I'll refer you to my earlier post asking for evidence from ANY court of record showing his methods EVER being used successfully.
Obama throws tantrum!* Proud Day for Washington
- Thread starter dmnEPC
- Start date
I'll refer you to my earlier post asking for evidence from ANY court of record showing his methods EVER being used successfully.
This ^^^, plus your insistence he is making an argument, and your earlier conflation with "sovereign individuals" leads me to believe your research wasn't very deep, if there was any research at all.
I don't see how there could be. If you had even a basic understanding of what Stevens claims (forget results, just his claims) you wouldn't be posting this stuff.
Marc Stevens is a fraud. He can claim anything he wants, and he makes a good living tricking some people with those claims, but when it comes time to show some actual results he can't and neither can his supporters. As someone who despises our court systems with every fiber of my being, I wish like hell it wasn't the case, but it is.
I can claim I'm the President of the Moon, but people would be foolish to believe it. Just like they're foolish to believe anything Marc Stevens says will work in a court of law. If anyone would like to prove otherwise, just link to some court records where anything he's tried or advised people to try has actually worked.
He is a master of sophistry, plain and simple.
That sounds a lot like Freeman on the land, where you make comical nautical terms in the vague hope of trolling the judge into just telling you to get lost.
Freeman on the land - RationalWiki
Probably worth mentioning that morality and law share company in the same non-existent dimension, in imagination land.
No such thing as either. And both are used to benefit one person, at the expense of another.
No such thing as either. And both are used to benefit one person, at the expense of another.
Ok, I have a question then. Let's just pretend that overnight all governments and corporations disappeared, and we're now living in beautiful anarchy.
What's going to happen? Well first, you're going to stake out some land for yourself and your family, correct? This is your private land, 100% owned by you, and you're allowed to do with it what you will. No laws, no government, no restrictions, and 100% your land, correct?
Obviously, quite a bit goes into the typical modern day living, so you're going to need some help. Maybe you have friends who are excellent mechanics, seamstresses, electricians, whatever. So naturally, you and your friends will all congregate in the same area, to help each other out, and share your individual skill-sets in exchange for products / services / barter, etc., correct?
Since there's a bunch of you living in close proximity, you're also going to have to share some responsibilities. Someone has to keep the roads cleared during winter, the water lines maintained, wildlife at bay, etc. Plus if you're all going to live close together, you're going to need some common sense rules according to the NAP, such as don't kill people, don't burn people's businesses down, don't steal, don't kill the neighbor's dog, and so on, correct?
So far we just have a nice peaceful community who gets along just fine without any government intervention whatsoever. We on the same page? I'll assume we are, because otherwise you're not going to survive more than a year anyway, especially through a winter.
Now if you pop out a couple kids, I'm assuming once they become teenagers in order to continue residing in your community they're going to have to abide by the shared responsibilities & rules, correct? I mean, if one of your household's responsibilities is to help keep the roads clear, your son is going to have to help out with that when he gets older, right?
What happens if he doesn't? Or what happens if he's an aggressive little shit, and doesn't agree with the NAP? Then what? He has to go live elsewhere? He didn't signup to be born to you, or in that community, so how / why can anyone force him to help clear the roads?
-----
To my point, how is the above any different whatsoever from what we have today? How is the above not going to morph into what we already have? The only difference is, we came late to the game. The wars have already been fought over the past several thousands of years, the borders have been drawn, the massive communities comprising of 10s of millions are already in place.
What's going to happen? Well first, you're going to stake out some land for yourself and your family, correct? This is your private land, 100% owned by you, and you're allowed to do with it what you will. No laws, no government, no restrictions, and 100% your land, correct?
Obviously, quite a bit goes into the typical modern day living, so you're going to need some help. Maybe you have friends who are excellent mechanics, seamstresses, electricians, whatever. So naturally, you and your friends will all congregate in the same area, to help each other out, and share your individual skill-sets in exchange for products / services / barter, etc., correct?
Since there's a bunch of you living in close proximity, you're also going to have to share some responsibilities. Someone has to keep the roads cleared during winter, the water lines maintained, wildlife at bay, etc. Plus if you're all going to live close together, you're going to need some common sense rules according to the NAP, such as don't kill people, don't burn people's businesses down, don't steal, don't kill the neighbor's dog, and so on, correct?
So far we just have a nice peaceful community who gets along just fine without any government intervention whatsoever. We on the same page? I'll assume we are, because otherwise you're not going to survive more than a year anyway, especially through a winter.
Now if you pop out a couple kids, I'm assuming once they become teenagers in order to continue residing in your community they're going to have to abide by the shared responsibilities & rules, correct? I mean, if one of your household's responsibilities is to help keep the roads clear, your son is going to have to help out with that when he gets older, right?
What happens if he doesn't? Or what happens if he's an aggressive little shit, and doesn't agree with the NAP? Then what? He has to go live elsewhere? He didn't signup to be born to you, or in that community, so how / why can anyone force him to help clear the roads?
-----
To my point, how is the above any different whatsoever from what we have today? How is the above not going to morph into what we already have? The only difference is, we came late to the game. The wars have already been fought over the past several thousands of years, the borders have been drawn, the massive communities comprising of 10s of millions are already in place.
Children aren't property of their parents. They are human beings and make no more mistakes than an adult does. From birth you own yourself.
Nothing. He simply doesn't, instead he finds something else to do that he likes doing.
Same thing that happens to anyone else acting like an aggressive little shit.
Nobody can make him do anything he doesn't want to.
The rules need to be natural, people need an incentive to do something that benefits everyone else. Clearing the roads if you have the ability helps both you and the community, just because it helps the community isn't a reason not to clear / maintain the road for yourself.
"Because we said so" is not a valid reason to do something.
And you really believe this would be a good way forward for humanity, and help launch us into an era of enlightenment and freedom that doesn't yet exist?
It's not much different from what society is today, we're just removing a group of thugs with guns trying to control everybody.
Most people wouldn't even notice a difference.
If I understand you correctly your presumption is that the government owns all the land that it governs?
If that is the case, then you will have a hard time finding a government that took control of the land peacefully (buying it or occupying land that was not occupied before by anyone else). Hint: don't waste your time...
If they start governing just one person's land that doesn't agree to that, they have become an aggressor and that makes their claim illegitimate in the eyes of some people here, including myself.
Unless of course you want to argue that if I kill you and your family then your land belongs to me too, but then we have got another issue.
In case you disagree with the first sentiment and government does not own all the land, then why do they have more say on what happens on that land than the land owner (or why should they have any say at all)?
Nothing personal, but saying that children make no more mistakes than adults might be the dumbest non-Pewep thing I've read on here in quite some time.
From a legal standpoint the state does own all of the land that it governs. That's why if you don't pay your property taxes (ie your permanent rental rebill on the land you're using) they take the land back because you can never actually own land. That's also how they are able to justify eminent domain land seizures, zoning ordinances etc. The only way to ACTUALLY own land is to obtain allodial title and as far I know that isn't possible in the US.
You can argue against the morality of it all you want, but it doesn't matter. What's legal is what matters, and what's legal is decided by those with the coercive force of the state.
Some of you should have sat your ass down and watched the video Guerilla posted.
On second thought, most of the trolling in this thread wouldn't have happened if you did.
I'll give you all something else to bicker about... Guerilla's avatar has 13 stars. Illuminati, that is all
On second thought, most of the trolling in this thread wouldn't have happened if you did.
I'll give you all something else to bicker about... Guerilla's avatar has 13 stars. Illuminati, that is all
You've already demonstrated that you don't even understand the basics of what he's talking about.
And as I've said, there is a guy on WF Stevens helped out. I know, because I referred him to Stevens.
Now you're just engaging in ad hom and slander. And that's lame. I mean, if you don't know what you're talking about, be a big man and own it.
This stuff where you attack people you don't know, over stuff you don't understand is embarrassing to read.
Marc Stevens doesn't say anything will work in a court of law. He doesn't make claims like that.
But then, if you had done ANY basic research, you would know that.
You were linked to it earlier. Since it's available for anyone to find or see online, you should have found it when you did your "research" that I think we both know, you never really did.
It is explicitly not Freemen on the Land, and Stevens regularly corrects people who call up his radio show wanting to use those tactics in court.
What Stevens proposes doing is very simple. Get the judge to explain what they are trying to do. And when it inevitably isn't supported by facts or contradicts the mission of the court, the judge will frequently (but not always) dismiss the case.
Anyone familiar with basic logic will understand this. It's Socratic inquiry.
He makes no claims at all. None. Zero. No I am a freeman. No, the Constitution applies to me. No appeals to the Declaration of Independence.
He simply asks the judge to explain what's happening and the facts which support it. Most cases, including most motor vehicle stuff, falls apart very quickly. He does the exact same thing with the IRS.
Once you understand what he is doing, you feel pretty foolish about all of the bullshit you assumed was true, because there isn't any evidence it is true.
How so?
When adults make mistakes they can be pretty serious. The biggest mistake children usually make is swallowing small objects that they can choke on, and I cannot confidently claim that adults never do the same.
When it comes to creative ways to accidentally kill oneself, we're winning.
A typical person gets dumber as they get older. They develop bad habits over the years and acquire an impressive portfolio of garbage in the brain.
This may be objectively true, but if you're talking to someone who is affected by Dunning-Kruger as the person you're discussing with is, then the point is completely lost on them.
Proof?
If you don't pay the mafia, they break your legs. So?
That's how the mafia can give your property to someone else and can stop you from starting any business you want.
This is also not completely true. What's legal is irrelevant. Perception is what matters. Perception is derived from the belief in the legitimacy in the state.
At the margins, it is supported by violence, at the center mythology.
"Legal" is just a made up term which sanctifies whatever it is the people making the rules want to sanctify.
The Iraq war was legal. Dropping nukes on people was legal. Putting people who smoke a harmless weed in jail is legal. In Iran, stoning adulterers is legal. In Nazi Germany, slaughtering Jews and gays was legal. In America, putting Italians into concentration camps and stealing their property was legal.
I would like you to extend the same courtesy to me that I've extended to you so please quit with the ad-hominem attacks.
If you say so.
Slander is spoken, libel is written.
Because he knows it doesn't work, and claiming it does and/or charging money for said advice could land him in prison. He might be quack, but he's not a dummy.
Except the only cases of it that seem to work out well are posted on his blog and can not be verified and the only case that we can publicly verify he lost and cost his buddy $6k for filing a frivolous claim.
No, I was linked to HIS personal blog, where he makes unverifiable claims. When pressed to provide ANY links to cases that either he has argued or assisted in that have made it to the public record he can only provide one and you can read the courts decision here. Him and Edwards appealed the trial courts decision to the Tenth Circuit Court and got their ass handed to them and was forced to pay a $6,000 fine on top of the decision for bringing a frivolous case.
So like I said, the only positive results we see are unverifiable and posted on his blog which he uses to monetize his sophistry. In the only verifiable case of his ever making it to court he ended up losing big and costing the guy an extra $6k.
That's not ad hominem. Please do not use terms you do not understand.
LOL. I don't think I am the one with a credibility issue in this thread.
You claimed he was a fraud. Can you tell us one specific instance where he engaged in fraud? Or where something he has said was fraudulent (dishonest)?
Surely with all of your deep research, this will be easy for you to do. Please, enlighten us.
Why would the claims be unverifiable? He posts scans of court documents, and recordings of conversations with lawyers and agents.
Again, didn't your deep research turn any of this information up?
That's an appeal. The case was already lost.
Also, did you read it? Do you actually think that he lost the appeal on merit?
GOOGLE MOAR
If your definition of verified is government documentation, then you're right, it's probably undocumented except a high frequency of cases he works on being dismissed.
Here is a suggestion. Stop posting. Just stop. You probably won't because Dunning-Kruger, but if you had any sense, any credibility, any character, you'd just stop.
As I have said, I referred a guy here to him, who had a criminal offense and Stevens helped him out. That's infinitely more credibility for Stevens than anything you're going to claim (unsupported) or cherry pick (ham-fistedly).