Meet your strawman PDF

[squark]

Quite right Wannabe,
Its just a word, maybe its best to consider the rights and duties of the individuals, rather than the Person. Try that idea in Tesco, pay the cashier not the Company, find out the hard way who stole what. Maybe it's best to pretend that Corporations, Associations and Societies don't have the right to group together to make group decisions. Rather than writing Person, maybe its easier to write club, association, company, corporation, etc, etc, etc, etc. every time.

Corporate, is that OK? It means a body, like corporeal. Its not just the fleshy thing! A body of men as well as the body of a man. A personis NOT a corporation (its more), but a corporation is a Person.

If you never accept a simple definition of a word, in context, how can you ever move onto the sentences, and paragraphs, whole books of REAL UNDERSTANDING.

What are there, about 7 definitions of Person in the dictionary. So is it not true that any of those types of Person WITHIN THE UK is subject to blah blah blah?

Is the government Person, within the UK, I wonder. If they are, then they ARE SUBJECT to ALL THE UK STATUTES. Is the UK within the Jurisdiction of the UK?
I believe that the early Statutes were intended to limit the power of the government and King. They are internal documents, for those within the society that produced them. They need to stay there and anyone who doesn't like the rules of the club should leave. Rob Menard said, its like a party, if you don't like the music, you leave through the door. We only need to know where the door is.

I don't know that "freedom" is what I want or that its achievable. I do know that I have certain rights (given to me!) and I at least can achieve the realisation of them.
If you have the right to NOT ASSOCIATE with the government of whatever society, who gives a damn if they call their group a Person.

Thanks for the "body politic" I have been looking for that phrase.

[Freeman Stephen]

Slight digression here but ...

If I write down "Every person must obey me", why is that not accepted as "the law"?

[pitano1]

because....you lack,the power to....ENFORCE...`your claim.

[Freeman Stephen]

And by power to enforce, you dont mean, the power to write down on a bit of paper that people have to pay me a fine, right? If they dont pay me a fine, the power to enforce means I can beat the fine out of people with a big stick.

The problem is that people dont like that kind of behaviour, so maybe I should write down some bullshit they dont understand, tell them that it makes my right to beat the shit completely legitimate, and shake them upside down for every penny they have while they dig through my bullshit trying to work out while my nutcase bahaviour is legitimate.

With a headfuck like that, I bet I could even get some of the idiots Im shaking to promote my legitimacy in return for shaking them a little less.

[holy vehm]

Some people obviously didn't read the terms and cons when they registered with this forum.
I suggest they do.

[pitano1]

indeed you could,if another had not already..[scuse pun]beaten you to it.
ie.her majesty`s maffia.

which leads,us back onto the subject/intrigue...how the fuck,`are the royal parasites able to record
their offspring,on unbonded,and by the looks of it...none securitised paper.

dreadlock,is of the opinion,that the answer,may lay in capitas dimunitia,or some variation of that
ie...roman law.

i have been [thinking]..about this question]...thats all.

as the saying goes...all roads lead to...ROME.

the pope holds legal title to the city of london/temple bar/crown

he has laid claim to,that he owns...all estates physical,and temporal
ie..us..body,and soul.
all property..e.t.c

in fact he makes DON..CORLEONE..look like a pussy.

we know,that one of these gangsters gave john the ponce,an offer,`he could not refuse`
in 1215.

so i wonder,if the answer,that dreadlock is seeking,may lay in the..M.C
or somehere in the big club..rule book.