiescence.

Looks juicy! I love reading contrasting opinions. I'll be sure to check it out.

Free will is an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/...CofmZlC72g&t=58s

My comment from an outside person ..
Founding fathers and freedom of free will:
12 of 55 members have been directly involved in slavery.
Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight and Washington had slaves or ruled farmes with slavery.

I guess that the idea of "free will" from the founding fathers has been different from those, who worked on those farms ...

anyway.. man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants..

the "free" will is an illusion because no one is a complete blank sheet. so we might brake it down to: in my surrounding world, with regulations valid for everyone, I can decide between options.
(valid for everyone is also an illusion. of course: 35 of the founding fathers have been lawyers or had a related education..)

and even free decisions are not "free".
if I run over a red light because it is my "free will", I might get hurt or hurt someone else.
now you might think, that is allright, because you decided it that way, but something has driven your decision before.
and that´s the point: free will is the end of a process and therefore not existing.
whenever you decide to do or not do something, it is not free will. it is the end of a process which started loooong before you act.
and as you are not able to steer your birth, your growing up and also your genes, which still influence your actions (fight, flight, freeze for instance ...), free will is not existent.

what you might mean is: I want as less rules and regulations as possible, so that my range for decisions spreads wider.
Okay. nice put. but my freedom ends where the freedom of others is scratched.
life on earth means that you have to deal with others, even if you don´t want to..
if my free will tells me to take your money, car, house, wife, dog, ..
what does your free will do? why is your free will to shoot me more valuable than my free will to have your stuff?

Yep, Slavery is terrible, every time it has happened!!

Please Remember, Slavery does predate 1776,

which is when the USA formally began.

Even today slavery is permitted by the USA constitution. Fuck slavery, therefore fuck the constitution, and fuck the founding fathers. Like what was said above, many founding fathers were slave owners, but the constitution was also primarily written to directly prevent competition in the business interests of the founding fathers and their associates through copyrights, patents, and direct monopolies, such as the postal service. I'm looking squarely at you benjamin franklin. On the other hand I do like the Declaration of Independence, but seriously anyone that believes the authors intended the "all men are created equal" line to include anyone but white, protestant, land-owning, males, is seriously deficient in the facts of history.

Interesting discussion but are you suggesting that "Free Will" and "Freedom" or "Rights" are the same thing?.

I think there may be some confusion throughout this thread. My understanding is that they are different.
Ex: A person has free will (if you don't believe Sam Harris) to act however he pleases but his freedom or rights may be restricted so he may not be able to carry out his free will and/or may get punished for doing so.

That's a very succinct (and modern) summary of the link I put in (above) to "No Treason."

Spooner's argument is that the Constitution is a social contract, and contracts are only binding on parties that agree to the contract. People who were not even alive at the time of the formation of the contract simply could not agree to it, and merely being born in some geographic area is insufficient to constitute implied consent.

Spooner was an abolitionist, and his primary emphasis was on slavery (and the Constitution's treatment of it), but his argument is very interesting, especially from a libertarian/voluntarist (or anarchist--I'm looking at you, Adam, and tipping my hat the the ghost of Brian Drake) viewpoint. Which is one reason I thought that Jason might be interested in reading it.

Yes, and I am a big fan of Lysander Spooner, and "No Treason" in particular. Proponents of the "social contract" theory also seem to routinely ignore the continuous failure of governments to uphold their end of the contract, rendering the government illegitimate. It is as if you and I enter a contract for me to buy parachutes for a fixed price and then I was to refuse to pay you but then still expected you to send me the gear.

C'mon, he's clearly using the phrase "free citizen" colloquially. This is not a technical discussion where it's worth beating each other over the head with our own pet definitions.

"Free" as opposed to incarcerated or overtly enslaved, works just fine in his context.

Can anyone tell me what the hell "free will" really is, anyway?

edit: spelling

Yeah, I get that he was using it colloquially, that's why I made reference to it, but I don't think he was using it in the simple context you are suggesting. From Baronn's other posts on this board it seems he feels a little more strongly about freedoms than many. That is why I offered the definitions. To help him get a better understanding of who he claims to be, not to beat him over the head with definitions. He replied with a sarcastic response and I corrected him. That's it. No big deal. I think Baronn and I have a lot of common views on government oppression and personal rights and that's why we should discuss these things without taking offense and look at the ideas in the discussion with an open yet discriminating mind. We are all trying to understand our role in society and the universe as a whole, so let's move on with the understanding that these discussions are not personal attacks, they are differing ideas that may have some insights to help us to better understand how to navigate through this world.

Ok, I've read through Spooners essay and I would agree with a lot of what he says, especially the part on money, but it fails in part because he does not seem to have a full grasp of contractual law. He needs to go deeper to fully flesh out his theory.

Contracts can either be Express or Implied. Spooner only takes into consideration written agreements which are a form of express contract. He never mentions the other type of express contact which is oral. He also does not seem to be aware of implied contracts, other than possibly birthrights. Implied contracts are formed by the conduct of the parties. If the behavior of two parties shows the intent to enter into an agreement, then a contract may be implied even in the absence of a written or oral agreement. Implied contracts are generally no less legally binding than express contracts.

This is where I think Spooner and so many other people stumble in understanding how the government is covertly controlling the populace. I see this control put in place through a continual series of implied contractual agreements that the people are unaware of or if aware, don't understand the implications of their acquiescence.

The population is under the false assumption, taught by the government and government run schools, that they are protected under one agreement but in reality they are not a party to that agreement but instead subject to something else entirely and getting people to understand that they have been fooled is much more difficult than to actually fool them. It's all part of the ruse to first control the mind, the rest is easy after that.

Adhesion Contract - A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract

What exactly is the governments part to uphold? Do we know what the exact terms of the implied adhesion contract we have agreed to?

ok fair enough!