Bad news for the free lunch crowd. . .

[arayder]

There's a couple of freemen gurus whose favorite theory is that they own a piece of their country and want get paid for allowing the government the use their property.

Inorder to give the theory credibility these layabout gurus content that governments are well aware of this "freeman truth" and are therefore exploring the idea of providing their citizens with guaranteed incomes. I will leave it to the reader to figure out how this makes sense in the mind of freeman gurus.

But the bad news is that Swiss voters overhelmingly rejected a referendum that would have made Switzerland the first country to guarantee a month income to all of its residents!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss ... SKCN0YR0CW

Nearly 77% of Swiss voters said "no"!

So what chance does the idea have in the rest of the western democracies which, unlike Switzerland, aren't direct democracies?

[Hanslune]

Amusing but didn't some communist government provide a standard dole to their populace?

[JamesVincent]

Don't know about a "communist" country but check out some of the entitlement programs in France and wonder why so many business and community leaders have left France for more friendly waters. IIRC some of the ones a past employer told me were you could not be evicted for non payment of rent, mandatory 5 weeks of paid vacation per year, unlimited unemployment, maternity and child care funding (not paid leave, actual money given to the parents for having children), and the list goes on. When my former employment left France he was a restauranteur who, between the government and the mob, could not manage to make much money even though his place grossed over a mill per year, by the time he paid for all his employee's benefits he was broke. And let's not even get started on the Algiers issues.

edit: By the way, he was one of the former owners of Crazy Horse.

[arayder]

The irony here is that the residents of communist and socialist states enjoy the sort of state sponsored financial support the above mentioned freeman gurus believe should also be theirs.

Of course, these men and women are intertwined with the state in a manner most freemen say they wouldn't stand for.

One wonders if freemen gurus pushing the notion that they have a government security account have considered the joinder created by signing up for and, like good little European socialists, dutifully collecting their government check.

What some folks will do for a few free Moose Heads, eh?

[eric]

I agree with arrayder on the subject of creating joinder. How will they wrap their little heads around this awkward concept? The whole problem with the minimum income plan I believe is insufficient proof, or analysis, of whether or not it even works in the particular geographic region where it is employed and the devil is in the details. Here are a couple of links to some experiments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_Annual_Income
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
I'm not going to say yea or nay until someone has tried it out. As an aside, since my wife is disabled, my family unit is on a form of provincially controlled minimum basic income. Could our family survive with their basic government dole? Probably only by living very frugally. As it is now, roughly 30% to 50% of my income is clawed back from her disability benefits so I'm working for free much of the time, but saving money fro the taxpayers.

[arayder]

I agree with arrayder on the subject of creating joinder. How will they wrap their little heads around this awkward concept?

The prime proponent of the "security of the person" theory likes to fantasize that with a government check in their pockets freemen would be free to pursue their passions. I content that being free men, freemen are free to do so right now!

The embarrassing contradiction is that by embracing the absurd "security of the person" theory freemen gurus and their mindless minions are admitting that they can't get motivated to follow their dreams unless the government empowers them to do so. "Make me a sandwich and give me a Moose Head and then I'll start writing that song."

I content that the freeman movement has never gotten anywhere, and never will, precisely because its members can't focus and get off their duffs. At the core of the movement freemen claim to have mastered is western law, but the fact is they don't have the simplest grasp of what the law is.

[notorial dissent]

It is not so much that they DO NOT have a grasp of the law, as in that they DO NOT have a grasp of reality. You really have to have the one before you can even start on the other. In this they are a double fail.

[arayder]

It is not so much that they DO NOT have a grasp of the law, as in that they DO NOT have a grasp of reality. You really have to have the one before you can even start on the other. In this they are a double fail.

IMHO, the freeman "security of the person" theory is a stunning betrayal of the movement's claim to do no harm.

By this absurd theory a nation and it people toil to build wealth only to have it stolen by a bunch of cowardly layabouts who, when it suits their needs, claim not to be a part of the very nation they are stealing from.

It's like having the beer bloated good for nothing SOB from down the street walk into your garage and steal your tools while you are out in the backyard improving your property.

It's theft. . . pure and simple. The freeman gurus who promote the theory are nothing more than petty, punk would be (if they had the stones) thieves mascarading as modern day keyboard Robin Hoods.

[arayder]

It would appear that the author of the seriously lame "security of the person" theory can't figure out what he's talking about from one day to the next.

One day he's pitching the "security of the person" theory which contents that section 7 of the Canadian Constitution means that each Canadian has a secret income generating security account which he is denied access to or income from. The next day he's talking about the ACCP (read: phony credit). The next day it's the A4V (read: theft by fraud).

Had our subject bothered to do any research at all he'd know that the phrase "security of the person" refers not to an investment account, but to the right of individuals to life, liberty, property and due process of law. Our layabout liar says he got the endorsement of his theory from his lawyer sister, Eliane. . .but we all know that's just another lie with a funny cap on it.

Now our addled pseudo-scholar says he's just talking about a government garuanteed income. Of course, he hasn't bothered to tell his few remaining minions that to get the money they'd have to create joiner with the government, including getting their government issued numbers and documents together. . .thus becoming the government's good little planation slaves.

Get in the government cheese line, freemen. Your movement has come full circle.