The Basic Definition

The Basic Definition

This board describes itself as existing "for interests of those in the freeman on the land community and those observing it".  Well, I've been observing it for a good while.  But all that observation has failed to answer a very basic question:  What is a "freeman on the land"?

We've all seen trolls who enter forums with questions, intending to lead the responder into some sort of dumb "gotcha" moment.  I have no intention of doing that.  Perhaps to focus the question better: if you are a person of good will, tolerant and respectful of others, and see yourself as a "freemen on the land", what differentiates you from me?

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Re: The Basic Definition

good to see you wessera, and congrats. you broke the ice and made the first post on this site!

i find your question to be a very good one and it just might be more complex than any one thinks it is. the difference, i belive should (note i said should) lay in the activism. the willingness to not stand by when others are abused by any of the arms of government (or anyone else). the willingness to find a issue and attempt to make changes so it is no longer an issue. presenting actual evidence researched from valid sources so as to change the current situation for a more free, peaceful, fair and just society. there are many things that require taking a stand. the catch is many are unwilling or unable to do that. the world does a good job at keeping folks in general either to ignorant or to scared to even try to effect any change or even draw attention to the problem. i belive the original intent was for the freeman on the land movement to be the ones willing to empower others to stand up against a seemingly endless string of legal, political, financial, military, etc. systems that are not good for the people in general; many also restricting what can be seen as basic rights and freedoms. in short, it started with good intentions.

and then it went down hill....

what we have now is a very few with the original intent. many want a free ride. many think the world owes them a living. many think they should enjoy more freedoms than their neighbours. it really should be about changing things for everyone, not how do i get a free (insert thing here).

i will leave it at that for now and continue this further as it pops into my head.

thanks for the question!
peace,
ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: The Basic Definition

I'd go for the basic definition being the Canada/UK/Australia derivative of the Sovereign Citizen movement in the states. With the basic tenet being defined by Menard and related founders of the movement. I.E. that you can unilaterally opt out of laws and legal obligations.

Re: The Basic Definition

Thanks for your prompt answer, ninj.  As for my less-than-prompt reply - well, I've been really busy.  Saturday morning is the first chance I've had.  BTW, it seems your board is somewhat misconfigured.  The "reply quote" function yields only a blank reply space, the "quote" button on the toolbar pulls up a url box, and normal BBcodes [x] [/x] don't work.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Anyway, to the definition of FOTL.  First of all, what you wrote is not a definition.  You instead ascribe certain characteristics to those whom you view as Freemen.  You wrote:

the difference, i belive should (note i said should) lay in the activism. the willingness to not stand by when others are abused by any of the arms of government (or anyone else). the willingness to find a issue and attempt to make changes so it is no longer an issue. presenting actual evidence researched from valid sources so as to change the current situation for a more free, peaceful, fair and just society.

Those attributes also characterize Dr. King, Gandhi, Mandela, depending on your point of view William Lyon Mackenzie, and many, many others less well known.  I like to think it characterizes me.  It does not characterize Menard et al, those commonly regarded as "Freemen".  Nothing says that you must accept the common definition.  But you haven't provided one of your own.

there are many things that require taking a stand. the catch is many are unwilling or unable to do that. the world does a good job at keeping folks in general either to ignorant or to scared to even try to effect any change or even draw attention to the problem. i belive the original intent was for the freeman on the land movement to be the ones willing to empower others to stand up against a seemingly endless string of legal, political, financial, military, etc. systems that are not good for the people in general; many also restricting what can be seen as basic rights and freedoms.

Exactly the same comment.  All of what you wrote applies to many, many people whom no one would view as FOTLs.  You could, I suppose, respond that you do so view them.  If you do, you have your own (quite idiosyncratic) definition of the term.  What differentiates FOTLs from simply those people who are committed to social justice?  Idiosyncratic definitions are not much use to common discussion.  After all, I can insist that "apple" really means "Volkswagen", but few people will then understand that by "orchard" I mean "car dealership".

thanks for the question!

And thanks for your answer.

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Re: The Basic Definition

perhaps the difference in the definitions has to do with our alternate perceptions. yours is a definition from the outside reliant on news items, court cases, youtube vids and shitty attitudes you have dealt with pertaining to the fotl community. where my view is more that of an insider who has met many good people in the movement and given greater aknowledgement to the good points of the fotl as a movement.

due to our alternate points of view we may never arrive at a concrete definition other than some folks in the freedom thing call themselves freeman on the land and some dont.

sorry i cant be more helpful on this.
peace,
ninj

Don't piss up my back and tell me its raining

Re: The Basic Definition

perhaps the difference in the definitions has to do with our alternate perceptions.

I don't doubt for a moment that we have different perspectives, nor do I doubt for a moment that one's perspective influences one's opinion.  However, I'm not asking for an opinion, nor have I expressed mine.  I'm asking for a description.  After all, someone on the inside - you describe yourself as "an insider" - should have a pretty good view of that which he is inside.

Let's try this another way.  You write that you are "an insider who has met many good people in the movement".  What movement?  Please don't give me a label - characterize it.  There are good people among the Knights of Columbus, the Shriners, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.  I can describe to you what characterizes any group, official or unofficial, of which I am an "insider".  Are you saying that you can't?  The only description you've given so far equally fits the Little Sisters of Mercy and the Weathermen.

I pursue this not to give you a hard time.  I am truly interested in hearing about "Freemen on the Land" from someone who has shown himself to be perceptive and good-humored.  As Jesse James said to Judge Roy Bean, don't leave me hangin'.

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume