QLD Where is the evidence?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
No one is 'free'. We're all bound by laws. Anyone who disagrees may jump in the air and debate the topic with the law of gravity at their leisure.
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney
So we are not born free?
Not in the way you think and mean in the quoted post.
You are subject to law from the moment of your birth.
Your consent is not required, and you cannot opt out of it.

You would save us all some time and effort if you ask the question to which you really want an answer.
 

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
No one is 'free'. We're all bound by laws. Anyone who disagrees may jump in the air and debate the topic with the law of gravity at their leisure.

Debating with gravity is somewhat a mute point. As gravity is a law laid down by the creator that man is subject to. REAL laws cannot be broken. Man is "apparently" made in the image of the creator. We have the gift of the ability to create whatever we see fit. If we are all indeed equal or laws, statutes or codes must therefore be by consent. Contract=Law, Law=Contract.
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
Debating with gravity is somewhat a mute point.

So is debating the fundamentals powers of the justice system, hence my analogy.

We have the gift of the ability to create whatever we see fit.

That's overreaching a bit. However, if true, we also have the ability to create laws which bind our fellow man.

If we are all indeed equal or laws, statutes or codes must therefore be by consent. Contract=Law, Law=Contract.

That's a spurious leap of logic. We're not all equal. Whether good or bad, I think that is readily apparent in society. All men may be created equal, but what happens after that precise moment in time drastically changes things.

In any case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You live in society and partake of its benefits (eg defence force, police force, healthcare, transport infrastructure, trade from other countries, telecommunications networks and so on), you're agreeing to abide by that society's rules. It's a package deal, all in. There's your consent.

That's all I've got to say on the matter, because this thread has probably already sailed past the limits of the terms of use for this site. If you have an actual legal question that doesn't seek to challenge the established, generally accepted framework, then carry on. Otherwise, you may be best suited finding a forum on jurisprudence.
 

qarmatian

Well-Known Member
18 June 2017
16
4
74
Power comes at the barrel of a gun (Mao Zedong). So do the laws that come with it.

Traditionally the common law courts took a very limited view of their own jurisdiction. A person couldn't be subject to the criminal law if during arraignment he didn't give a plea of guilty or innocence. The courts still had the power to lay heavy stones on him until he either submitted to the court's jurisdiction or died, which was perfectly legal until the 1700's.

Which takes me back to the Mao Zedong point. A Tibetan may dispute the jurisdiction of China's laws upon himself but it doesn't change the reality of Chinese power and law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cuttyshatface

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
So is debating the fundamentals powers of the justice system, hence my analogy.



That's overreaching a bit. However, if true, we also have the ability to create laws which bind our fellow man.



That's a spurious leap of logic. We're not all equal. Whether good or bad, I think that is readily apparent in society. All men may be created equal, but what happens after that precise moment in time drastically changes things.

In any case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You live in society and partake of its benefits (eg defence force, police force, healthcare, transport infrastructure, trade from other countries, telecommunications networks and so on), you're agreeing to abide by that society's rules. It's a package deal, all in. There's your consent.

That's all I've got to say on the matter, because this thread has probably already sailed past the limits of the terms of use for this site. If you have an actual legal question that doesn't seek to challenge the established, generally accepted framework, then carry on. Otherwise, you may be best suited finding a forum on jurisprudence.
Ok, Point taken. Thank you for all the time and effort you have dedicated to responding to my issues.