Under the law, we have been dead since 1666

It's only hilarious to you because you believe you are merely a consumer, a taxpayer and a follower of TV programmes, trends or sport, a body floating around with molecules, not an expression of God and a reflection of everything that is/ ever was/ ever will be.

The fact that some people managed to deceive you into believing that makes you very exploitable by people who enjoy power by deception. Once you really come to understand the way that then legal/ rational/ corporate world works, you will understand that power is often derived by deception and by confidence tricks like children fooled by a "magician".

You will for example not understand that when someone says they are going to empower you what they are really giving you is doublespeek for "I am going to control you." You had the right to do the thing in the first place but now someone is telling you that your rights are derived from them. If you play ball, you have just allowed them to position themselves above you and therefore take half your equity.


Posted from TSR Mobile

And then the US had several rebellions and a civil war which the State fought and crushed. No contest.



And none of these specify that any old Joe can set up a court which must be respected by the State.



Common law is based on precedent, or case law. Statutory law is written law as decided by the legislature or other government agency. The main differences are how the laws are created and the basis of challenges.

Under common law, new laws are created through the decisions made by judges. When the judges are listening to a case, they are making decisions based on the decisions made in previous cases. In situations where no specific applicable law can be found, the decision the judge makes then become law.

Lawyers preparing to argue a case must make submissions to the court for decisions on different items based on case or common law and statutory laws that are applicable. If the plaintiff or the defendant decides to appeal the decision, they must make an argument to the appeals court. The submission must list the objections to the decision based on prior law or legal procedures.

Statutory laws are those made by the government of a country. There are several reasons to issue these types of law: to meet citizens needs, to formalize existing law or resolve an outstanding issue that the courts refer to the government. The government has a clear role in determining the laws and punishments that are appropriate for their country.

OP displays his freewibbler on the loon credentials again

Is that an intellectual response to what is probably the first group of people who are questioning the relationship between the individual and state in modern times since probably Marx and Hegel?



Posted from TSR Mobile

Freewibble is not challenging anything , except the patience of the rest of the population while it's infantile adherants display an imbecilic conviction that they have miraculously found the 'cheat code for life '

First, they have to demonstrate precedent; second, the court must determine if that precedent is still reasonable and relevant in the case at hand. Through this, common law evolves.



Parliament, and, in a symbolic sense, the Queen.

Common law:


To quote you: "the court must determine if that precedent is still reasonable and relevant" - so on other words the decision does not necessarily rely on precedent and therefore the decision making is completely open to arguments and the claims to rights people are making to the court.

Precedent remains a powerful indicator, and it would hold as long as that precedent is still seen as reasonable and fair.

Claims to the rights of people to ignore courts and statute at will would not be considered reasonable, nor fair.



The electorate, at elections.



In a formal sense, God, through the Queen. In a real sense, we, the people, through elections, and we are all bound to obey Parliament through common consent of the Realm.



I can't speak for Greek politics, but yes, the Greeks need a punishment, a stick, real enough to make them pay tax. The alternative is their society collapses, as we are seeing happening.

So what if 'the majority' decided and voted parliament was just too expensive and did not require it's 'services' henceforth?

Precedent remains a powerful indicator, and it would hold as long as that precedent is still seen as reasonable and fair.

Claims to the rights of people to ignore courts and statute at will would not be considered reasonable, nor fair.



The electorate, at elections.



In a formal sense, God, through the Queen. In a real sense, we, the people, through elections, and we are all bound to obey Parliament through common consent of the Realm.



I can't speak for Greek politics, but yes, the Greeks need a punishment, a stick, real enough to make them pay tax. The alternative is their society collapses, as we are seeing happening.

So if one can make a claim that precedent is not reasonable and fair, one can rebut it. When do you think this kind of action may happen? Surely this goes back to the fact that the legal system is essentially flexible and open to new and differing arguments and frameworks.

Well, then Parliament would shut down, or at least, the chunk that wished to still have a Parliament would continue to be governed, and the rest would live in an anarchy. But that's not going to happen, is it? As unpopular as the State and Parliament are, the enormous majority recognise it as indispensable.



Where are you going with this? I am not a Greek politician, and it's up to the Greeks to sort out their problems. I am simply saying that if you wish to live in a country which has a State, then you should obey the law.

Don't like the law? Obey it, and work to have it changed through proper procedure.

Dislike being subject to a State entirely? Then either work to have that State dismantled through common consent of the people, or leave to set up your own lawless community elsewhere.

Don't like paying taxes, and yet somehow still want the State to do everything for you? You're an idiot, and deserve the mess you country is in.



Well yes, that's my point. If they want the State to do this stuff, they have to pay. Speaking for myself, who pays his taxes in full and would be willing to pay more to help my fellows, I find tax evasion repugnant.

That's very noble of you, but, what you fail to grasp is politicians collude with bankers to leverage your good nature to create debt.... payable by future generations (students).
They could not have created this debt without you (and me) underwriting it.

And people vote for those who can create the most debt ...... until they can't.

So 'where am I going with this?' ...... I am trying to illustrate what states are capable of.

Watch Greece...... chances are it won't be the first.

You seem to be under an illusion, those who see tax as wrong are people who do not care for their fellows....sorry mate, but you simply do not know this.
Surely it's better (AND cheaper) for a person to give directly to his fellows voluntarily rather than coerced at the point of a gun?

However.....not to worry....

.... I do accept this is all kinda moot, without re-evaluating this whole notion of land 'ownership'...... where, a few hundreds of years ago, people in nice costumes with weapons declared 'ownership' of land.....and had the cheek to charge rent to poor mugs. But, many of the poor mugs, who were impressed by those in nice costumes, believed the earth was flat ...... seems many still are.

That's very noble of you, but, what you fail to grasp is politicians collude with bankers to leverage your good nature to create debt.... payable by future generations (students).
They could not have created this debt without you (and me) underwriting it.

And people vote for those who can create the most debt ...... until they can't.

So 'where am I going with this?' ...... I am trying to illustrate what states are capable of.

Watch Greece...... chances are it won't be the first.

You seem to be under an illusion, those who see tax as wrong are people who do not care for their fellows....sorry mate, but you simply do not know this.
Surely it's better (AND cheaper) for a person to give directly to his fellows voluntarily rather than coerced at the point of a gun?


However.....not to worry....

.... I do accept this is all kinda moot, without re-evaluating this whole notion of land 'ownership'...... where, a few hundreds of years ago, people in nice costumes with weapons declared 'ownership' of land.....and had the cheek to charge rent to poor mugs. But, many of the poor mugs, who were impressed by those in nice costumes, believed the earth was flat ...... seems many still are.

Without law, we wouldn't have any ability to own houses at all. We'd be the serfs of whatever nearby gang got the upper hand.