up home page mail me! Add to Technorati favourites bottom

French German version Spanish version Italian version

header image

Archive for September 29, 2016

The Freeman-on-the-Land Controversy and the Evolution of its Social Value

Why is the Freeman-on-the-Land such a controversial idea? Lets take a look at the issue here from both sides..

From one perspective, we have people that may perceive governments and the established systems of law, as being suppressive and in some ways unjust. They believe that the system may be ‘rigged’ against them, as some would put it. Such people are looking for an understanding of their natural rights, and a deeper understanding of how they can protect themselves from charges, harassment, limitations, and controls that are seemingly unjustified and undue.

For the people who have sensitized themselves to this perspective, there is the belief that within a deeper understanding of the common law, and a historical context of how those governments and those systems of law were established, there is a way to present the view, to the system of law and governance itself. Much of the understanding of people who study the ideas of Freeman-on-the-land is geared towards pointing to rights and reason, working from an interpretation of legalities and potential fallabilities in the references upon which they are structured, which are seemingly up for discussion. With this core belief, many people are looking at how open-to-re-interpretation is this system of legalities in some frames of reference, and, are there significant adjustments to be made? And in so much as the system is stable, people who follow a further extension of what some may call natural common law, would possibly move us even further towards an abiding by even higher ideals; personal honorability, widely informed common sense, judicial intelligence, and altruistic good will. Generally speaking, people do not want to feel oppressed. They do not want to be manipulated by the systems around them, and they do not want to be bothered by trivial legalities which serves limits on rights and freedoms while taxing their time and expense.

From the other perspective, there is the ideal of law and order. Common laws that create law and order must reach far and wide. And to encompass that distinction, the writ of the law, must be based upon itself, and it must be laid out in as non-ambiguous and clear a language and reason as possible. And in that sense, it must be constantly evolving. However, the courts are now facing a mirror of sorts. Can todays judicial systems continue to examine core truth values, differential contexts, and historical references to the rhyme and reason of the system itself? Understandably, it doesn’t want to face off with itself; it wants to help govern, hold the peace, uphold the law, and maintain the system as upright and infallible, as possible. After all, it’s a system of law that is not unlike a blockchain of information, all tied together, and evolving in real-time, seemingly working as optimally as it can to serve the greater good.

Though understandably, references come from both perspectives. So where is the real value in the ideas professed by self-learned Freeman-on-the-land advocates?

When people stand up for their rights, no doubt, they have to look deep into the laws that they are facing. When this is done correctly, one may find modern interpretations not always in perfect alignment with classic definitions of laws, and statutes may open up into a grey zone that calls into question some of the foundational principles, and methods being used.

People would like the law to protect them, but they don’t always like the way it has to work to achieve that goal. Sometimes the level of the lowest-common-denominator, will create pressure of obedience, on those to whom the lowest-common-denominator principles, may not be neccessary, as they would constitute natural upheld common sense. Most of us will generally over-look and accept the deeper context of the law, but if the letter of the law is to be followed precisely, it may lead to some alternative interpretations.

Whose duty is it to examine those issues at the core of the law? We would think that it is the higher courts, however people do examine the issues, and freeman-on-the-land has presented issues in the courts. Not much to the liking of the courts, but none-the-less it is there facing them.

It’s all set out on a fine line called the bar, and not all issues are well served by the approach that some self-professed Freeman have taken, but there is certainly something to consider in that grey zone. And as the courts become more exposed to the concepts presented by free-man-on-the-land, walking to the start of that of that fine line, is the time to figure out if there is a chance of presenting a coherent argument to back up any prospective issue that one is dealing with. It’s about having the arguments substantiated, with clarity, reference, and truth.

There is nowhere better to see the outcome of a non-optimally considered approach, than the judicial and social commentary that arises, when a professed Freeman becomes what the courts deem as a ‘vexacious litigant’, and or when the outcome leads to charges even greater than than the original issue. After such commentary, it becomes even easier for the media to portray the ideas of Freeman-on-the-land in a pejorative light, creating even more social pressure leading to the limiting of freedom of debate and expression of concepts not commonly held. There are many instances of media that feed the social perception that ‘freeman-on-the-land’ is an unacceptable and invalid system of beliefs and ideas, held only by ‘freeloading’ social misfits. And the thought of attempting to bring such ideas into the process of defending ones self on the streets, or in a court of law, might be labelled as “craziness”.

To see someone place these FMOTL principles, ideas, and interpretations of ‘truth’, before the modern system of law, is very telling. People, whether in the right or not, are trying to speak truth to power, and quite often, it does not always play out in the right way, even when one might think it will. It’s all deeply disconcerting to those who believe they are protecting the law, and supporting the governance and order, of law. It is also becoming somewhat viewed as a waste of the courts time and resources.

Perhaps not to the best outcome, some of the Freeman-on-the-land ideas and concepts have become commercially espoused as a sortation of systemic documentation and process that will work for anyone. Some may even get the understanding that it will put one beyond or even above the law. And in a few cases it raises more than a simple point of contention with the system, when it clashes more dramatically with it. And these are the issues that will often make the news and potentially cast the whole FMOTL movement in a negative light.

The controversy is deep. It is subtle, it is sensational, and it divides opinions very strongly.

There are two forces of human nature at work here.. The desire to have the freedom to act in accordance to natural ‘common’ law, and the desire to control the freedom of all, for the sake of law and order.

Ultimately, the ideas that arise from the understanding of what freeman-on-the-land really speaks to, show clearly that there is a need for a far greater public discussion about how people are governed, and how they are treated in the face of a system that deals out the judgements, as its form of order.

Most people don’t really understand the whole of the law. Every nation and every state, has instituted their system of governance within a system of particular laws. And to own a piece of the right to speak from that perspective, one must separate themself from all, and deal from behind the bar in order to pass judgements. The system of law is inherently based on a separation of man from man, and that separation is upheld by the deep legal precedence and lexicon that most are not fully informed of. The law defends and prosecutes people. Both sides are facing the bar. And the bar is the separation that presides over man in modern society as we have it.

There is so much information about what Freeman-on-the-land is trying to present, as its truth, and foundation, that it becomes unclear as to what it is. Whatever validity it has in the courts, maybe muddled in the efforts of those trying to present it to those who don’t much want to hear it. And whatever effectiveness it has on the streets, when dealing with the law officers, has a questionable effect if misused or used in a manner that is oppositional.

Ultimately, giving people an ideal, that directly appeals to the greater sensibility of self-governance, natural common law, and natural human rights, seems like a good thing, but it can easily fail in a system that does not allow people the right to control the court with the deeper and more embedded connotations of those laws, and aspects of the law that lay beyond the bar.

It is a very delicate situation. A very controversial situation, and one that many people are testing. Finding for themselves, and for others, the limits and successes of such a perspective is challenging and maybe a greater risk than just accepting the laws as it may be..

This site is by definition of its domain, is a naturally suitable forum for the ideas of the Freeman-on-the-land. We can continue to explore the value of the controversy of what freeman-on-the-land stands for, and the validity of the concepts be espoused. The FreemanOnTheLand.com site has been wanting more, for some time now. It has been curated by a few, and of those ideas and links presented,  some are personal experiences, and some are referencing external materials and videos, but it perhaps is not the clear reference point that it could potentially be. Naturally, it is a place that many ideas can be referenced, and explored. In fact, its a great place for a greater discussion. We want it to have a greater value to our audience, and to have a key role in clarifying fact from fiction, truth, from semi-truth and falsity. We also want it present the cases where people take the ideas of Freeman-on-the-land (FMOTL) to court, and to the peace officers who enforce the laws on the street.

In order to get the most from the evolution of this site, we need to preface its value by design. As mentioned above, a forum is a format that would suit the site, and get discussions going.. However, the way forums are created today, they are often high maintenance, and need to be actively moderated. Especially, since we can safely assume that the divisive and controversial nature of the topics presented, would have a high potential for oppositional energy, trolling, and argumentation. So, the question is.. How can we redesign this site, and how can we restructure the site, to give a clearer and more approachable interface for the meeting of two worlds of thought and perspective, without losing the value of a deeper discussion between a variety of people, with a variety of knowledge?

We think it is time for a redesign, and time for a new approach..

Perhaps an approach that will foster a new definition of what Freeman-on-the-land even means.. And if such a question should arise…why redifine Free-man-on-the-land? Then let it be clear that the ideal of what a free man on the land really stands for, is peace, equity, social responsibility, and living a well lived life.. Imagine a man, woman, family, living on the land, peacefully, naturally law abiding, caring, well meaning, naturally cultured and capable to uphold the highest morality and personal standards of conduct ..

So, what must a society know, within the hearts and minds of each man, woman and child, to uphold the ideal of a free man on the land… What evolution of our humanity must we affirm in order to achieve this ideal? What transitions do we need to manage to create this kind of a society? Where in our visions can we see a society in which we can agree to be relatively even more free..?

Those are big questions, and even bigger dilemmas. The layers upon layers of human evolution have brought us this variety of society; the one we see around us.. Can we ever be as free as to say we are a free man? Who in fact, is ever free.. It is so completely relative. Perhaps we are as free as we are alone, because once we are living within a society, we are only as relatively free as we abide by the legally enhanced limitations on any freedoms that we perceive. Society is a co-created commons of far greater complexity than a free man can be.




So what do you think? Will we redesign the site, and create a nice, modern forum and lexicon, with opinion pieces to create meaningful conversational ‘precipitation’?

Will we partner with others to bring in new ideas..or…Will we hand over the site, to someone else.. and let it go the the way they want it to be?

We are open to suggestions, offers, and ideas.

Ideally the site will move into the hands of someone who would really love to curate the content and foster the discussion in the very best of ways. This is potentially a landmark site that can appeal to a much wider audience, and serve a far greater good than perhaps it does now.

We would love for it to evolve in the very best direction.

A freeman-on-the-land must eventually find within their hearts to be part of an evolving society, of people working together to bring greater value to the greater good, for there is no being alone in a world like this. But perhaps we can still find the kinds of freedom we are yearning to see.

From controversy to value.

How can we make the best of it?

Comment or drop us a line with your thoughts