The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread

By breaking the law, they are removing themselves from the law.

If someone breaches the consent of another, for example, then they are subject to criminal law--the consequences of such will likely be a breach of their own consent.

They broke the law. Or in other words, when they breached consent, they operated outside the law. They operated within the LOW.

Since they don't "understand" (in the legal sense) criminal law, then they are subject to the LOW--a breach of their consent.

By breaking the law, they are removing themselves from the law.

If someone breaches the consent of another, for example, then they are subject to criminal law--the consequences of such will likely be a breach of their own consent.

They broke the law. Or in other words, when they breached consent, they operated outside the law. They operated within the LOW.

Since they don't "understand" (in the legal sense) criminal law, then they are subject to the LOW--a breach of their consent.

so then.. your justification for being a hypocritical inconsistent 18th century throwback is,,,,, let me get this straight,,,,,, that anyone who would refuse to consent to libertarian laws can be justifiably violated in direct opposition to the first law without ACTUALLY breaking it because they don't deserve to be treated as having a will which should not be violated.

So you say that in order to uphold laws one must break them but it's justifiable because they are savages anyway so who cares right? That's an inconsistency no one will argue against because it keeps everyone safe and shit. What that doesn't clear up though is that you have taken it upon yourself to claim that you have the right to break your own laws under certain circumstances, and under those circumstances it's OK to be a hypocrite [justified inconsistency] because it's only savages after all. No one will hold that against you. Well the fuck, I WILL.

I'm right here. I don't consent to your libertarian laws. And so you would say that it's ok to violate my consent in direct violation of your first law, because I just don't the fuck matter? I live by my OWN laws, which you can only attempt to assume to know. My laws are an unknown to you. My laws may produce civilisation through avenues much different to your own. Or they may not. Whatever the case, I do not consent to your laws being enforced upon me. Thereby, this means you claim justifiable violation of my free will, breaking your first law by violating my consent but claiming that that's ok, I am a 'savage' anyway and am judged to "deserve it".. and what you need to be clear about here too is that YOU are the one violating the person's free will, not "others" in the "jungle" doing that violating FOR you. This violation occurs within your own field.

What you do is say that "it's ok for "them" to do it, and ok for me to do it to them because they do it to each other" [an assumption may I add (that they do it to each other), because you assume all other law systems are "junglejuice-retarded"]. wow, mate, sounds like a perfect defence for a bumfucking savage mud fest orgy in the barn doesn't it after cooking and eating a nice young plump girl on rolls with gravy. because after all, "they do it to each other so it's ok to do it as long as I'm doing it with [and to] them". two wongs don't make a white. lol. And if you claim that two wrongs DO make a right, but that your wrong was a right that made it right.. because you're all special and shit, then hey.... just admit it.

Good evening. (morning here)
You make good points. And I concede that there is inherent inconsistency in criminal and civil law. Therefore, I concede that you are right...however,

One operates under ("understands", in the legal sense) the law that governs their actions.

If one's actions are consistent with the LOW (strongest or sneakiest wins), then they are accountable to the LOW.

Perhaps there are no repurcussions (they "get away with it"). Perhaps they are found out.

If they are found out, then the LOW will be applied to them. They too will be subject to the strongest (law enforcement) and the sneakiest (legal system).

This seems consistent to me. Where am I wrong here?

I feel that if i keep saying where the inconsistency is that I would be repeating myself too much. my answer to your question here is exactly the same as in the last post I made: you can't operate under two sets of laws as an operator and not be inconsistent. If you operate under the libertarian system as described, then you violate it by even invoking it. If you try to invent a double screen and try to hide the violation behind a slight of hand, it doesn't make it go away. you break your own first law however you try to hide it or justify it.


you claim here that if someones actions are consistent with the law of the wild they are accountable to the law of the wild... that is YOUR judgement and ruling... it has absolutely nothing to DO with "them". Basically your descriptions of a law of the wild system is nonsense. You assume a cohesive system of punishment, just as YOUR system invokes.. you assume some kind of karmic thing going on or retribution or whatever... when there is no such thing necessarily.

They would be all like wtf are you even talking about... sovereign individuals operate a little differently to how you seem to imagine.. WE AREN'T IN THE FUCKING JUNGLE MATE. The wild isn't exclusively inhabited by savages and head hunters.. it isn't 1750 anymore. The wild harbours a much more evolved and sovereign type of soul these days.

They don't follow some automatic system that exists outside the field where libertarian laws exist. Outside of the libertarian system there are many different kinds of systems.

You say that "if they are found out the law of the wild will be applied to them".... BY WHO? BY YOU? if you apply the law of the wild to them, then you violate their consent and break your first law. it is as simple as that. And if you say that others in the "wild" will apply the punishment FOR you? you can't say that because you have no jurisdiction there. And the laws of the place are individuistic and unknown to you. whether they are violated in the 'wild' or not is unknown and uncontrollable to you.

you're fulla shit OP.

it's only free here if you pay!!!

or agree with everything the mads believe.

i got banned just because i said walking dead was a crappy show just made for sensless violence.

That a conspiracy site even rewards its members for being snitches of copyright violators is a paradox I have not yet wrapped my head around.

you're fulla shit OP.

it's only free here if you pay!!!

or agree with everything the mads believe.

i got banned just because i said walking dead was a crappy show just made for sensless violence.

yeah you're right,are we all yidiots,yid or gent which are
you,yid control or DIY what do you want,the fate of the yid
hun was sealed when David dIcke/ edgar cayce opened his mouth
on the second centenary of the yid french revolution,what's
the difference between god and yid,god wants us to be free,
creates the habitat to be so,yid doesn't,the wrathschild
yids have created a world where everyone's dependent on
money created by them,to get it we have to work for them,
we're supposed to work for god not yid bloodsucker
middlemen,see abundanthope.net/nov7 PJ228 ch3/4,the curse of
the world is people who set theirself up in authority over
others,hierarchy of fear,13 million yids control/ destroy
the world to the detriment of the rest,time we marginalised
them,they have power over us because we give them our power
by working for them,hatonn says he'll work with us not for
us,we need to do the same,must be good fun arresting folk,
handcuffing them,making their wrist hurt,locking them up,
humiliating them in a cell,raiding their premises,
confiscating their property,charging them etc,interesting
our yid government is the biggest perpetrator of crime:
killing people/ animals,flooding the country with drugs,
producing toxic food/water/air/pharmaceuticals,
indoctrinating the populace with propaganda instead of truth
etc, god determines the law not yids,see phoenix journal 27,
the nile valley is a fertile plain because it floods once a
year,you don't mess with nature,it's god at work,thanks to
the yid antichrist the planet's irreparable,interesting the
queen is a double,the british empire is the yid empire,they
control banking/the media/governments etc,start all the wars
,pollute/ destroy the planet/ us,see protocols of the
learned elders of zion,we work for yids for yid money/
vouchers to buy yid goods,all we've got to do is WITHDRAW
our manpower,their corporations including government will
collapse,then we can get on with living instead of slaving,
see ringingcedars.com,everyone selfsufficient,each community
decide its own fate,in accord with the laws of balance,see
phoenix journal 27,we don't need money/ sell something to
survive,look at other species,once there was a firmament/
belt of vapour round the earth,like venus now,protecting it
from harsh radiation and maintaining a constant temperature,
resulting in lush vegetation/ food everywhere,however it was
ruptured causing the deluge/ oceans,fortunately it's being
restored,see abundanthope.net,then we'll have perpetual
spring,the garden of eden/ aden,help yourself,everyone self
sufficient,we don't need landownership/ deforestation,
permaculture not agriculture,we don't need concrete jungle,
all construction can be underground or tree houses,eight
billion annunaki have been removed from inside the earth
which is hollow, 1k miles thick,the poles are holes, 1k
miles wide,entrances to the inner earth,see erks.org, we
don't need fossil fuel,oil is the lifeblood of the earth,the
continents float on it,electricity meters are C19th tesla
free energy generators,using magnets/ dipoles to transform
high frequency energy of the aether into low frequency
energy,see cheniere.org, people get ready for the cataclysm
say your catechism,expect TV announcements about the three
days of darkness,maybe this year,see abundanthope.net/ feb20
WAVE SYMPTOMS

They did it in hopes that they wouldn't be sued and shut down?

The LOW does imply "savagery" but with connotations aside. I mean it in the strictest sense defined as:

"outside of civil and criminal law"

I see what you mean about inconsistency, though. Even a "civilized" (again, in the strict sense and connotations aside) individual (or system) must act under the LOW in order to enforce punishment.

This, I certainly agree with. It's an unfortunate rub that has been debated many times throughout history (as you mentioned previously).

But if you recall, I mentioned that actions governed by the LOW sometimes go unpunished. People "get away with" all types of breaches of consent or contract. It happens. I certainly won't argue that it doesn't.

However, there are still natural consequences for those actions. Some examples of these natural consequences might include: Perpetrators may be compelled to hide or lie about their actions. Keeping up with lies can be mentally taxing. Perpetrators may have to flea or go into hiding. Perpetrators may suffer interpersonal reputation problems. Examples are limited only by the imagination.

Also, you said:

"Outside of the libertarian system there are many different kinds of systems."

May I have some examples?