Limiting Freedom & It's Effects On Society

Hello ATS.

I want to explore a concept today that came up in a conversation with a friend the other day. Firstly, let's establish what this thread is about.

Common Law Vs. Statutes and Codes.

In common law, or the law of the land, there are very few things that can get you in trouble with the law.

1. Killing Or Harming Others.
2. Causing Significant Loss To A Person (financial or otherwise)
3. Being Dishonest In Your Contracts

Otherwise, common law afford you the right to do whatever the hell you please, so long as you aren't infringing upon these rights. Furthermore, only a human being of flesh and blood may make claim against you.

That means that no government body or institution can bring suit against you. Therefore if nobody claims any of the above 3 things, than you cannot have your freedoms arbitrarily called into question by your government.

The common law was established a very long time ago and since then Governments around the world have attempted to fool you into thinking their "Maritime Law" applies to you, when in fact it does not. (This is notably different for those living in the USA for reasons I am still exploring, common wealth countries are far better off hilariously enough.)

So now that we have that out of the way, we can discuss my thoughts.

Limiting freedom encourages introversion and violence among the population. Creating laws other than those that make the most heinous of crimes illegal is counter intuitive to a healthy society. As we've clearly seen over the last 100 years, as non sensical, freedom limitation laws come into effect; our society has become more violent.

Also the more power we've given to our governments to 'protect' us, the more they seem to have no interest in protecting us, but have a vested interest in using that power against its own citizens.

What do you think? Is this limitation of basic freedoms, the right to be left the hell alone and not bothered, creating a new kind of society? One which we are so afraid of being bothered and disrupted by 'authority' that we would rather go it alone?

Seems to me, communities were far more tight knit back in the day. Today we treat each other like we are criminals not to be trusted. The sense of community is gone. How better off would our children be if we were still letting entire villages raise them instead of 2 parents who are never home cause they are working?

Thoughts?

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I do agree with the theory of common law. The problem is that, in practice, it tends to fall apart. This is why Hammurabi - and many since, felt the need to make specific legal, or codified restrictions. Common law tends to lead to Fuedalism.

The long story short is that not everybody respects the whole "live and let live" thing. There are people who will use a vacuum of law to force their will upon others.

If only we could fix that one problem... then I'd happily support no laws and no governments. But as long as there are predators amongst us? I prefer having legal protection.

My .02 cents. S&F my friend.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Strange, because the common law hasn't attempted to be practiced since the feudal age basically

I think it would work wonders in today's society if we had a robust civil court system capable of handling it.

I fail to see what legal protection you would not have in the case of common law either? Can you elaborate a little bit?

In my research, I've found that under common law I am FAR more protected against many things, including the government and predators than with our current system.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Civil court serves it purposes. But it is limited. Sure, OJ was broke - but he got away with murder. Civil courts only go so far.

And if you'd like I'll replace "Feudalism" with "totalitarianism"! The rule of law - and firmly stated individual rights are the surest remedy against tyranny.

And before anybody comes along and says "We got tyranny even with our supposed rights!" I simply state that we are to blame for that. We had ( and still have ) recourse but have never exercised it.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Well hold on here.

The common law protects you, the individual, from any and all other entities that wish to remove your rights. It's impossible for it to turn into totalitarianism because nobody can change the law.

It is, the most robust rule of law ever created.

One person must bring you to court, prove that you are guilty of one of the big 3 up there, otherwise go home. The court and the government have no legal right to harrass you, for any reason what so ever, considering they work for you and not the other way around

You realize the reason that common law never established any 'rights' is because allowing anybody to define your rights is a limitation of them?

Proper law would only tell you that you cannot do something if, not you CAN do something if. The law should be there to limit another's ability to harm or defraud you, not provide you with 'permission' to liberty.

Well if we didn't have such money-hungry people today...
Sue-happy citizen that just want money...
Suit-happy lawyers who just want money...
And Loan-happy banksters who just want your money.
Common law would be much easier to follow.

But since lawyers and bankers run the country, by force it seems, we have the government adaptation of their version of "law" into various statutes and codes. Therefore bypassing Common law into their jargon today.
Let's face it, We have been duped into their "law" for a long time now.

By definition, if you harm no man, why must you be punished?
Pre-emptive law is just a way to raise revenue.

The gov't needs funded.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

One person must bring you to court, prove that you are guilty of one of the big 3 up there, otherwise go home. The court and the government have no legal right to harrass you, for any reason what so ever, considering they work for you and not the other way around

You realize the reason that common law never established any 'rights' is because allowing anybody to define your rights is a limitation of them?

Therein lay the problem. When a weak or poor person had cause to accuse a rich and powerful one... would a common law system be equally as accessible to both?

History says "no".

Enumeration of rights is not a removal of others. The very reason that we have so many enumerated rights is that situations arose where real world circumstances demanded that equality be settled. Without this process minorities, women, children, and now others ( the gay and lesbian communities for example ) would remain marginalized and neglected by the majority of society. Discrimination would still be an acceptable practice because one could simply say "I have an implicit right to exercise my free speech and opinion and I don't want no ________ around me or working for me...."

Absolute freedom to do what we want is an illusory and dangerous idea. Society doesn't abet it.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

Therein lay the problem. When a weak or poor person had cause to accuse a rich and powerful one... would a common law system be equally as accessible to both?

History says "no".

I think you misunderstand Heff. Money has no meaning in common law courts, namely because there are no lawyers. You must defend yourself as having somebody 'represent' you, means you forfeit your own rights.

Enumeration of rights is what got them taken away in the first place. When there are definable rights, then there's the means to limit them by creating pre-emptive law as listed above. You have ALL the rights, until somebody claims that you used one of the big 3 to violate theirs.

In a court of common law the Judge would ask the plaintiff to prove whether the person violated any of the big 3.

If there answer is yes, then proof must be provided. There's no need for a jury in most cases it's so very cut and dry, black and white.

If the answer is no, then we adjourn and move along. We must start treating our legal systems and government as services that work for us, not the other way around.

People misunderstand common law because they consider it complicated, when in fact it is the simplest and purest form of law. This current system of law is the complicated, amalgamated mess that makes us doubt simplicity as the solution.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


The ultimate reference I can give you is The Lord of The Flies. Implicit "common" law falls quickly by the wayside without structure in place to support it. Take away the society structure that have been built up upon the notions? You're left with anarchy and social Darwinism.

This is truly why our Founding Fathers created a Republic and not a true Democracy. They knew, from events that were recent to them, in France for example, that mob rule is an ugly thing and that it's a beast without a face or ideals. It is fickle and it tends to eat it's own.

This is what common law brings.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


But where is the evidence that proves common law, in conjunction with a robust civil court system, brings on what you describe?

It doesn't exist, cause it's never really been done properly. If I based my opinion on what constitutes something good, based on the basterdization of other people's interpretations, then I would be a very sad man.

The Lord Of The Flies kids never had an actual society, they were victims of circumstance. This would not be the case in a society built around the fundemental freedoms provided by common law.

Yes, the Republic is a great idea, a nation ruled by laws, that's fine. But I dont' think the founding fathers ever imagined a society where the government legislated and attempted to micromanage the lives of non-violent private citizens.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


It is here. It's too diffuse to find a quick quote - but this one comes close:

Justice Holmes cautioned that “the proper derivation of general principals in both common and constitutional law ... arise gradually, in the emergence of a consensus from a multitude of particularized prior decisions.” Judge Benjamin Cardozo noted the “common law does not work from pre-established truths of universal and inflexible validity to conclusions derived from them deductively,” but “its method is inductive, and it draws its generalizations from particulars.”

The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable.[citation needed] For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).

Note the words "The common law is more malleable than statutory law." part. That is where the concept loses me and leaves me behind. I don't want malleable standards. I want consistent justice for myself and my progeny. I want equity for all and want it to be implicit. Common law can steer away from that concept.

Oh and to correct an earlier statement you made. Common law and feudalism coexisted quite nicely - and for quite awhile. In fact feudalism ended mostly because of failure of common law and the people revolting and demanding legal protections.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Not the same kind of common law Heff.

en.wikipedia.org...

*The Above is just a short description, please google the term Law Of The Lan or Freeman*

As for consistency, laws built upon precedence are the problem in general. Law and court actions should be done on a case by case basis, making sure that all the facts are included in the decision making process, prior to a response from the court.

As stated in your example, Judges would prefer common law as it creates a more organic transition when society decides it wants something to be a certain way. It does not depend on a legislature that is mired in partisan nonsense.

The bit about feudalism and revolt doesn't really apply because these occured because of the actions of those in charge. The Kings and Queens of their times. We would not have that in a 21st century common law society.

The governments of today have done EXACTLY what has been mentioned in your last two links. Laws that benefit the very few ( financial sector) and reward criminals *(financial sector) instead of protecting the common people from them.

Again, I think the idea of malleable law is a wonderful thing, as it protects the individual from crooked rulings of the past and allows the freedom for case by case justice. Uniform justice is a myth, we all know that. And the same penalties should not apply in all situations.

Circumstance is everything, yet we treat it like it's nothing in our current systems.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Oh, please tell me I haven't wandered into a sovereign citizen trap here... Those make my eye twitch. Clarification please!

reply to post by Hefficide


The sovereign citizen is a valid concept if you live in a common wealth nation. And has been successfully done here in Canada by a multitude of different people.

I do not advocate it from the perspective of non commonwealth nations because in the US for example people end up in more trouble for attempting to bring it up than not at all.

I've certainly used it myself to get out of various fines in court for nonsensical things like building permits, unfair taxation from the province/federal government and unfair or unlawful requirements for various other things like travel.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Then I'll simply address my thoughts on that one aspect - temporarily ignoring the others. My issue with the sovereign citizen thing is that in all of my research I've yet to find "proof" of it working that I haven't debunked. All videos online that purport to show a sovereign citizen victory are fallacious and can be proven false. Every one shows some guy making a loud noise in court. But if you do research you quickly find that all they accomplish is to clear courtrooms and to lose by summary judgment.

I've yet to see any proof of anybody at all winning a case - outside of maybe traffic court where a magistrate might simply drop charges to avoid the hassle of debate.

~Heff

I couldn't agree more! Lack of freedom creates fear and distrust among the populace. This gives government further excuse to limit more freedoms and use more force to do it. Its a vicious cycle that only gets worse the more it is implemented as we are well seeing today.

Maximum freedom without violating rights is always the best course!

reply to post by Hefficide


This has been verified from what I know and understand, all the documents check out.

www.fourwinds10.net...

What this person received is effectively a writ of freedom.

~Tenth

reply to post by Hefficide

I do agree with the theory of common law. The problem is that, in practice, it tends to fall apart.

You need to study history then because common law has never fallen apart. It has been dismantled by corporate statute but its principles stand solid when adhered to. It doesn't matter what system there will always be law breakers but the basic premise is no harm no crime how has that fallen apart?

Name any situation you think cannot be remedied by using that that basic premise and I will prove you wrong?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I'll have to review all of that as time permits. But upon cursory examination I see only that a person has submitted a ton of psuedo legalize documents to the Canadian government making claims.

Did I miss something? Is there any reply from the government included on that page? One which would stand as proof that the Canadian government admitted they had to accept the individuals sovereign status and that this person was, therefore, exempt from civil and criminal codes?

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Yes there is a noterized reply, officially from the government MP to declare this person as free.

Trust me Heff, I thought it was a bunch of crap when it crossed my desk a few years ago too.

Document #1 and Document #2 are the responses.

~Tenth