RU & TB

[Dale Eastman]

Limiting practical citizen choices to two political parties is, perhaps, the biggest part of the problem.  Once empowered by a mere plurality of voters either will claim a mandate, which will be abused.  Reagan Republicans need a separate political party from Trump Republicans. Sanders Democrats need a separate party from Biden Democrats. Also needed: viable options for Libertarians, Greens and others. None of the above should be able to govern without a coalition.  Begin reforms with ranked choice voting and proportional representation.

[Of course there are other serious problems, but this one should be given high priority.]

IMO it is plain from first principles that if we want control of our government we must get control of our vote. That we can't MAKE any legislative reform STICK as long as the incumbents are picking and choosing which votes to count. Which they are doing openly, via the general ban on write-in voting. NC Statute 163-123 (enacted 1987).

Therefore, IMO, reclaiming our power to elect whichever eligible person we might want, stands alone as the most urgent of all legislative reforms - electoral or other.

If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death.

If you vote for a politician to become a Mayor, Governor, or President,
You vote for a person to enforce the rules made by Legislators.
You vote for somebody to make people obey or kill people if they resist.

Thus, If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.

Carlo Gambino or Vito Genovese.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
Choose your next criminal syndicate extortion ruler.

Rulers rule. Leaders lead.
What's the difference?

Rulers lock you in a cage or kill you if you don't obey.

If you think you are voting for a leader, you're an idiot.

Your mutual defense compact your way, mine my way. Mine's good enough that the tyrant routinely has to violate most of its stipulations.

I 'fess to being confused. Dunno if you and I are on the same side or opposite sides.

We both want all of our rights all the time. But you feel a need to insult me for trying to enforce my mutual defense compact, the Constitution, while I don't question whatever yours is.

Thank you for the elucidation.
I was correct in targeting your words conveying your thinking. You did indeed indicate that you believe v****g makes a difference. I disagree.

[...]

I will note we do not have a meeting of minds in Re: v****g Nor the CONstitution. Tag me if we are going to continue the discussion.

If free elections couldn't change anything they would be legal. But, I didn't ask for a meeting of the minds. I just ask for you to honor my choice of mutual defense contract as I honor whatever yours is.

➽ If free elections couldn't change anything they would be legal.

That tells me that you are in fact, aware of the corrupt system. Note I said corrupt system and not corruption in the system.

➽ I just ask for you to honor my choice of mutual defense contract [...]

I neither honor, nor dishonor what you choose so long as it doesn't present a threat to me and mine.
What you have cited as "your" choice is four sheets of parchment. What you have chosen is the CONstitution.
That is the reason why I have poked my nose into your business as presented in the public Liberty Square. (Liberty Square meaning any place Liberty is discussed.)

The last paragraph of a book written in 1870...

⚠ Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.⛔

https://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm

"Note I said corrupt system and not corruption in the system."
You're free to call the contract inherently corrupt. (I'm not trying to sell you on it. I'm just trying to explain why I disagree with your unsolicited opinion that I'm an idiot for endorsing it.) But I wasn't talking about its inherent aspects. I was talking about a VIOLATION of it, at the root, by openly falsifying vote tallies. That didn't start until 1987.

(Numerous previous serious violations also happened, but I wasn't talking about them either.)

"so long as it doesn't present a threat to me and mine."

You need to address those concerns with YOUR mutual defense co-contractors.
You decline to contract with me on my terms to help secure your rights, remember? Therefore you LACK STANDING to take issue with me on repelling such threats.

That is, if you really are THAT aghast at things like compensated eminent domain, mandatory jury service (easiest thing in the world to get out of, just say you support jury power to veto bad statute) - and having to pay something rather than nothing for legitimate rights-guarding services of police, courts and military.
"It has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."
Contracts don't enforce themselves. The people failed to enforce the Constitution. It is almost entirely suspended now. So rejoice, you denouncers of it.

Dale is building a strawman as Lysander did.
The constitution is a set of instructions which when followed result in more liberty and therefore more happiness than any others that have been tried as far as I know.
Having failed to follow the instructions Dale now wants to blame them for his misery.
It reminds.me of the people who call the totally regulated system we have now capitalism and then condemn the notion of capitalism.

I called voters idiots. You have identified yourself as a voter by choosing to be insulted. Therefore, you have identified yourself as a "Statist". I do not use the word in its guise as an insulting epithet, I use it in its purely descriptive form.

I shed my statist thinking when I shed the State's indoctrination. I started shedding the State's indoctrination by thinking about what the State and Statists claim. In doing that thinking I started "drilling down" on what is claimed. Prior to that, I was what I called a "strict Constitutionalist". At that time I "believed" the bullshit presented to me in 8th through 12th grade.

➽ Your mutual defense compact your way, mine my way. Mine's good enough that the tyrant routinely has to violate most of its stipulations.

If "your" "mutual defense compact" is so good why does "the tyrant routinely [...] violate most of its stipulations"?

Who, specifically, it "the tyrant"?

Which specific stipulations are being violated?

I'll come back to your claim that it's "your" mutual defense compact.

➽ We both want all of our rights all the time.

"Rights"... Are a mental construct. Concept to be expanded later.

➽ But you feel a need to insult me for trying to enforce my mutual defense compact, the Constitution, while I don't question whatever yours is.

Incorrect. I was insulting the voting sheep. You chose to identify with such idiots doing such idiocy.

You therefore have identified yourself as a threat to me and mine. Which I will explain, though not directly, by having an interactive examination of the State's indoctrination with you... If you can overcome the cognitive dissonance such a discussion will cause within you. And in doing so, I will expose the idiocy of voting, thus showing why voting is indoctrinated idiocy.

The fact that you already feel personally insulted suggests to me that if your skin is so thin, you are not going to like my simple questions about what you believe.

➽ If free elections couldn't change anything they would be legal.

I misread these words the first time. So setting aside what I errantly parsed the first time...

What, specifically, do you mean by "free elections"?
What, specifically, did you imply couldn't be changed with free elections?

➽ But, I didn't ask for a meeting of the minds.

To paraphrase Voltaire's Admonition, If you wish to communicate, define your terms. I did. I do. I ask questions to get to the definitions of the words used. That is the first meeting of minds. Truly understanding what others mean and intend by the specific words they use. People who like to equivocate (not be challenged on their... confused thoughts) don't like my questions and quickly quit the discussion.

➽ I just ask for you to honor my choice of mutual defense contract as I honor whatever yours is.

Your choice of mutual defense contract is used by the criminal syndicate called government to do just the opposite of defend. That is why your "belief" is a threat to me and mine. I will explain my conclusion and evidence of exactly how your mutual defense contract initiates violence and harm to innocents provided you are capable of overcoming the cognitive dissonance I know I will cause. The reason I know this is because when these concepts were presented to me, I had cognitive dissonance triggered in me. That's what happens when one's beliefs, one world view, is irrefutably shown to be incorrect.

➽ You're free to call the contract inherently corrupt.

Am I going to be free to prove it to you?

➽ (I'm not trying to sell you on it. I'm just trying to explain why I disagree with your unsolicited opinion that I'm an idiot for endorsing it.)

Your "unsolicited opinion" that voting is good showed up in my feed. You are not having a private conversation. You are in effect, taking turns with others, standing on the apple crate in a virtual public square, proclaiming your points of view. Well, I'm in the virtual public square now to challenge your proclaimed beliefs. Deal with it.

➽ But I wasn't talking about its inherent aspects. I was talking about a VIOLATION of it, at the root, by openly falsifying vote tallies.

Translating what you just said, be doing a little transposing of your words with your definitions, yields the following:

But I wasn't talking about [the constitution's] inherent aspects. I was talking about a VIOLATION of [the constitution],  at the root, by openly falsifying vote tallies.

As Ron Popeil would say, "But wait! There's more."

But I wasn't talking about [my mutual defense contract's] inherent aspects. I was talking about a VIOLATION of [my mutual defense contract],  at the root, by openly falsifying vote tallies.

Your words. I submit that there might be some more cogitation required for clarity in presenting your claims.

➽ That [openly falsifying vote tallies] didn't start until 1987.

Internal fraud of a fraudulent system. Sorry, while cheating in a game is unsportsmanlike conduct, playing a corrupt game is a bigger problem.

➽ You decline to contract with me on my terms to help secure your rights, remember? Therefore you LACK STANDING to take issue with me on repelling such threats.

You keep using that term "contract". I don't think you understand what that means.

You are supporting the threat that needs to be repelled. In doing so now, you are being nescient. After we discuss the criminal activities of the government, if you continue, then you will be ignorant.

➽ That is, if you really are THAT aghast at [...] having to pay [...] for legitimate rights-guarding services of police, courts and military.

Legitimate is a lawyer word. Non-bogus is a better word simply because "BOGUS" is a better descriptive word for "illegitimate".

The illegitimate, that is, The BOGUS claim that police do "rights-guarding services" if provably refutable and refuted. See next post.

As for the courts... They're government also.

I have federal rules of evidence 602, personal first hand knowledge of the court's corruption. Maybe I'll explain in another post. Maybe I won't. I'll have to explain the alleged purpose of government so to set the stage to present how the court violated its purpose.

That alleged purpose, "rights-guarding services", is violated daily, with impunity, by government.

As for the military, I am LESS safe now because of the U.S. government's use of the military to cause "collateral damage", that is, to kill innocent civilians, adult and child alike, that had NOTHING to do with attacking the alleged freedoms of the people of the United States. And the U.S. just keeps droning on.

Contracts don't enforce themselves. The people failed to enforce the Constitution. It is almost entirely suspended now. So rejoice, you denouncers of it.

You keep using that term "contract". I don't think you understand what that means.

Who are the parties to this "contract"?

XXXXXXX If you can see this, I figure you'll enjoy reading it.

No Duty To Protect

The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔

In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.

The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.⛔

"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
⚠ A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.⛔

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
⚠ We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.⛔

The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.

Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
⚠ Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. ⛔

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?

➽ is building a strawman

What, specifically, are you claiming is the point I am deliberately missing, deliberately not addressing?

➽ The constitution is a set of instructions which when followed result in more liberty and therefore more happiness than any others that have been tried as far as I know.

So far as you know. I know otherwise.

➽ Having failed to follow the instructions Dale now wants to blame them for his misery.

You have made a claim. I challenge that claim.

What, specifically, are these instructions you allege. Please cite them.

The point you are missing is the system. (The demopublican administration) is not a constitutional syatem. You call me a voter but the demopublicans refuse to count my vote. I am or was attempting to assert some control. That attempt is undermined by those who refuse to respect the constitution. That includes both the demopublicans and you. You are at least honest enough to state your disrespect for my rights openly.
The constitution took the US from covered wagons to the moon in less than 200 years. Its abandonment since should return us to covered wagons even more quickly.
What do you know otherwise?

My claim is that you never followed the instructions in the constitution. Now you ask me to cite them. They are in writing. Google US Constitution. I am not going to type the thing here.

I'll start with your second post first.

➽ My claim is that you never followed the instructions in the constitution.

⚠ Definition of instruction

1a instructions plural : an outline or manual of technical procedure : directions
b : a direction calling for compliance : order —usually used in plural // had instructions not to admit strangers
c : a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation
d : precept // prevailing cultural instructions⛔

Let's see how your sentence transforms with a dictionary to refer to...

1a[...] you never followed the [outline or manual of technical procedure] in the constitution.
1b[...] you never followed the [direction calling for compliance] in the constitution.
1c[...] you never followed the [code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation] in the constitution.
1d[...] you never followed the [prevailing cultural instructions] in the constitution.

So which one is what you claim?

➽ Now you ask me to cite them. They are in writing.

There are 4724 words in the CONstitution. You have claimed there are "Instructions" in the CONstitution. You made the claim. The burden of proof is yours.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. Also known as "shifting the burden of proof".
Quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.

I ask so that I may understand your thinking. I ask so that no ambiguity can cause a misunderstanding. I ask so that no equivocation can cause a misunderstanding.

➽ I am not going to type the thing here.

You have NOT been asked to type the entire CONstitution here. Only the instructions you claim I never followed. My question still stands: What, specifically, are these instructions you allege? Please cite them.

Your failure or refusal to even attempt to support your claim evidences your intent to not communicate.

➽ The point you are missing is the system.

Um.... No. The "system" as you call it, is clearly in my sight. And the "system" is provably corrupt. So what I wrote to RU about cognitive dissonance applies to you also.

➽ (The demopublican administration) is not a constitutional syatem.

Uh huh. Here's the last sentence in that paragraph you didn't bother to read the first time:

⚠ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.⛔

➽ You call me a voter but the demopublicans refuse to count my vote.

I call you a voter because you vote.

➽ I am or was attempting to assert some control.

Pasting from my website: With 129,085,403 voters turning out in the 2012 election, How much your vote mattered was 0.000,000,0077%. The greater the turnout, the less your vote matters. So I'm going to guess that 0.000,000,0077% is higher than your vote mattered in the 2020 popularity contest.

You are not even contributing to making stone soup with your 0.000,000,0077% attempt to assert some control.

➽ That attempt is undermined by those who refuse to respect the constitution.

Wait! What? I'm supposed to respect a piece of parchment that says the criminal syndicate called government is allowed to rob me by extortion?

➽ You are at least honest enough to state your disrespect for my rights openly.

Now there you go making unsupported assertions again.

What rights, specifically, are you claiming I am disrespecting?
Am I correct that by you claiming I am "disrespecting" your rights, you are  claiming I am "violating" your rights?
What rights, specifically, are you claiming I am violating?

➽ The constitution took the US from covered wagons to the moon in less than 200 years.

Really? Four sheets of parchment did something other than just be looked at? Four sheets of parchment grew a brain and designed the Saturn V rocket? Four sheets of parchment grew fingers and built the Saturn V?

➽ What do you know otherwise?

⚠ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.⛔

Details to follow in discussion. If the Cognitive Dissonance I'm going to make you feel doesn't make you go away.

PJ's original post is about electoral/VOTING reform. But PJ loves one of Dale's comments that seek take me to task for STAYING ON TOPIC. I guess so Dale can tag his friends to come watch him quote Spooner. More later.

Thank you. Just make sure you tag me so I know you have replied. I don't care if "later" is tomorrow or next month.

As you point out, the original post is about "Blah blah voting blah blah."

As you may have figured out by now, I have a narrative and agenda. And they are both connected to the reality of what government "IS".

Part of that narrative is the fact that the dumb masses do NOT understand "liberty".

Dale
Every one of the Constitution's 306 "shalls" is an instruction.

And your evidence that any of them apply to me?

The first definition will do let us take the 4th amendment as an example of one of the instructions.

I am communicating as well as I can. So far I have experienced no cognitive dissonance so don't concern yourself.

The point you are missing is that the system you are attacking is not the system I am defending.
I believe when you say the 4th is provably corrupt you are talking about the instances that the instruction is not followed not the instruction itself. You did not follow the instruction yet you condemn it.

This nation did much better at obeying the instructions during the first two hundred years than after. Though there are some glaring exceptions. As the people forgot the principles it was based on they got worse at following the instructions. And then they mostly forgot the instructions altogether. Resulting in the present mess.

By voting I may be trying to assert some control over the govt.

You show your ignorance trotting out the presidential election to discredit my share of influence. The constitution does not provide for me to have any direct influence there. My direct influence on the federal government is excersized by my vote for my US House representative. Where the founders directed it to be diluted to no less than one in thirty thousand. (Another ignored instruction)

My major influence was to be done at the state level. The federal govt was to guarantee it would be representative. But as I mentioned my state feels no obligation to count my vote. Another ignored instruction.

By the way you keep insisting on proof. I get that a lot from demopublicans who do not demand it from their own leaders. And I do not see you demanding it from Spooner. But you imply that proof would have an impact on your thinking. Inevitably when I go to the work and effort to provide it I am told oh yeah that. That does not really matter. It is this other thing that matters.

So while I agree there has always been some fudging on following the constitutional instructions we used to do better and to the degree that we did our lives were improved.

For instance states really did pay in gold or silver on their debts and our economy was better for it. Or they really did have to get and present a warrant before breaking in. So we had fewer Brionna Taylors. That isn't tl say warrantless searches never happened. But when caught there were consequences. As recently as 1972 a sitting president was forced to resign for trying to cover up a warrantless search. And the agents were jailed.

Dale, hi, I'm resetting my focus, to your very first paragraph to me.

"If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death."

Prove that's true no matter which constitutionally electable person I cast my ballot for. Prove that every registered voter who is American enough, old enough, resident enough, and criminally innocent enough for the office, is a death-dealing dictator at heart.

Maybe start with every such voter you know.

Could you love such a closet dictator, if you knew that's what they were?

Is there no registered voter you love?

➽ The point you are missing is that the system you are attacking is not the system I am defending.

Now that would be a communication error, wouldn't it?

Voltaire's admonition, define terms to communicate.

A system is a group of interacting or interrelated entities that form a unified whole. A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. Wiki.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are claiming that the CONstitution is the system. I submit that the CONstitution is a subcomponent of the system called government. That CONstitution created the system of government... The corrupt, criminal system called government. So here's Spooner again, for the fourth time:

⚠ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.⛔

➽ I believe when you say the 4th is provably corrupt you are talking about the instances that the instruction is not followed not the instruction itself.

You err in saying I specified the 4th as corrupt... But no matter. You and I will get our communications hashed out. That being said, I'm putting the 4th on the table right here, right now, so there is not confusion about its words.

⚠ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.⛔

I submit that searches and seizures are all unreasonable. Why do I conclude this position? Three words...

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

By what authority are the members of the criminal syndicate called government allowed to search "persons, houses, papers, and effects" in the first place?

Who decides what is allowed to be searched for?

➽ I believe when you say the 4th [amendment] is provably corrupt you are talking about the instances that the instruction is not followed not the instruction itself. You did not follow the instruction yet you condemn it.

"You believe". I accept your admission that you are not sure of what I am talking about. Which I did attempt to flesh out just above.

Now, unfortunately, I must take you to task for missing an important small thing. You claim that I "did not follow the instruction". Do you have any evidence to prove I was involved in any government search and seizure action? As a member of the criminal syndicate called government? I hope the last two questions help you sort out your thinking on that item.

➽ This nation did much better at obeying the instructions during the first two hundred years than after.

Who, specifically, is "this nation"?
Who, specifically, "did much better at obeying the instructions"?

➽ By voting I may be trying to assert some control over the govt.

May be?
You don't know IF you are trying?
Consider:
I may be trying to catch little errors of this nature in my writing.
I am trying to catch little errors of this nature in my writing.
This is NOT about you making such a small error. This is about helping you and R.U. understand how I think. I don't even consider typographic errors unless I can't figure out what was meant to be presented.
/digression.

Yes, I understand that you believe you are attempting to exert control over a government that most certainly does exert greater control over you.

➽ You show your ignorance trotting out the presidential election to discredit my share of influence.

Do you understand that a 1:1 parity of somebody else voting opposite your vote cancels BOTH your votes to a nullity?

➽ My direct influence on the federal government is excersized by my vote for my US House representative.

Copied from my website:

⚠ You have been taught to believe that you have a right to vote to choose a Representative. There are logical flaws and delusions in this fairy tale.

Imagine two candidates trying to get elected. Candidate A is running on an anti-Lilac platform and has promised to enact legislation making it illegal to have Lilac bushes growing in your yard. Candidate B is running on a pro-Lilac platform and has promised to oppose any anti-Lilac legislation.

If the anti-Lilac Candidate wins, then the anti-Lilac majority of voters will have representation in Congress; the pro-Lilac voters will not have any representation in Congress.

Conversely; If the pro-Lilac Candidate wins, then the pro-Lilac majority of voters will have representation and the anti-Lilac minority of voters will not.

The majority controls who is going to allegedly represent the minority.

As a matter of logic, the winning candidate can not and does not represent the losing voters. So much for No Taxation Without Representation fairy tale.

Continuing the examination of voting for a Representative:

An elected alleged Representative will write, dicker, and then vote with other alleged Representatives regarding a new law and if 51% of the alleged Representatives voting agree that thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property, then that is the law and thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property.

In legal terms, such laws are known as a malum prohibitum laws.

Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, (by virtue of being a politician's opinion) as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

There are many laws that are functionally the same as this hypothetical anti-Lilac law in the law books commanding that acts or omissions are illegal because of some politician's written opinions; Act or omissions that do not cause harm to any other human in that society.

Any person who represents another is called an agent. The person being represented is called the principal.

In a true principal - agent relationship, the agent can not command the principal. The agent is required to obey the principal's wishes and protect the principal's interests. Also, if the agent fails to represent the principal and the principal's interests, the principal can terminate the agent's employment immediately.

Calling Congressional Legislators "Representatives" is a lie, regardless of the dictionary definitions doing just that. Newspeak anyone?

The term newspeak was coined by George Orwell in his 1949 anti-utopian novel 1984. In Orwell's fictional totalitarian state, Newspeak was a language favored by the minions of Big Brother and, in Orwell's words, designed to diminish the range of thought. Newspeak was characterized by the elimination or alteration of certain words, the substitution of one word for another, the interchangeability of parts of speech, and the creation of words for political purposes. The word has caught on in general use to refer to confusing or deceptive bureaucratic jargon.

Legislators can not be immediately terminated for failing to protect any voter's interests. True representative agents can not command their principals, which is exactly what Legislators do with their laws. Laws that Legislators enact are commands.

So why call them Representatives?
They're not and they don't.
So why vote for them?

The record of alleged Representatives sure looks to me like they just do what they want anyway.⛔

My major influence was to be done at the state level. The federal govt was to guarantee it would be representative. But as I mentioned my state feels no obligation to count my vote.

I don't think I need to repeat my conclusion about voting.

Cut comment here because of FecesBook 8,000 character limit.

➽ By the way you keep insisting on proof. I get that a lot from demopublicans who do not demand it from their own leaders. And I do not see you demanding it from Spooner. But you imply that proof would have an impact on your thinking. Inevitably when I go to the work and effort to provide it I am told oh yeah that. That does not really matter. It is this other thing that matters.

Yes. I demand proof.

You just spent a paragraph of words venting, equivocating, and projecting that I am the same as the "demopublicans", triggered by your interactions with them. (Your word "demopublicans" implies, that is parses in my mind, that you see both parties as much the same. If so, I agree.)

So yes. I demand proof of your claim that I am like "them", the "demopublicans". I also submit evidence in refutation. You did submit proof as you see it in regard to the 4th amendment above and I did not directly say "That does not really matter." I answered WHY I don't see that it matters.


➽ So while I agree there has always been some fudging on following the constitutional instructions we used to do better and to the degree that we did our lives were improved.

I understand your observation and intent. I used to be what I called a Constitutionalist. Then deep thinking brought me to understanding what liberty actually is. This understanding plus Spooner's writing and countless other thought provoking liberty tidbits has brought me to the conclusion that those who believe as you do, and I did, have been indoctrinated.

I'm only going to address your last paragraph with, We do see a lot of the same problems.

With that said, we do not agree as to the root causes of those problems, nor do we agree on the solutions.

Now, with all that written, I want to thank you for engaging in a discussion of substance... And chide you for claiming I was "building a strawman."

And just so you know, I've over two hours in thinking about and writing this comment.

"If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death."

➽ Prove that's true no matter which constitutionally electable person I cast my ballot for. Prove that every registered voter who is American enough, old enough, resident enough, and criminally innocent enough for the office, is a death-dealing dictator at heart.

Yes! Another discussion of substance. And thank you for that.

So the first thing I must address is your constraint: "a death-dealing dictator at heart."

As I pointed out earlier, there's a difference between nescience and ignorance.

⚠  nescience
n. Absence of knowledge or awareness; ignorance.
n. Agnosticism.
n. The state of not knowing; lack of knowledge; ignorance.⛔

⚠  ignorance
n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
n. The state of being ignorant; want of knowledge in general, or concerning some particular matter; the condition of not being cognizant, informed, or aware.
n. The condition of being ignorant; the lack of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.⛔

Since one can choose to ignore, I view ignorance as a deliberate choice as compared to not knowing. And the problem with that is that one (myself and others) do not know of what they do not know.

⚠ Assuming arguendo allows an attorney to examine the conclusions of premises without admitting that these premises—often the asserted facts of the opposing party—could be true.⛔

Assuming arguendo that you are "criminally innocent enough for the office", I will use you as the example to show the difference between you being nescient and deliberately ignorant.

I have found in my life that when something goes without saying, I must be said and it must be said quite LOUDLY and with EMPHASIS!

So Mr. Legislator, you, (and your fellow legislators), have just passed a law. Law XYZ proscribes a command that other people are expected to obey. Law XYZ also prescribes a penalty for violating law XYZ, that is, for not obeying law XYZ.

Lets say the law proscribes chewing gum on Wednesday(s). A liberty minded person calls the law a tyrant's command and refuses to obey it. On a Wednesday the LMP walks up to a cop, sticks a piece of gum in his mouth and starts chewing it.

Setting aside Dr. Robert Higgins definitive answer about good or bad cops, what's this cop, whose job is to enforce laws, to do? Arrest the Perp, Mr. LMP. But Mr. LMP is not going to allow himself to be arrested. Now what happens?

From the National Institute of Justice (dot) gov website, and mirrored on mine:

⚠ The Use-of-Force Continuum

Most law enforcement agencies have policies that guide their use of force. These policies describe a escalating series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation. This continuum generally has many levels, and officers are instructed to respond with a level of force appropriate to the situation at hand, acknowledging that the officer may move from one part of the continuum to another in a matter of seconds.

Officer Presence — No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation.
The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation.
Officers' attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.
Verbalization — Force is not-physical.
Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as "Let me see your identification and registration."
Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance.
Short commands might include "Stop," or "Don't move."
Empty-Hand Control — Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation.
Soft technique. Officers use grabs, holds and joint locks to restrain an individual.
Hard technique. Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.
Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.
Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person.
Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray).
Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.
Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.
Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual's actions.
⛔

All laws are comply or die.
That goes without saying, and yet I must say it:
ALL LAWS ARE COMPLY OR DIE.

➽ Could you love such a closet dictator, if you knew that's what they were?

Could you?

➽ Is there no registered voter you love?

What do you think the answer to your question is?

You are no longer nescient.

38

"So yes. I demand proof of your claim that I am like 'them', the 'demopublicans'."
You're both enemies of the Constitution. 🙂

>>> If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death.

>> Prove that's true no matter which constitutionally electable person I cast my ballot for. Prove that every registered voter who is American enough, old enough, resident enough, and criminally innocent enough for the office, is a death-dealing dictator at heart.

> I must address [your] constraint: 'a death-dealing dictator at heart.'

Poetic hyperbole by me. I certainly didn't need the long side lecture that laws get enforced at gunpoint when necessary. I've frequently said the last six words of every statute should be required to be OR WE WILL FUCKING KILL YOU.

More to my intended point, just start by proving I didn't vote for someone who would UNdraft and REPEAL rules.

For instance what if I voted for myself for Lt. Gov. last Nov., so I could get busy undoing gun-backed rules against victimless behaviors? Both in the legislature as Prez of state Senate, and in the executive as a Council of State member with a lot of say over use-of-force policy.

> Assuming arguendo that you are "criminally innocent enough for the office"

The term in quotes was just my way of referring to the Constitution's rqmt that felons still under sentence aren't electable.

> So Mr. Legislator, you, (and your fellow legislators), have just passed a law. Law XYZ proscribes a command that other people are expected to obey. Law XYZ also prescribes a penalty for violating law XYZ, that is, for not obeying law XYZ.

Yep. And we're calling this one the Thou Shalt Not Murder Act. Informally subtitled Dale's Law. We're a conniving bunch of syndicate criminals that way.

> Lets say the law proscribes chewing gum on Wednesday(s).

There you go again. PRESUMING the person I voted for is going to initiate force rather than secure rights - in order to PROVE the person I voted for is going to initiate force.

> what's this cop, whose job is to enforce laws, to do?

He is to live up to his oath of office. He is to enforce the supreme law of the land instead of the illegal chewing-gum statute. The supreme law says no person shall be deprived of chewing-gum liberty or chewing-gum property or chewing-gum pursuit of happiness except by a court order. For instance if you put chewing gum in my hair, you might get convicted of criminal mischief or simple battery, and thereupon get sentenced to stop being in possession of chewing gum. Chewing gum would become validly illegal FOR YOU.

The statute in your hypothetical fails legality by being a mere legislative order. Enactments are not due process.

That is is an example of TB's point that the system you're attacking is not the system he and I are defending.

But you used to be a Constitutionalist? Funny, I used to be a principled non-voter. I made and taped up signs in my college library in fall 1984, "This year, DON'T VOTE, it only encourages them." One fellow student was so horrified, she ripped one down right after I put it up.
You and I are each trying to teach the other, 'You have strayed from your correct earlier leanings.'

[Dale Eastman]

Methinks the fact that you and I are not so different as I first perceived your words to indicate, presently indicates a possible perception error on my part. Plus the fact that you are directly, and logically, challenging my position, narrative, and agenda... That earns you a +respect. And makes me quietly lament the lack of such by others. So I end up thanking you for such polite discourse, because it makes you stand out.

➽ You're both enemies of the Constitution. 🙂

Thanks for the smiley. Appreciate the friendly challenge.

Okay. I'm no more anti-government than government is anti people.
I don't know, nor do I accept the claim of being an enemy of the CONstitution, per se. (We generally use per se to distinguish between something in its narrow sense and some larger thing that it represents. Merriam-Webster.)

➽ Poetic hyperbole by me. I certainly didn't need the long side lecture that laws get enforced at gunpoint when necessary. I've frequently said the last six words of every statute should be required to be OR WE WILL FUCKING KILL YOU

⚠ hyperbole
n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
n. In rhetoric, an obvious exaggeration; an extravagant statement or assertion not intended to be understood literally.
n. Synonyms See exaggeration.⛔

You just admitted that "comply or die" is not hyperbole. Please own it.

I kind of butted in to an ongoing discussion. Just as I read the conversation from the outside looking in, others could (and will) be reading this conversation. Until your admission of knowing the concept of those last six words, I had no knowledge of that aspect of your knowledge. I never lose awareness of the silent lurkers. So even though you are aware, I put my words out there for the lurkers.

I have issue with you calling the cold hard truth of "COMPLY OR DIE" hyperbole. I view this as a form of euphemistic thinking. People think euphemistically about government because their indoctrination or their fear of the truth causes cognitive dissonance. The provable lie is that government exists to protect the people, of which the individual is one of the "protected". That individual doesn't want to think about the fact that their government will kill them with impunity if they cross the members of that criminal syndicate.

I specifically call out your words "when necessary." Who determines? I'll come back to this.
"laws get enforced at gunpoint when necessary" easily translates to "laws get enforced by COMPLY OR DIE when necessary." Taking that one step further, "laws get enforced by [killing you] when necessary." Who determines? I'll come back to this.

➽ just start by proving I didn't vote for someone who would UNdraft and REPEAL rules

I can't. But neither can you prove you did. That is a point that Spooner addressed.

Tangential thought; Each vote cast must be tied to the specific voter who cast it. 50 million votes cast linked to 50 million voters one to one. That eliminates 50 million votes cast for candidate X when 25 million actually voted for candidate Y. This idea of secret ballots is bullshit that allows for the crap being proclaimed about the 2020 popularity contest... IMO, no damn different than electing the high school Prom King and Queen/ Prom President and First Lady. /digression.

➽ what if I voted for [...] Lt. Gov. last Nov., so [Lt. Gov.] could get busy undoing gun-backed rules against victimless behaviors?

Implied in your comment, IMO, is a belief that the "gun-backed rules against victimless behaviors" are non BOGUS to begin with.

How did those "rules against victimless behaviors" come in to existence to begin with. By what authority? (You will see that three word question from my quite a lot.)

How did those rules against victimless behaviors get gun-backed? By what authority?

➽ a Council of State member with a lot of say over use-of-force policy.

By what authority?

➽ Yep. And we're calling this one the Thou Shalt Not Murder Act. Informally subtitled Dale's Law. We're a conniving bunch of syndicate criminals that way.

There have been laws against murder since time immemorial.
There have been murders since time immemorial.
Apparently murderers ignore the law.
And obviously laws against murder don't matter to those who don't murder.

And yes, the criminal syndicate called government is conniving to cloak their activities as legitimate, that is, as non BOGUS.

From my website:

⚠ The Truth of Government On Protecting Life

Capital Punishment doesn't happen unless Capital Punishment Laws are on the books. Any 'government' that executes people premeditates murder.

'Government' murder is not limited to executing prisoners.
[...]
How many people have been killed by 'government' armies?

Betcha it's many, many more than the number of people killed by the Manson, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, and Berkowitz personalities of the world. There are many more serial killers and their body count doesn't come anywhere near the numbers killed by government.⛔

➽ > Lets say the law proscribes chewing gum on Wednesday(s).
There you go again. PRESUMING the person I voted for is going to initiate force rather than secure rights - in order to PROVE the person I voted for is going to initiate force.

And there you go PRESUMING the person you voted for is not going to make new laws/rules, which WILL be enFORCED at gunpoint.  And there you go PRESUMING to know what your candidate actually thinks.
And there you go PRESUMING that your candidate didn't lie to the public about their intent.
And there you go PRESUMING that your candidate would actually succeed to secure your rights.
(See all the FecesBook comments about somebody promising to "drain the swamp").

Post split because of 8,000 character limit.

Continued:

"new laws/rules" By what authority?

➽ Continued:
> what's this cop, whose job is to enforce laws, to do?
He is to live up to his oath of office. He is to enforce the supreme law of the land instead of the illegal chewing-gum statute.

Yeah, that's the rumor I read also. That's not the reality. That's not part of the cop's indoctrination.
And when the cop violates a person's right to travel, the court and the prosecutor collude with the cop.
I have FRE rule 602 personal first hand knowledge of this. No, I decline to annotate that knowledge at this time.

⚠ We need only consider the following: (1) a cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them; (2) many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked; (3) therefore every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. There are no good cops.
-- Dr. Robert Higgs --⛔

➽ The supreme law says no person shall be deprived of chewing-gum liberty or chewing-gum property or chewing-gum pursuit of happiness except by a court order. For instance if you put chewing gum in my hair, you might get convicted of criminal mischief or simple battery, and thereupon get sentenced to stop being in possession of chewing gum. Chewing gum would become validly illegal FOR YOU.

My bad. I didn't provide the rest of the scenario. Recap: Lets say the law proscribes chewing gum on Wednesday(s). A liberty minded person calls the law a tyrant's command and refuses to obey it. On a Wednesday the LMP walks up to a cop, sticks a piece of gum in his mouth and starts chewing it. In my best Paul Harvey voice: And now the rest of the scenario.

Cop: I'm issuing you a citations. Show me your ID.
LMP: No.
Cop: I'm placing you under arrest.
LMP: I'm resisting that action.
Cop: Radios for backup.
LMP: Turns and walks away.
Cop: Draws gun and points, issuing a command to stop.

I'll just refer you back to the aforementioned The Use-of-Force Continuum.
Don't chew gum on Wednesdays or die.
Please focus on that reality.

"The supreme law says no person shall be deprived" Deprived by what authority?
"sentenced to stop being in possession of chewing gum" By what authority?

➽ The statute in your hypothetical fails legality by being a mere legislative order. Enactments are not due process.

Gobbledygook, legerdemain, or confused about what I said.

Lemme refresh your memory. I wrote: "So Mr. Legislator, you, (and your fellow legislators), have just passed a law." I was specific. The no gum on Wednesday was a duly enacted statute. (Duly enacted by what authority?)

➽ That is is an example of TB's point that the system you're attacking is not the system he and I are defending.

Regardless of the lack of congruity as to what the system is, or what part of the system you want to focus on to defend, The system exists BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

➽ You and I are each trying to teach the other,

I neither agree nor disagree. I find the statement highly plausible. Like I said earlier, this discussion is happening in a virtual public square. Since it is virtual, we do not know who is listening until they speak up. Like I did when I crashed the original discussion. With that in mind, I conclude that you and I are also trying to teach the lurkers.

0815-1028

You have it backwards. The constitution is a subsystem of govt. There are many systems of govt. Systems of govt range from total like the one we have now to minimal like the one created by the constitution.

So if an architect drew up plans for a house stipulating the use of 2X4s and Spooner decided to try it with 1X4s Spooner would blame the plans. You don't have to keep throwing that quote at me. I reject its premise. The instructions did not fail. They were not followed.

You claim all searches are unreasonable. But if my cow is missing from my pasture and I see tracks leading from my pasture to your barn I would think I had a reason to look inside. I can see why you might think that was unreasonable. As you smile at me with a fresh milk mustache drying on your lip.
My authority is my claim on my property. Which you do not appear to respect. But I can't have you stealing my cows. So I have banded together with some others to secure our property. You can call us a criminal syndicate but you are the one with tracks leading to your barn. And a suspicious reluctance.
But my syndicate does not allow me to just go peeking in your barn as a general rule. It requires a damn good reason. Like a missing cow and a set of tracks. Evidence a crime has been committed AND that you had something to do with it.

You reject the constitution because you say it does not work. Sorry if that implied you had tried it. Now you say you simply rejected it out of hand?
What was your plan for dealing with a missing cow and a clear set of tracks?

By the way I understand you do give money to the system we have. I will reconsider that if you have bought no license.

Definition
This nation is described by its geographical boundaries and the people who claim citizenship within it.

Another reason I may be voting is a sense of due diligence. I may know the administration will not count or record it. But I can not claim wrongdoing on their part if I cast no vote for them to toss.

I am going to post this and resume in another post.

Under the constitution there are many things that are not subject to a vote. In those cases where it is each vote was to carry the same weight. So one to one sounds right.

Understand the founders realized if something became the will of sufficient people there would be no stopping it no matter how unwise or immoral. Imminent domain or the possibility of amendment are indications of that.

Those things may justify Spooner quote. However such things do not qualify as following the instructions. They are changes to them.

For instance the 16th and 17th amendments were clearly mistakes which should be corrected. But that is not a sufficient reason to scrap it.

As for lilacs the constitution guarantees my right to own lilacs. So a simple vote by a legislator can not affect the issue. Under the present system of course the tyrant elected in a rigged election where my vote.need not be counted he can dictate a lot more than lilac possession.
How is your system different?

Your mention of newspaper reminds me of the elimination of terms like due process and bill of attainder. But that is not what I am defending. What we have is the strawman you are attacking instead of the constitution.

We will see when the time comes. You seem to be advocating anarchy while I am arguing for minarchy.
I believe nature abhors anarchy like it abhors a vacuum. Something always rushes in to fill the void.
I could paraphrase Spooner here. Anarchy has failed to prevent tyranny.

➽ Anarchy has failed to prevent tyranny.

Your set of rules has failed also.

My smarmy one liner notwithstanding, I appreciate that you are now engaged in a polite discussion of our differing viewpoints.

My actual reason for this reply is to let you know that I do take honest discussion to heart.

I know how long it takes me to write my more reasoned NOT one liners, so I know you spent some serious time thinking and writing also. Same with R.U.

So I will be chugging along, processing what I read.

I don't want to make slow replies, I can't make fast replies. And I certainly don't want to make half fast replies. Pun intended.
Hopefully the discussion won't get too far ahead of me.

My apologies. Real life demanded my attention so I was away from my computer. And then too tired at the end of the day to even turn it on.

➽ You have it backwards. The constitution is a subsystem of govt.

I disagree.

The government of the U.S. is created by the CONstitution. Spooner again:
⚠ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.⛔

The best I can agree with is that the CONstitution is SUPPOSED to be the framework, the skeleton, of the U.S. federal government.

In the end, it does not matter. ALL governments are criminal syndicates because ALL governments extort people for money and control.

NOTE to self: Return and redirect.

➽ So if an architect drew up plans for a house stipulating the use of 2X4s and Spooner decided to try it with 1X4s Spooner would blame the plans.

Objection. Speculation. Spooner is dead. I'm alive, so I'll address your speculation as if I am Spooner, or any other Liberty Minded Ghost.

No I would NOT try it with 1X4s. No I would NOT try it with 2X4s. No I would NOT try it with 3X4s. No I would NOT try it with 4X4s.

I could not, would not, on a boat. I will not, will not, with a goat. I will not eat them in the rain. I will not eat them on a train. Not in the dark! Not in a tree! Not in a car! You let me be! I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I will not eat them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere! I do not like Green eggs And ham!

I will do a limited examination of The CONstiution and the Declaration of Independence.

⚠ But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.⛔

⚠ To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;⛔

So it is not only my right, it is my duty to throw off such Government that evinces a design to reduce me under absolute Despotism. Therefore, the CONstitution is at odds with the predecessor organic document, the Declaration of Independence.

➽ You don't have to keep throwing that quote at me. I reject its premise.

Actually, I do. I will cut it to the second last sentence:
⚠ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.⛔

Lemme translate: The CONstitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

And what, specifically, is such a government as has existed? Not rhetorical. Not yet a discussion directing question. In other words, this government that presently exists is fair game for exploration and presentation. As are any and all "governments". "Unpleasant truths" to be exposed.

You and I can not communicate if you and I do not speak (write) the same language. I used to speak the language you are speaking... Until I rejected the State's indoctrination; brainwashing; Pavlovian Conditioning; and wide spread narrative (lies). I DO know where you are coming from, because I used to believe the same hokum.

⚠ hokum
n. Something apparently impressive or legitimate but actually untrue or insincere; nonsense.
n. A stock technique for eliciting a desired response from an audience.
n. Meaningless nonsense with an outward appearance of being impressive and legitimate.
More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.⛔

➽ You claim all searches are unreasonable.

And SNIP!

I decline to follow that red herring. I started to. That false start is publicly archived where I publicly archive discussions of this sort.

Correcting your spin, deliberate or not:
➽ You claim all [GOVERNMENT] searches are unreasonable.

GOVERNMENT search BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

There is much, much more to be delved into on this topic. More so than your scenario allows for.

➽ You reject the constitution because you say it does not work. Sorry if that implied you had tried it. Now you say you simply rejected it out of hand?

What I simply reject, out of hand, is anything putting the cart before the horse. What I reject, is your failure to understand what "government" is, whether that "government" was created by a CONstitution, a belief in "Divine Right of Kings", or by (colonial or other) conquest.

You want to focus on the CONstitution as some mythical, magical savior from the actions of criminals WITHIN government. You want to disguise that "belief" by claiming the CONstitution is some set of rules not followed. I could expound upon these "rules", but I won't.

These alleged rules not being followed, are not being followed by the organized criminal syndicate and its members called "government".

To quote "their" words:
⚠ McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819):
The [federal] government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it . . . is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.⛔

Powers granted? BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

➽ By the way I understand you do give money to the system we have. I will reconsider that if you have bought no license.

NO! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!
That was a definite internet shout.

Your first lack of understanding: The difference between understanding and assuming. I take offense at that specific laziness of thought. Absent proof, you're just guessing. Period.

To lessen the sting, I will admit the system gets money from me, against my will. So that is a partially correct assumption.

Your second lack of understanding, and it corrupts the admitted to assumption, I do NOT "give" my money to the system of my own free will. The money the system gets is EXTORTED from myself and those FORCED to collect for the system.

Voltaire's Admonition. Extortion is: "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you." Yep. BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

Your third lack of understanding: "Bought ... license." Had the money on the counter top to renew my DL. They refused to give me the license because I annotated my signature with "signed under duress".

License? BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

➽ Definition
This nation is described by its geographical boundaries and the people who claim citizenship within it.

Their words again:
⚠ Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.

Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies the reciprocal obligations as compensation for each other of a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.
Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)⛔

Since I am almost at the 8,000 character limit, I'll just claim that since 1855, police have had NO DUTY TO PROTECT.

542 words in another post if requested to support the claim.

➽ Another reason I may be voting is a sense of due diligence.

"May be"?? You don't know why you are voting?

Part of why I take so long in writing is that I research words, terms, and concepts to insure I'm not way out in left field. So off on a tangent...

⚠ Due diligence: action that is considered reasonable for people to be expected to take in order to keep themselves or others and their property safe. Cambridge Dictionary.⛔

If you wrote of your due diligence in choosing WHO to vote for... Would have been a much better use and target for the term.

⚠ the detailed examination of a company and its financial records, done before becoming involved in a business arrangement with it. Cambridge Dictionary.⛔

⚠ Due diligence is an investigation, audit, or review performed to confirm the facts of a matter under consideration. Investopedia⛔

Much more fitting in my case. "To confirm the facts of a matter under consideration." That is, the facts of the matter of what government is, and what voting does. Which in doing my due diligence in examining the indoctrination (bullshit) fed to me by the State's Apparatchiks I come to different conclusions, other than what voters believe. /Tangent.

➽ I may know the administration will not count or record it.

"May know"?? Never mind. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic...

➽ But I can not claim wrongdoing on their part if I cast no vote for them to toss.

That comes suspiciously close the "If you don't vote, you can't complain" bullshit. But then, you and I are focused on different wrongdoings.

You most certainly CAN claim wrongdoing if you have evidence, and sometimes only FRE #602 is required.

⚠ Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge
A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony. ⛔

My personal knowledge of the matter of the State's indoctrination, propaganda, and bullshit... Is my due diligence examination of the State's indoctrination, propaganda, and bullshit. /Digression.

➽ Under the constitution there are many things that are not subject to a vote.

Explain please. At this time I find that sentence to be a non-sequitur and can not address your intent.

➽ In those cases where it is each vote was to carry the same weight. So one to one sounds right.

Remember, I have had the same indoctrination as you.

⚠ Due diligence is an investigation, audit, or review performed to confirm the facts of a matter under consideration.⛔

The matter under consideration is "voting". In considering the matter of voting, I REJECT the indoctrination. Logic prevails over propaganda and indoctrination. Except for the deeply indoctrinated statists.

From my website:
⚠
Voting For Cake

If a group of people are asked to vote for either a chocolate cake or a vanilla cake, the majority group's decision controls what the minority group gets. If you absolutely hate the taste of chocolate cake and that's what the majority wants, then you eat chocolate cake or nothing.

Unlike the results of other votes, 'government' people with guns don't come and force you to eat the chocolate cake.
...
Voting is Majority Tyranny

Voting is where a collective of individual humans perform an act that allows the majority of those individuals to control the minority of those individuals. Voters have somehow become convinced that it is their duty to be controlled by what the majority has chosen for them.

This is proven by observing minority voters honoring and obeying the result of the majority vote; whether it is to eat chocolate cake; pay extra taxes; or be represented by an elected alleged Representative who provably does not represent the minority.

Since none of the majority has any non bogus authority over the minority, what the majority wishes and votes for creates no legitimate demand on any of the minority.

Which means that voting will always be the majority controlling the minority until people awake to the fact that none of the majority was born with non bogus authority over them or anybody else.
⛔

➽ Understand the founders realized if something became the will of sufficient people there would be no stopping it no matter how unwise or immoral. Imminent domain or the possibility of amendment are indications of that.
Those things may justify Spooner quote. However such things do not qualify as following the instructions. They are changes to them.

It is time for me to disconnect your equate of rules, commands, demands, edicts, dictates, and laws from your assumed how to do it instructions.

Rules, commands, demands, edicts, dictates, and laws are NOT such without penalty for disobedience. So EVERY Rule, command, demand, edict, dictate, and law is extortion. Do what you are told or be hurt.

And yep... BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

Voltaire's Admonition: Authority?

⚠ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;⛔

Whence comes the ALLEGED authority of the CONstitution? I'm sure that after some discussion, you will claim from "We the People".

➽ As for lilacs the constitution guarantees my right to own lilacs.

I'm not buying what you are peddling.
I REJECT your indoctrinated beliefs.

From my website:
⚠ The Truth of Government On Protecting Personal Property

Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.⛔

Just one of several due diligence examinations of the State's indoctrination, propaganda, and bullshit presented on my website.
⚠ The Truth of Government
 On Protecting Real Estate
 On Protecting Personal Property
 On Protecting Liberty
 On Protecting Life
 On Police Protection ⛔

➽ How is your system different?

I reject your implication that I am offering a "system".
For the same reason I reject claims that atheism and agnosticism are "religions".

➽ You seem to be advocating anarchy while I am arguing for minarchy.

Here we go with lack of communication again. I am advocating for NO criminal syndicates extorting people for money and control. You are advocating for a criminal syndicates extorting people for money and control.

That's like parents advocating for hiring a pedophile to protect their children from other pedophiles.

➽ I believe nature abhors anarchy like it abhors a vacuum.

Translation: You believe nature abhors a lack of a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control like nature abhors the absence of atmosphere.

➽ Something always rushes in to fill the void.

And this is where we really have a communication problem. What you want to rush in to fill the void is a criminal syndicate. That is NOT what I want.

You still have a belief system that an extortionate criminal syndicate is required. I do not.

0800-1300
1430-1511

> I end up thanking you for such polite discourse

Go Team.

The poetic hyperbole was my own phrase "death-dealing dictators at heart." Not your correct observation that an eventual death threat lurks behind every law. Force is used to ENforce laws.

Laws therefore should aim only at those who initiate force.

> The provable lie is that government exists to protect the people[.]

That's not inherently untrue. It's just the usual sad history, of people banding together for mutual defense but then not keeping a close enough eye on the focusing/centralization of power.

Like fire and sharp knives, government used VERY CAREFULLY, with strict safeguards, is a benefecial tool. As with any tool, accidents and abuse will always be possible.

>> Just start by proving I didn't vote for someone who would UNdraft and REPEAL rules
> I can't. But neither can you prove you did.

Oh, can't I?

tinyurl.com/UbingerBallot2014

➽ The poetic hyperbole was my own phrase "death-dealing dictators at heart." Not your correct observation that an eventual death threat lurks behind every law. Force is used to ENforce laws.

What does somebody (anybody) know? And when did they know it?

Hence my above presentation and expression of the difference between ignorance and nescience.

As you astutely observed: "I've frequently said the last six words of every statute should be required to be OR WE WILL FUCKING KILL YOU."

"I hereby enact this a law; Comply or Die."

How many legislators are aware of that reality? How many legislators know that they are making Comply or Die edicts? Is it just possible that even the legislators have their indoctrination covering their eyes and minds? Is it just possible that legislators just euphemistically think you further than "I hereby enact this a law"?

A related tangent:
Under what conditions would you kill another human? Under what harm or clear and present threat of harm, would you kill another human?
/tangent.

What if a legislators actually had to do the killing resulting from their laws?
Law is a euphemism for politician's opinions a.k.a. politician's extortions; "obey or be hurt."

➽ Force is used to ENforce laws.

I reject your euphemism. Extortion is used to make people obey politician's opinions.
There FIFY.

➽ Laws therefore should aim only at those who initiate force.

Do you not see the logic dilemma in your sentence?

Do what you are told or force will be used against you. By threatening force, force has been initiated. I am sure the term is "Double Standard".

Are you aware of Frederick Bastiat's The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850? Here's a link for you and any others interested:
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

By the way, This is one of two writings that I use to support my claim that Public Schools, that is, government schools are simply Government Indoctrination Centers. The other writing is Lysander Spooner's No Treason. I highly doubt those two essays will ever be on the required reading list in any GIC. They were certainly never in my sight until TWENTY years after my GIC incarceration ended (High school graduation). Spooner and Bastiat did not think in a government approved manner. And now, neither do I.

➽ That's not inherently untrue. [The provable lie that government exists to protect the people]

Since I'm composing this the day after I replied to TB's post, I'll just suggest a scroll up to the addressing of the topic in that post.

➽ It's just the usual sad history, of people banding together for mutual defense but then not keeping a close enough eye on the focusing/centralization of power.

I can neither agree nor disagree with that observation. That is certainly a plausible explanation... However...

<Digression>Just like a satellite image of something, one can zoom out (🔍−) to see a city, its streets, etc. Or one can pinch in (🔍+) to see individual houses, yards, and cars parked in driveways. </Digression>

However... When I mentally zoom in, I find people's minds totally vacant of YDOMism. That is an acronym term I have coined to fit along side the term Anarchism (pure term: No Rulers), the term Voluntaryism (No involuntary interactions) and the question: By What Authority? A thing yet to be hashed out in this discussion between you, TB, and myself.

You Don't Own Me (ism).

➽ Like fire and sharp knives, government used VERY CAREFULLY, with strict safeguards, is a benefecial tool. As with any tool, accidents and abuse will always be possible.

I am aware of that quote's root. Misattributed to George Washington: ⚠ Government Is Like Fire, a Dangerous Servant and a Fearful Master.⛔ I don't remember the first time I read that... Several decades ago. Which also brings to mind the bullshit about a "Servant Government." I'll just end that digression before I start it.

A "tool" by what authority? Used by who, by what authority?

➽ Oh, can't I? [prove you did]
tinyurl.com/UbingerBallot2014

As I once said to a coworker, "We can laugh with you or we can laugh at you. Your choice."

Since that made me laugh, I'm just going to assume you are laughing with me. Touché Sir, touché.

I meant the constitution is a subsystem of govt in general.

Yes the constitution created a govt of the United States. However it did not create the present govt of the United States.
The creators of the present United States are the stuff of conspiracy theories. My favorite is the bankers represented by the federal reserve are behind the switch.

In any case perhaps we can agree the constitution did not authorize this govt. It was a long train of abuses and usurpation that gave us this. I believe the purpose is plain.

That the constitutions fatal flaw being its reliance on people for its defense is not its fault. Man is the fatal flaw in all of nature.

Until man reaches perfection any means of govt will contain that flaw. But govts are inevitable.

Man is a social animal and will always organize groups to solve problems. That always evolves into govt and then devolves into tyranny.

Keep in mind the constitution evinced much less of a design to reduce you under absolute despotism. I think it is compatible with its opening declaration.

You say the govt gets money from you against your will.

So you are the proof that force is the Supreme Authority. When you ask, by what authority that is your answer.

The reason the constitution did not work is that force and fraud work on you better than liberty. You are attacking the constitution which sets up a great deal more liberty than the one you are willing to live with.

By the way I like your hokum CONstitution. 😉

TB: You say:
“Man is a social animal and will always organize groups to solve problems. That always evolves into govt and then devolves into tyranny.”

The truth of your statement, TB, depends on your concept of government. Government can be based on the consent of the governed. That is the concept in the Declaration of Independence of the USA. But government can also be based on the coercion of the governed. The later form is not biologically inherent to humans. For most of our existence, the human race had no coercive government.

I usually have more than one reason for doing anything. Some of those reasons are compelling enough that I would act on it alone. Others can get pretty theoretical. An aggregate of those can spark action but it is hard to say any one of them was the reason. Bit it may have been.

Sorry you are working too hard to find a quibble. When I say I may know my vote will not be counted but I cast it anyway I do not mean there is doubt that it will not be counted on the record. I mean it may be a reason people would say I should not bother. If you wish to pretend you know those reasons and feel they are as useless as arranged deckchairs in a disaster that is ok.

It isn't that if you don't vote you can't complain. My vote is a complaint. By not being counted they are silencing my complaint.

PJ
It is hard to cover all bases and in general conversation I rarely try.

Not all people join groups to solve problems and not all groups evolve into govts. Though many or most groups take on aspects of govts. They tend to have leaders and followers.

If there already is a govt few groups evolve into competition with one unless the problem is depredations by that other govt.

The ultimate defining characteristic of govt is its monopoly on the use of organized force.

But I see no reason to believe prehistoric man had no govt. Even if you buy into the myth that men were simple hunter gatherers for 190,000 years and then suddenly took to farming and building civilization.

TB said:
“I see no reason to believe prehistoric man had no govt. Even if you buy into the myth that men were simple hunter gatherers for 190,000 years and then suddenly took to farming and building civilization.”

I accept your definition of government as monopoly on the use of organized force. The evidence that hunter-gatherers did not have government in the past is that none of the hunter gatherers ever observed have had governments.

➽ I meant the constitution is a subsystem of govt in general.

We've discussed enough that I get what you intend. Minor quibble of no account.

➽ However it [the constitution] did not create the present govt of the United States.

Thereby, IMO, showing agreement with one half of Spooner's words: "that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

If the CONstitution has not authorized such a government, then it most certainly has been powerless to prevent it.

➽ The creators of the present United States are the stuff of conspiracy theories. My favorite is the bankers represented by the federal reserve are behind the switch.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

⚠ A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it. Wikipedia⛔

Strike the word "unlawful" and I agree 100% with the cited words. See my observations about what law is in a previous comment above.

In other words, When is the last time you saw an advertisement: Conspiracy needs co-conspirators. Get in on the ground floor. This IPO is going to return millions, even billions or trillions, upon maturity of the original investment.

"Secret plan or agreement..." Key word: "Secret." So, in a word: Plausible. I find Banksters (sic) behind the change to be plausible. Especially after reading the 600+ pages of G. Edward Griffin's book, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.

➽ In any case perhaps we can agree the constitution did not authorize this govt. It was a long train of abuses and usurpation that gave us this. I believe the purpose is plain.

Yes. On this I agree... Even if you and I have a little fuzziness in our focus of the intent.

Especially in light of the ☣-19 propaganda. A topic I have become circumspect in addressing.

➽ That the constitutions fatal flaw being its reliance on people for its defense is not its fault. Man is the fatal flaw in all of nature.

Ironically, I agree with this.

Where I think we differ is where the line in the sand should be drawn. Likewise, as evidenced by our discussion, we differ in what we think the solution to be used is. To my thinking, this solution to be used is intimately connected to the line in the sand. Not just a line in the sand... A line in one's mind. YDOM! That's where the line in my mind is.

➽ Until man reaches perfection any means of govt will contain that flaw. But govts are inevitable.

As I said, A line in one's mind. Government is an organized criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. Translating your words: But [organized criminal syndicates that extort people for money and control] are inevitable.

YDOM!

➽ Man is a social animal and will always organize groups to solve problems. That always evolves into govt and then devolves into tyranny.

I do not challenge the truth and history that this has BEEN the case, at times, in the past.

I DO challenge that this must be the case in the future.

I do quibble with your meaning of "social animal." More specifically, the concept of an animal "Pecking Order" as it is found in the homo sapien animal and the countering effect of abstract - symbolic; thinking - reasoning that is also found in the homo sapien human. A next level evolution that IMO, needs to happen.

➽ Keep in mind the constitution evinced much less of a design to reduce you under absolute despotism.

I specifically and emphatically disagree.

Government - a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

PROVE ME WRONG!
More for emphasis than shouting.

➽ I think it is compatible with its opening declaration.

Spooner:
⚠ “We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”⛔

You guessed it:
By what authority?
Those claiming to represent the "people" of that era, did so, By What Authority?

Quoting Spooner: ⚠ Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.⛔

Where, specifically, does this alleged authority of the CONstitution come from?

➽ So you are the proof that force is the Supreme Authority. When you ask, by what authority that is your answer.

You make the same mistake that many of the indoctrinated do. You confuse extortion with authority.

From my website:
⚠
Extortion Is Not Authority

There are people who are confused about this very simple point. There are some who will attempt to argue that because mere men and women called government are alleged to have authority over other humans, then those mere men and women called government are allowed to use coercion to make you obey their edicts.

This assumes that the mere men and women called government actually have authority over you. This assumption is provably false as you should have learned from reading above.

Some confused people I have interacted with insist on calling extortion authority.  Calling threats, duress, or coercion authority does not make such acts not wrong, regardless of the label applied.

Just a tangential thought and comment:
The consent of the people means that the mere men and women called government are allowed to use threat, duress, or coercion against the other mere men and women not called government? WTF!?

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that extortion is wrong. One only needs to be able to understand that extortion is the over-riding of one’s free will by way of threat, duress, or coercion. One only needs to be able to recognize that harm is being done, by both the threat and the actions of the threat being executed.

Calling extortion authority just hides the action’s wrongness from the indoctrinated.

When a carjacker points a gun at you and orders you out of your car everybody is aware that such an action is wrong.

When a cop points a gun at you and orders you out of your car everybody assumes the cop has authority; everybody assumes the cop’s action is not wrong.

The indoctrinated who believe in authority can not recognize that the cop’s action is exactly the same as the carjacker’s. - WRONG!⛔

Also from my website: A look at the propaganda and PR bullshit:

⚠
The Myth of Government

The myth of 'government' in the U.S. is that it is benign, trustworthy, law abiding, just, fair, moral, omniscient, and magnanimous; That it will protect our Life, Liberty, and Property; That it will also protect us from chaos, terrorists, dictators, tyrants, criminals, and things that go thump in the night; That it has the consent of the governed; And; That it is morally superior to all others, in form and in action.

Merriam-Webster states that a myth is "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true." The alleged properties of 'government' listed in the first paragraph are called myths by this author for good reasons. Those reasons will be presented, examined, and explained on this page.

The myths of government are repeated continuously without any critical thought or examination. It is not until one actually takes notice of the myths and then chooses to examine them that one rejects them for the falsehoods that they are.
⛔

➽ The reason the constitution did not work is that

SNIP!

The CONstitution, By What Authority?

I'm outa characters for this post.

[Dale Eastman]

Jump to jump index.

➽ The instructions did not fail. They were not followed.

I specifically challenged you on this claim about instructions when you made it the first time. In view of what follows, I acknowledge that you have chosen the 4th amendment as an example of instructions not followed. Since I am composing this reply, not on FecesBook, I give you a written "thumbs up" for making me have to think about your point.

Regardless, right there you make an assumption about me. Is that assumption reasonable or unreasonable? I can see where I would view it as reasonable if I were in your position in the scenario. However, I am not in that position. I will make a side note to myself: You do bring a concern to light that I share - What to do about the criminal element(s) that intend and do harm to others.

Possible reality bifurcates at this point. Either your cow was stolen or it wasn't.
The second bifurcation: Either I stole your cow or I didn't.
If your cow was stolen and I didn't steal it, somebody else must have... Or, like my niece's 4H sheep that was purchased at the county fair as breeding stock, that learned how to unlatch the gate letting itself and the flock loose.

Tracks leading from your pasture to my barn... So the scene you set is the both of us owning agricultural property. For those tracks as you just described, we'd have to be relatively closely situated. In a word, we be farmers. So are we friendly farmers or are we feuding farmers? Is there a gate from your property to mine? If not, are the tracks visible on the shoulder of the rural road leading from your place to mine?

How do you know my milk mustache is not from my own cows? How do either one of us know your cow didn't wander over to see my stud service bull?

Or I could just be some city dude that bought a farmette for the country vista not knowing the first thing about milking a cow.

In short, I reject your entire premise use by you to set the stage. Too many variables.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ Government can be based on the consent of the governed.

While logically, technically correct, I have a quibble.

From my website:
⚠ Delegation Imagined By Consent of the Governed

    There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction.
    -- Larken Rose --

If Threat, Duress, and Coercion is required to make people obey the rules of those governing, then there is NO consent. If people have actually consented to be governed, then why do those doing the governing need people with guns to make sure they are obeyed?

In order for one to consent (give permission), doesn't one need to be presented with a choice first? I was never asked for my consent to be governed; I was never presented with a choice. There is a reason why this choice has never been presented. Anyone who has any mental competency would never consent to being governed when that governing is described as it actually is.

By consenting to be governed; You agree to obey all the ruler's laws, even laws that you know are wrong, unfair, immoral, and / or victimize those being governed. If the ruler's rules require you to push Jews and undesirables onto cattle cars, then that's what you do as a good law abiding citizen. This is wrong and those who do this without further thought are wrong.

This was done under government's alleged authority during Hitler's governance of Germany.

[Image] Nazi's loading rail cars with people.

Furthermore, You agree that those doing the governing are allowed to use whatever level of force against you that they deem necessary to get you to comply with their dictates; whether the force used against you is beating you with a baton; locking you in a cage; or killing you if you are really set on disobeying. (Or giving you a free train ride.)

In other words; By consenting to be governed; you agree to obey their laws; and you agree they can kill you if you withdraw your consent by defying them and their laws.

Point of logic: If consent can not be withdrawn, then it is not consent. Consent which can not be withdrawn lays bare the fraudulent nature of the artifice of the Consent Of The Governed.⛔

No quibble with the rest of your words.

Took me a moment to realize this was a reply to me. Complaints? Yeah. FecesBook is horrible for nuanced indepth discussions such as ours.

➽ It isn't that if you don't vote you can't complain. My vote is a complaint. By not being counted they are silencing my complaint.

I like that we see a building problem. We just don't agree on how best to head it off at the pass because we don't see the same thing as the problem. I wonder if I'll have to repeat myself because things get lost or buried in long posts.

If your complaint is being silenced, then it likely isn't being presented to others. As such, how much will this invalidate the superstitious belief in government and its provably bogus authority? You did claim to be a minarchist so you do have some belief in provably bogus authority.

That's it for me today. I know there's other posts in this thread that I have not read. And knowing myself, if I read them, I usually find myself compelled to reply.

>> Force is used to ENforce laws.

> I reject your euphemism. Extortion is used to make people obey politician's opinions.

Extortion is one type of govt force, routinely used to uphold statutes against victimless behaviors. Which I consider unConstitutional statutes. Another type of govt force is pulling someone over for reckless driving, which I approve of. Force is the applicable broader term for how govt per se functions, whether it's govt I approve of or govt I disapprove of.

>> Laws therefore should aim only at those who initiate force.

> Do what you are told or force will be used against you. By threatening force, force has been initiated.

No, it depends on what you're being told to do. Don't rob banks. Don't trespass. Don't drive recklessly. Enforcing such rules is force, but not initiative. It is reacting to prior force.

>> Like fire and sharp knives, government used VERY CAREFULLY, with strict safeguards, is a benefecial tool. As with any tool, accidents and abuse will always be possible.

> A "tool" by what authority? Used by who, by what authority?

The authority of the natural self-defense rights of the people who designed it, and whosoever of their posterity continue to endorse its use as a framework for mutual security of individual rights. People like TB and me, currently.

I think we differ only in semantics. I do not use the term “govern” to imply total and irrevocable authority. In my view an employer “governs” an organization. The list of instructions the “governor” may give can be limited. An organization using purely voluntary labor may also select someone to “govern” in this way. In both cases it may be understood that any authority granted is subject to rejection by individual members of the organization. Their arrangement may thus leave them free to disobey. Such rejection may come at the price of losing membership in the organization. But the relationship can be totally voluntary as long as both sides consent. Similarly a customer in a commercial relationship may agree to rules set by a vendor. To me these are all forms of “governing”.

You say you did not consent to the constitutions authority. Further you say no one has. But RU and I as veterans did explicitly agree.
I do submit that you have agreed to cooperate with the govt we have now. You can plead being forced but the reason you agreed is not relevant. Only that you did.
Slave societies can not work without the cooperation of the slaves.
For a quarter of a century I refused to give that cooperation. I bought no licenses nor paid any taxes. You keep saying you used to support the constitution. Then you saw the light and stopped. But you kept paying the tyrant.
Full disclosure I finally capitulated last year. For twenty five years I was an undocumented native. I carried no ID other than my own DNA.
I am seventy soon to be seventy one years old. Let us say I became too weak to continue to live as a free man. So as with you this discussion has become theoretical for me.
The constitution rarely initiates force. Its chief exception is the ill conceived 16th amendment. It should be amended to read, "the federal govt may only tax states." Thus repealing all other federal taxes especially of individuals.
Once that was taken care of with extremely rare exceptions the only time a person would be subject to federal force would be when there was good evidence they had committed a crime.

I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that an “agreement” made under the threat of violence is not binding. Further, no agreement is valid which purports to make one subject to another’s commands for the rest of the lifetime of the one making the agreement.

Oh I would not consider a contract made under duress binding. I understand once the threat is neutralized the contract ends. The demopublicans know Dale will stop paying when he no longer fears them. But they are confident they can maintain the threat. And even if they fail there is a deep bench of those wanting to fill the position and big enough to assure compliance.
I am libertarian. I don't initiate force to get compliance. But Dale only yields to force. Absent force he only yields to his own will.

What we obviously have hea is a fail-ya ta communicate.

Me > I reject your euphemism. Extortion is used to make people obey politician's opinions.

You ➽ Extortion is one type of govt force, routinely used to uphold statutes against victimless behaviors.

Extortion is the ONLY type of government force that exists. Do as you are told or be hurt.
I'll play out some more rope for you to attempt to prove otherwise.

➽ Which I consider unConstitutional statutes.

That set of words is without meaning to me. Statutes under the CONstitution, by what authority? Obviously by the alleged authority of the CONstitution. The alleged authority of the CONstitution? Whence came that authority? Who delegated that authority to the CONstitution in the first place?

Yes, I have had the same indoctrination that you had. From "We the people". Can anybody delegate an authority that they do not have? I'll flesh out this question in just a moment.

➽ Another type of govt force is pulling someone over for reckless driving, which I approve of.

WRONG! The moment the cop lights a motorist up, that cop has just initiated force against the motorist. And the force initiated: Pull over or I will escalate my use of force. When I ratchet up my force against you, you could be hurt. I will continue to ratchet up my use of force until you comply or die. Do what I say or be hurt.

At the very minimum, the cop is causing harm by keeping the motorist from going about his or her everyday affairs of life. Provably without any authority what so ever.

Now there is the discussion of what, exactly and specifically, is defined as reckless driving? And here's a little side bar for you to think about: Who's pulling the cops over for their reckless driving? And if you are unaware of cops driving recklessly, you are not paying attention. If you want, I'll post a meme highlighting this point.

➽ Force is the applicable broader term for how govt per se functions, whether it's govt I approve of or govt I disapprove of.

Doesn't matter if you approve or not. Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
PROVE ME WRONG.

Me > Do what you are told or force will be used against you. By threatening force, force has been initiated.

You ➽ No, it depends on what you're being told to do. Don't rob banks. Don't trespass. Don't drive recklessly. Enforcing such rules is force, but not initiative. It is reacting to prior force.

The initiation of force happens before the commands. I will point out that you are ignoring how that (alleged) reactive force is paid for: By extortion! Give them the money they demand or they will hurt you.

I will also point out that you are ignoring the previously posted words proving there is NO DUTY TO PROTECT.

Me > A "tool" by what authority? Used by who, by what authority?

You ➽ The authority of the natural self-defense rights of the people who designed it, and whosoever of their posterity continue to endorse its use as a framework for mutual security of individual rights. People like T'B and me, currently.

The authority of the natural self-defense rights of the people who designed [the government], and whosoever of their posterity continue to endorse [the governments] use as a framework for mutual security of individual rights.

Does your mutual security system extort people for money and control? The answer is an unqualified YES. Your mutual security system is a criminal syndicate before it even begins to allegedly provide mutual security.

Do not pass go, do not collect 200. Do not attempt to tell me your mutual security system provides mutual security. It doesn't.

I am LESS safe now than I was in 1975.

Also, your reply missed a step. The CONstitution. Whence comes the ALLEGED authority of the CONstitution?

➽ I think we differ only in semantics.

I agree.

Equivocation can happen by oversight or by design. That is why my posts are often more wordy than expected. I attempt to nail down what is specifically meant by the opposing writer's choice of words. That is why I often challenge claims of people by asking, "What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word X."

➽ I do not use the term “govern” to imply total and irrevocable authority.

Govern is a verb. Govern is an action word. Government, the word I quibbled about, is a noun, is a thing that governs.

Perhaps it was a parsing error on my part, due to my narrative and agenda, that my focus was on the noun, the thing that governs, called "Government" also known as "the State".

My issue is to separate your fine description of voluntary interaction from non-voluntary interaction with coercive State / Government entities that uses extortion to get money and control.

➽ You say you did not consent to the constitutions authority. Further you say no one has. But  RU and I as veterans did explicitly agree.

Did you now? Evidence?

Let's see how you spin having a DD-214 into consent to the CONstitution.

In your statement, you claim the CONstitution has authority. Whence comes the ALLEGED authority of the CONstitution?
This is the second time I have asked you that question.

I'm rearranging the order of your next four sentences, to better attempt to understand your intent. (And to make it easier for myself to challenge the concepts you are presenting.)

➽ Slave societies can not work without the cooperation of the slaves.

That is correct. However, I challenge your use of the word "cooperation."

⚠  cooperation
n. The act or practice of cooperating.
n. The association of persons or businesses for common, usually economic, benefit.
n. The act of cooperating or being cooperative.
Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. ⛔

So I am going to translate your sentence into a more truthful statement:

Slave societies can not work without the non-insurrection of the slaves.

➽ I do submit that you have agreed to cooperate with the govt we have now. You can plead being forced but the reason you agreed is not relevant. Only that you did.

So a Gangsta Carjacker sticks a gun in the window of your car, aimed at your head, and tells you "get the fuck out of the car!"

I do submit that you have agreed to cooperate with the Gangsta Carjackers we have now. You can plead being forced but the reason you agreed is not relevant. Only that you did.

Viewing your own words and logic from that perspective, I can't help but wonder WTF the point is that you are attempting to make.

You claim I can plead being forced but the Gangsta Carjacker's gun to my head is not relevant.

➽ For a quarter of a century I refused to give that cooperation. I bought no licenses nor paid any taxes.

Evidence? ⇇ Rhetoric. I challenge claims such as you just made as a matter of my S.O.P. At this point I view your claim as only rhetoric. Presently it does not matter to me if you are trying to establish yourself as previously anti State / anti Government or not. It also matters not to me if you are just saying that in an attempt to show you understand me and my position. You don't, as evidenced by which of my words you simply ignore. By oversight or deliberately does not matter since you and I are having an excellent, IMO, discussion of differing viewpoints. Appreciation for not being just another turd on FecesBook.

➽ You keep saying you used to support the constitution. Then you saw the light and stopped. But you kept paying the tyrant.

Just like you would give the Gangsta Carjacker your car. If the gun is not in your face, it is still ALWAYS under the paperwork.

In view of what follows, I am still not understanding the point you are trying to make in regards to my published position.

➽ Full disclosure I finally capitulated last year. For twenty five years I was an undocumented native. I carried no ID other than my own DNA.

Huh!?  Scrolls up/ scrolls down. Quotes:
➽ But RU and I as veterans did explicitly agree.

If you were in the military, you were NOT undocumented. So now I 'fess to confusion about your timeline as sporadically presented.

➽ I am seventy soon to be seventy one years old. Let us say I became too weak to continue to live as a free man. So as with you this discussion has become theoretical for me.

<sarcasm> Love how you know what's in my mind. </sarcasm>

Try this theory out:
Government - a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

PROVE ME and my theory WRONG.

➽ The constitution rarely initiates force.

The CONstitution ONLY gives the organized criminal syndicate called government the false belief that its members have authority to extort people for money and control.

Whence comes this alleged authority? To be noted: RU has attempted to present the origin of this alleged authority. That discussion will be ongoing.

Blah blah federal taxes blah blah. The fed tax laws DO NOT SAY what the liars at the IRS claim. If you want to be educated about what those actual words of law actually say... I have spent uncountable hours researching the actual words, So I have personal first hand knowledge of those words.

➽ [...] with extremely rare exceptions the only time a person would be subject to federal force would be when there was good evidence they had committed a crime.

Mala In Se or Mala Prohibita?

I must keep my opinion and my bias to myself, based upon hearsay words I read years ago. With that said, I submit the words of Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/2004/02/12/cx_da_0212martha.html?sh=200d105d8b71

➽ Oh I would not consider a contract made under duress binding. I understand once the threat is neutralized the contract ends.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't read like you intended. It is my wish that how it reads is not how you meant it to read.

"Once the threat is neutralized the contract ends" strongly implies that you believe something is an actual contract while a threat exists... And that alleged contract ends when the threat does. Therefore, you have stated that the alleged contract IS binding while the threat exists.

From my website again:
⚠
Delegation Imagined By Social Contract

There are some who believe the 'government' gets its alleged authority from a Social Contract. This alleged contract does not exist because it does not have the minimum elements required to be a valid contract. There are four basic elements required in order for a contract to exist. These elements are: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds).

An offer is a conditional promise. What did the 'government' offer (promise) you?

A consideration is a thing (of value) given in exchange for the offer. What did the 'government' ask of you in return (consideration) of what the 'government' promised you?

An acceptance of an offer is an expression of assent to its terms. Can you express assent to the terms of an offer when no terms have been presented to you? When did you assent to the terms of this alleged Social Contract?

A mutual agreement or meeting of minds exists when both parties understand and agree to the terms of the contract. Can you understand and agree to the terms of a contract when no such terms have been presented to you?

In reality, the Social Contract is merely a Theory. This theory alleges that humans gave authority to the 'government' in return for the 'government's' protection.

Even if the Social Contract was an actual contract, The 'government' has voided the contract by failing to perform its reciprocal duties. On the previous page, under the heading of The Truth of Government, you will find cited examples where 'government' has actually done the damage the myth of government alleges 'government' exists to protect us from.

This Social Contract Theory as set out by John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes before him, was in essence, an attempt to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules (the king's edicts) at that point in time consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.

Locke's Social Contract Theory is the basis for the Consent Of The Governed phrase found in the Declaration of Independence. The Consent Of The Governed is just another artifice that attempts to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.
⛔

⚠ There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65 (1878)⛔

➽ The demopublicans know Dale will stop paying when he no longer fears them.

Naked assertion and Meaningless rhetoric.

Who, specifically, do you claim are the "demopublicans"?
Are you on a first name basis with "them"?
Can you read their minds?

Can you read my mind?
If not, then there is NO fucking way you can know what I fear and what I don't. You can only guess, extrapolate from my words (of which you have NOT read all of), or make shit up like you have just done.

➽ But they are confident they can maintain the threat.

Same questions, rejection, and dismissal of your BS.

➽ And even if they fail there is a deep bench of those wanting to fill the position and big enough to assure compliance.

Translation: There are a bunch of criminals wanting the alleged authority of government so they can hurt and kill people with impunity. Psychopaths and megalomaniacs are the two labels that come to mind.

➽ I am libertarian. I don't initiate force to get compliance.

You initiate force EVERY time you vote.

Repeating what I previously posted:
⚠ If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death.

If you vote for a politician to become a Mayor, Governor, or President,
You vote for a person to enforce the rules made by Legislators.
You vote for somebody to make people obey or kill people if they resist.

Thus, If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.

Carlo Gambino or Vito Genovese.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
Choose your next criminal syndicate extortion ruler. ⛔

➽ But Dale only yields to force. Absent force he only yields to his own will.

Naked assertion and Meaningless rhetoric.

WTF is the point you are attempting to make?

You are not following the timeliness. I won't speak for RU.

You ask where the Constitution got its authority? I gave it to it. I took an oath to protect and defend it. Upon discovering that it had been repudiated by the administration I withdrew my consent. Not to the constitution but to the administration that repudiated it.

I recognize the constitution is not the perfect libertarian system. But compared to the suffering what we have is causing I am willing to lower my standards to the level of the constitution.

You rightfully point out its method of funding as its greatest flaw. But hopefully you are not one of those entitled freeloaders who believes you should get your services free.

I would work to fix the funding problem by amending the 16th amendment to read: "the federal govt may only tax states." Thus repealing all other federal taxes.

Slave societies can not work without the cooperation of the slaves.

You compare a mugging to slavery. That is inaccurate and unfair. The mugger arrives unexpectedly and his demand is brief and personal.
But the element of surprise is quickly passed with slavery. You knowledge of time and can expect and prepare for the demands. In the case of a license you actually go there and ask for your money to be taken. This is not a mugging it is a way of life.
You ask for evidence I went twenty years undocumented?! This is my first hand account. I am the evidence. I suppose I could offer the various citations I received over the years for my failure to comply. The kidnappings I endured awaiting trials, the single conviction resulting from one of the approximately fifteen charges I dealt with. But you should be willing to take my word for it. And I expect both RU and PJ to admit having witnessed the struggle.
I suspect you gave over without once demanding to see the gun behind the threat. Yet you pose me the scenario of a gangsta gun in my window.
You were not carjacked. You chose not to resist. And that is how slave societies work.
You want me to believe you cooperated from fear of the gun. But from my vantagepoint it looks like you cooperated for the privileges. You had a far easier life than I with your masters note granting you the privilege to work for wages or engage in business or drive or buy alcohol or all the other privileges granted by master. You did not challenge him in court or on the street. But you fault me as the statist while you paid for my harrassment.

The contract ends when the threat is neutralized.
I was being a bit sparky.
But your slave contract specifies certain rewards for the benefits you receive. And penalties for your failure to deliver services. You are accepting the rewards. But complain about the penalties.
You say no contract exists. Your master cites your signature on your ID freely given as proof there is.
Did you ask for the ID?

> Statutes under the CONstitution, by what authority?
By my authority as someone who signed on to that charter. BUT NOT WHEN A STATUTE IS REPUGNANT TO the charter, which nowadays is USUALLY. And not when THE STATUTE WRITERS ACQUIRED OFFICE IN VIOLATION OF the contract - WHICH IS ALWAYS, above city level races which don't discard write-ins.
I publicly endorse the contract. I even took an oath to it (army). And, all the elected officials fraudulently or Constitutionally put in office, are on written record sworn to it as well. Your scorn for the contract doesn't make it not a contract. It's a member of the subset of all contracts, Contracts Dale's Not Party To.
I would prefer for you to root for me to prevail in my contractual grievances against my officials. I'M TRYING TO GET THEM TO LET YOU BE, LIKE MY CONTRACT WITH THEM TELLS THEM TO DO. Instead of you having me take a guilt trip, in the middle of battle, for my share of responsibility in letting my officials get SO INSANELY out of Constitutional bounds in the first place. That's water under the old hat bridge. Watch the battle or join me in it or join them in it. Don't throw a bunch of Spooner and dictionary pages all into my eyes. I need to see well to be able to get the muzzle of the Contract back onto the bad guys.
> Can anybody delegate an authority that they do not have?
I have a natural authority of self defense. And I have a natural authority to contract with others, e.g. about mutual defense.

> The moment the cop lights a motorist up, that cop has just initiated force against the motorist.
Not if he's acting on enough relevant evidence that the motorist is an immediate menace to people's lives. Endangerment is a form of force, prior to the pullover. Endangerment was the initial force.
Then after having evidence to detain, the cop is CONtractully required to either find evidence to arrest or else to release the detainee. Any protracted disagreement between the cop and detainee, at the scene, is supposed to have the release valve of the suspect getting to insist to take it to a magistrate. Habeas corpus. It worked pretty well from 1215 to 2002.
> At the very minimum, the cop is causing harm by keeping the motorist from going about his or her everyday affairs of life.
Um I was talking about someone weaving all over the road. Fie on your implication that roadweaving is a motorist's own rightful affair.
> Who's pulling the cops over for their reckless driving?
They have whole policy manuals about this kind of thing. Rules of pursuit, minimum necessary reactive force, de-escalation, not increasing the number of endangered ppl, etc. It's a science I'm interested in but no expert in. Oh and speedy turnover to the judiciary, where a two-sided orderly public appeal to law and logic and rights gets as impartially decided as possible, by random jury if ultimately needed.
> Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
PROVE ME WRONG.
No YOU prove stopping a motorist from weaving all over my road WHILE ALSO giving him immediate recourse to challenge the legality of the stop
(oh and while holding over the cop's head that the cop will be criminally and civilly liable if the stop was Unconstitutional),
is "extortion."

> The initiation of force happens before the commands. I will point out that you are ignoring how that (alleged) reactive force is paid for: By extortion! Give them the money they demand or they will hurt you.
No, Constitutionally, it would go more like:
'We claim reasons serious and extensive enough to forcibly turn you over to the judiciary for violating other people's rights. You may or may not choose to contest the allegation. You or may not be eligible for bail, after a hopefully impartial two-sided orderly public argument.
'If you just ask, we will loan you counsel for the assistance of your potential defense. You won't have to pay for that counsel if you beat the rap. Nor if you get convicted and then establish sufficient poverty.
'Also if you beat the rap, particularly if the whole thing gets thrown out, we accusers may ourselves be criminally charged and/or civilly liable and/or demoted or fired for accosting you too severely or without enough properly obtained and relevant evidence.'
> there is NO DUTY TO PROTECT.
Understood. Law enforcement's job is to enforce the law. Keeping the law constitutional is the job of the legislature - and of us ordainers and establishers of the contact, in our potential capacity as jurors with veto power over bad statute in any case before us.

I will be interested in Dale's reply.

➽ I will be interested in Dale's reply.

As I have been with both your replies. Real world demands, then some studious examination and comment. Might be a few days as my pattern has developed.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ You are not following the timeliness.

Sorry. Time lines or time ly ness? Either way, I am assuming you are referring to chronology of your history. And if so, yes, I'm not following, as in, I'm not understanding. Minor issue, IMO, at this point.

➽ You ask where the Constitution got its authority? I gave it to it.

Are you one of the "We the people" that wrote it?
Are you one of the "We the people" that were allegedly represented by those that actually penned it?

Please pay attention: This question is important. This question will be raised again:
Can you delegate authority that you, yourself, do not have?

Do you, personally, have authority to tax me to make me pay for the things in society that you demand?

➽ I took an oath to protect and defend it. Upon discovering that it had been repudiated by the administration I withdrew my consent. Not to the constitution but to the administration that repudiated it.

You repudiated your consent to the criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control for not following the rules (as you called them).

⚠ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.⛔

Oath to protect and defend... An oath to protect and defend four sheets of parchment that allegedly authorizes funding the criminal syndicate by allowing extortion for funding.

➽ I recognize the constitution is not the perfect libertarian system. But compared to the suffering what we have is causing I am willing to lower my standards to the level of the constitution.

Libertarian system? What, specifically, is "liberty"? Voltaire's Admonition on communication.

Willing to lower your standards to the level of the constitution. That is a loaded statement just begging for explanation. How about a standards comparison chart? Pretty please?

➽ You rightfully point out its method of funding as its greatest flaw.

I thank you for that begrudging beginning of an admission.

The CONstitution's method of funding is the criminal act of extortion. The created government's method of funding is the criminal act of extortion. I refuse to ignore that point.

➽ But hopefully you are not one of those entitled freeloaders who believes you should get your services free.

You're one of those people who thinks everybody should pay for services they don't need, don't want, and don't want to be extorted to pay for.

➽ I would work to fix the funding problem by amending the 16th amendment to read: "the federal govt may only tax states." Thus repealing all other federal taxes.

Where are the states going to get the money? Oh snap! The states will just have to extort the funds from the people. Like any and every government ever.

➽ You ask for evidence I went twenty years undocumented?! This is my first hand account. I am the evidence. I suppose I could offer the various citations I received over the years for my failure to comply. The kidnappings I endured awaiting trials, the single conviction resulting from one of the approximately fifteen charges I dealt with. But you should be willing to take my word for it. And I expect both RU and PJ to admit having witnessed the struggle.

No, I should not be willing to take your word on anything. Just like you should not be willing to take my word on anything.

⚠ "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" is an adage and internet meme about Internet anonymity which began as a caption to a cartoon drawn by Peter Steiner and published by The New Yorker on July 5, 1993. Wikipedia⛔

You guys are all just words on my computer screen. My understanding, FWIW, is that there are bots that can engage in discussions. Discussions that sort of pass the Turing test.

The fact that your words are not all congruent is the only reason why I half-challenge your claims of being off the reservation.

There are the little questions about cracks in your narrative. Twenty years undocumented?
Documented: adj. furnished with or supported by documents.
Not carrying ID documents is NOT the same as being "undocumented".
Not having a Birth Certificate is a non-documentation. Not being registered in an indoctrination center... Er... Government school, is undocumented. Being in the military, as you claim, is to be documented. I notice neither of you commented on my "DD-214" comment. Care to explain to the audience what a DD-214 is? It IS documentation. It documents an existence and it documents ?? ??.

Assuming arguendo, that you ran away from home at the age of 13, 20 years later would make you 33. Kind of old for joining the military. Reverse the order where you were in the military first, then you were documented. NOT THE SAME as not carrying those documents or copies of those documents for twenty years.

➽ You compare a mugging to slavery. That is inaccurate and unfair.

You ignore that both acts are acts of extortion. You ignore that both acts are "Do what you are told or be hurt."

Your conscious choice to ignore that fact is inaccurate and unfair. Especially in light of your following words where you attempt to justify slavery.

➽ The mugger arrives unexpectedly and his demand is brief and personal.
But the element of surprise is quickly passed with slavery. You knowledge of time and can expect and prepare for the demands.

Thank you. That is a beautiful segue to Spooner's words.

⚠ The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. ⛔

Since you have already admitted to prejudice and rejection of Spooner's words without considering what they convey, that quote is for those silently reading this exchange.

➽ In the case of a license you actually go there and ask for your money to be taken.

"A license"? Voltaire: "A driver's license."

What happens if I don't pay the extortion for permission to drive? And I get caught driving?

What, specifically, is the purpose of government?

Per RU in one of the early posts: mutual defense compact.

Per the Declaration of Independence:
⚠ [...] certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [...]⛔

If I may be so bold as to claim: The purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

Now let me couple that to what "Standing" is. From Wikipedia:

⚠ There are three standing requirements:

Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.

Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.

Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.⛔

Driving without government permission.
Who is the injured party? What, specifically, is their injury?

The members of the criminal syndicate won't and don't follow their own rules on standing.

➽ This is not a mugging it is a way of life.

I disagree... Only because you almost state it correctly.

This mugging IS a way of life. FIFY.

➽ You were not carjacked. You chose not to resist.

Evidence?  ⚠⚠⚠

I'm calling you on your assertions about me. Something I have noticed you have done more than once during our discussion. Your statements of your projections DO NOT make your projections about me facts. I MIGHT even have to go so far as to accuse you of straw-manning.

➽ You chose not to resist. And that is how slave societies work.

The meta communication I'm getting from you is that you are attempting to act as an agent provocateur.

⚠ An agent provocateur (French for "inciting agent") is a person who commits or who acts to entice another person to commit an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in partaking in an illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation or entice legal action against the target or a group they belong to or are perceived to belong to. They may target any group, such as a peaceful protest or demonstration, a union, a political party or a company.

In jurisdictions in which conspiracy is a serious crime in itself, it can be sufficient for the agent provocateur to entrap the target into discussing and planning an illegal act. It is not necessary for the illegal act to be carried out or even prepared. ⛔

⚠ agent provocateur: a secret agent hired to incite suspected persons to some illegal action, outbreak, etc., that will make them liable to punishment.⛔

Just another little crack in your narrative.

➽ You want me to believe you cooperated from fear of the gun.

Again with your projections, assumptions, and fantasies about me...

I don't care what you believe about me. What I see is you trying to discredit my narrative by your not so subtle (to me) attempt to poison the well.

⚠ Poisoning the well is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Wikipedia⛔

"About to say," or has been saying all along:
Government - a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ But from my vantagepoint it looks like you cooperated for the privileges.

<sarcasm> Got all that from words on a device screen didja? </sarcasm>

➽ You had a far easier life than I with your masters note granting you the privilege to work for wages or engage in business or drive or buy alcohol or all the other privileges granted by master.

<slowly shakes head in disbelief>

How, exactly, does that negate "Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control"?

➽ You did not challenge him in court or on the street.

Evidence?  ⚠⚠⚠

And would you please stop posting your fucking projections, assumptions, and fantasies about me...

➽ But you fault me as the statist while you paid for my harrassment.

If it walks like a statist and talks like a statist...

➽ You say no contract exists.

Supporting evidence for that claim:
⚠ This alleged contract does not exist because it does not have the minimum elements required to be a valid contract. There are four basic elements required in order for a contract to exist. These elements are: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds).

An offer is a conditional promise. What did the 'government' offer (promise) you?

A consideration is a thing (of value) given in exchange for the offer. What did the 'government' ask of you in return (consideration) of what the 'government' promised you?

An acceptance of an offer is an expression of assent to its terms. Can you express assent to the terms of an offer when no terms have been presented to you? When did you assent to the terms of this alleged Contract?

A mutual agreement or meeting of minds exists when both parties understand and agree to the terms of the contract. Can you understand and agree to the terms of a contract when no such terms have been presented to you?⛔

Your master cites your signature on your ID freely given as proof there is [a contract].

Evidence?

That sentence parses in my mind as "TB cites your signature on your ID [...] as proof there is [a contract].

Did you ask for the ID?

Wrong question.

Correct question: Were you forced to fill out paperwork to get a motorist permission card/ ID?

And just so you know, I annotated my signature with the words: "Signed under duress".

➽ > Statutes under the CONstitution, by what authority?
By my authority as someone who signed on to that charter.

Where, exactly, on which parchment page of that charter, can I find your signature?

Just in case you hadn't noticed, I'm a pedantic asshole. "Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details [...]"

The exception being that what others gloss over and/or ignore as minor details, are not minor details. I have found in my life, "That it goes without saying" often means It MUST be said, else it gets overlooked and ignored.

➽ I publicly endorse the contract.

The CONstitution is NOT a contract. Scroll up and read please. I don't want to duplicate what I'm posting and have posted.

➽ Your scorn for the contract doesn't make it not a contract.

Your insistence that it is a contract DOES NOT MAKE IT A CONTRACT. You can go read Spooner's "NO TREASON" or you can scroll up and read the minimum elements required for a contract to exist.

➽ It's a member of the subset of all contracts,

Your assertion does NOT make it so.

➽ Contracts Dale's Not Party To.

Logical point: One can NOT be party to a non-existent contract.

➽ I would prefer for you to root for me to prevail in my contractual grievances against my officials.

I wish that I could. In order to have a viable suit about contractual grievances, there must first be a contract.

Above you admitted understanding that police have no duty to protect. Why does society in general believe this lie? Why does society believe that this protection is a contractual obligation? To protect individual rights per the D of I? To defraud the people to give up their guns because of police protection? Protection that doesn't exist!!!

➽ Instead of you having me take a guilt trip, in the middle of battle [...]

All I am doing is challenging the beliefs of you and TB and doing this with my words. If you are not guilty, then my words should not be taking you on a guilt trip.

➽ Don't throw a bunch of Spooner and dictionary pages all into my eyes.

Words have meanings. Words convey concepts. My words no not agree with the words of you and TB. We do not agree on certain concepts. As I stated, I used to be indoctrinated to believe certain things. Upon, examining and analyzing the information presented as fact, and finding that I have been lied to... NO MORE LIES!!! The government indoctrination is tons upon tons of LIES.

➽ I need to see well to be able to get the muzzle of the Contract back onto the bad guys.

Sigh... It's not a contract. It binds no one.

➽ > Can anybody delegate an authority that they do not have?
I have a natural authority of self defense. And I have a natural authority to contract with others, e.g. about mutual defense.

Your failure to answer the specific question you were asked is NOTED.
The correct answer would be an unequivocated "no".

Drilling through your distraction, deflection, and diversion strategy...

Do you have an authority to tax (extort) others to pay for your "mutual defense" thingy?
Do you have an authority to tell others what they must or must not do when such actions or inactions have absolutely no bearing on your life?
Do you have an authority to threaten and / or actually hurt (extort) others if they don't obey your dictates?

➽ And I have a natural authority to contract with others, e.g. about mutual defense.

That statement I agree with.

My issue is your misbegotten belief that the CONstitution and the government it created is about mutual defense.

➽ > The moment the cop lights a motorist up, that cop has just initiated force against the motorist.

Not if he's acting on enough relevant evidence that the motorist is an immediate menace to people's lives. Endangerment is a form of force, prior to the pullover. Endangerment was the initial force.

Then after having evidence to detain, the cop is CONtractully required to either find evidence to arrest or else to release the detainee.

Any protracted disagreement between the cop and detainee, at the scene, is supposed to have the release valve of the suspect getting to insist to take it to a magistrate. Habeas corpus. It worked pretty well from 1215 to 2002.

Here we go again with a failure to communicate. A detainment is an arrest without immediate incarceration.

What, specifically, do you mean by endangerment? What is the clear and present danger?

Cops are of the opinion that what's right is what the law is. Just like every Nazi "just following orders". Nuremberg be damned.

➽ > At the very minimum, the cop is causing harm by keeping the motorist from going about his or her everyday affairs of life.

Um I was talking about someone weaving all over the road. Fie on your implication that roadweaving is a motorist's own rightful affair.

Do you, personally, have authority to pull a motorist over for "weaving all over the road"? For speeding? For not wearing a seatbelt?  If you do not, you can not delegate such non-existent authority to your mutual defense team.

> Who's pulling the cops over for their reckless driving?

They have whole policy manuals about this kind of thing. Rules of pursuit, minimum necessary reactive force, de-escalation, not increasing the number of endangered ppl, etc. It's a science I'm interested in but no expert in. Oh and speedy turnover to the judiciary, where a two-sided orderly public appeal to law and logic and rights gets as impartially decided as possible, by random jury if ultimately needed.

You entirely missed the point of my question. Because you've entirely missed the behavior I am attempting to get you to focus on. This communication error is mine. I will rectify that presently.

I happened to be on a first name basis with a deputy sheriff the next county over. On a 300 mile trip to a scouting camp, this cop was doing 80mph on a 65mph limited interstate. Sufficiently under stated? 'Nuff said?

I made a statement and a challenge when I wrote:
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. PROVE ME WRONG.

Attempting to shift the burden of proof on to me with a counter challenge, you replied:
No YOU prove stopping a motorist from weaving all over my road WHILE ALSO giving him immediate recourse to challenge the legality of the stop (oh and while holding over the cop's head that the cop will be criminally and civilly liable if the stop was Unconstitutional), is "extortion."

Thus presenting evidence of your intent to not admit the plain, provable, and inconvenient truth of government, any and all government.

Where does the money to pay the cop come from?

⚠ The whole good cop/bad cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his Uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop. We need only consider the following:
(1) a cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
(2) many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
(3) therefore every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. There are no good cops.
~~ Dr. Robert Higgs ~~⛔

> The initiation of force happens before the commands. I will point out that you are ignoring how that (alleged) reactive force is paid for: By extortion! Give them the money they demand or they will hurt you.
No, Constitutionally [...]

SNIP!

Paid for by extortion.

> there is NO DUTY TO PROTECT.
Understood. Law enforcement's job is [...]

SNIP!

Paid for by extortion.

I hope you will bear with me. My limited technology makes these postings very difficult for me.
Yes I meant the time line. Not timeliness.
I began as a supporter of govt. At which time I was documented. It was during that period that I joined the army and took the oath. I suspect I was one of the last who got much of an education on the constitution in school.
I am not one of the we the people who wrote it. I am one of the we the people who ordained and established it.
No I can not delegate authority I do not have. A rifle does give me more authority than I am entitled to. That is the authority you pay to have used against me.
Are you asserting I am taxing you or making demands?

I am one of the ordainers and establishers of the constitution.
Originally the federal govt was chiefly funded by tariffs. This seemed appropriate since the federal govt was established mostly to defend our free market from foreign threats. So let foreign imports pay for it.
Unfortunately due to the disparity of representation in congress between the agrarian south and industrial north this led to the war of Northern aggression. So I prefer direct taxation of states.
So long as the right of succession is respected no coersion is required.
You object that the states would then use coersion to fund their levy. But that is not necessarily true. And is a separate issue we can address once we are done with this one.
I repudiated my consent to be governed by the demopublican administration which was violating the constitution making them criminal. Yes.
My oath was not to the parchment but to the ideas concerning the principles of liberty and instructions for preserving it.
I lower my standards to the constitution and you ask for a comparison chart. Naturally the ideal is your notion of no govt with all men respecting the rights of others and taking responsibility for the harm they do to others.
But man is not yet there so he organizes govts to defend himself and those govts form international alliances to protect themselves.
One such is the US. Others are, the UN, NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and Union of Soviet Republics.
Create your own chart and compare them.

I feel I should clarify some philosophical underpinnings here.
I hold this truth to be self evident. That the purpose and ultimate goal of life is the attainment of happiness.
I recognize some men feel money and/or power are more important. This puts them in conflict with me and others like me. Rare as we may be.
I believe in the natural law of rights which nature enforces as implacably as she does her other natural laws such as gravity.
The natural law of rights states: respect for rights grows happiness. Violation of rights grows misery. The growth of either depends on the degree to which the rights are violated or respected.
You ask for a definition of liberty. It is freedom of action. Liberty should be limited only by the natural law of rights. So my belief is as follows:
A free man should be held responsible for the damage he does to others or their property and otherwise should not be molested.
That is the ideal I strive for. It is from that standard that in the face of mans imperfections I lower to the constitution.
I would continue beyond reestablishing it to amending the source of funding as described before. If I was still young enough to have the strength.

The US were the original UN. "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES." Using the word like when we say the State of Israel today. But the War Against the States forcibly ended that understanding. Made the US an Is instead of an Are. Note that 1865 is the last time the Constitution referred to the US in the definite plural: "subject to THEIR jurisdiction".

➽ I hope you will bear with me. My limited technology makes these postings very difficult for me.

I've conditioned myself to ignore typo's unless I'm not sure of the intent or the other person chooses to make an issue with my typo's. Else such bickering is a distraction from the discussion at hand. Many people do not have real keyboards, nor do they have typing skills, so their devices are smart phones. And the spell chick bitch, if she's turned on... My phone's voice to text... I always have to proof read.

As for FecesBook, I don't want their app on my phone. My interface is via FireFox with its FB fence, through the website portal. And FecesBook is a memory hog. Almost 1 gigabyte when I've been reading for awhile. Not quite half the available RAM, and the virtual memory page swaps... Waiting, waiting, waiting sometimes X3, and finally I can read the thing I've been notified of.

➽ I began as a supporter of govt. At which time I was documented. It was during that period that I joined the army and took the oath. I suspect I was one of the last who got much of an education on the constitution in school.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a Boomer also.
What you call "an education on the constitution" I call "indoctrination".
My first misgivings about the CONstitution was way before I learned of Spooner's No Treason.

➽ I am not one of the we the people who wrote it. I am one of the we the people who ordained and established it.

And I call bullshit on that claim. You weren't there, you weren't then. (Unless you have verifiable proof otherwise.)
If you were there and then, I'll need verifiable proof that you were one of the drafters that wrote it.
If you were there and then, but not one of the drafters, I'll need verifiable proof that you gave the drafters your permission to write it in your name.

quote spooner?

➽ No I can not delegate authority I do not have.

Thank you for that admission. Hold that thought, it impacts much.

➽ A rifle does give me more authority than I am entitled to.

Sigh...

You are confusing extortion with authority.

From my website:
⚠ Extortion Is Not Authority

There are people who are confused about this very simple point. There are some who will attempt to argue that because mere men and women called government are alleged to have authority over other humans, then those mere men and women called government are allowed to use coercion to make you obey their edicts.

This assumes that the mere men and women called government actually have authority over you. This assumption is provably false as you should have learned from reading above.

Some confused people I have interacted with insist on calling extortion authority.  Calling threats, duress, or coercion authority does not make such acts not wrong, regardless of the label applied.
[...]
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that extortion is wrong. One only needs to be able to understand that extortion is the over-riding of one’s free will by way of threat, duress, or coercion. One only needs to be able to recognize that harm is being done, by both the threat and the actions of the threat being executed.

Calling extortion authority just hides the action’s wrongness from the indoctrinated.⛔

Absent my permission; that is to say absent my uncoerced agreement to follow your rules, you do not have authority over me. You point a gun at me, you still DO NOT HAVE authority over me. You are threatening to harm me if I don't do as you say. This is called extortion. This is a criminal act.

So tell me about how the Nazi's had authority to ship Jews and other undesirables to the death camps. And YES, I make that comparison deliberately... Because it is the same moral situation.

A rifle does give me more authority than I am entitled to.

No. It does not. It makes your extortion threat more deadly. It does not convert that extortion into authority.

➽ That is the authority you pay to have used against me.

I submit that you are confused as to who the real enemy is. Because you don't seem to want to see and admit that government extorts people for money and control.

➽ Are you asserting I am taxing you or making demands?

I am asserting that you are validating a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ I am one of the ordainers and establishers of the constitution.

I repeat my challenge. You weren't there. You weren't then.

➽ Originally the federal govt was chiefly funded by tariffs.

I find nothing to disagree with, so I agree. That corresponds with my early learning.

➽ This seemed appropriate since the federal govt was established mostly to defend our free market from foreign threats. So let foreign imports pay for it.

Whether this was or seemed appropriate is a judgment call. I do not directly challenge the call. I'm still processing the claim.

Since the federal [syndicate] was established. Or my first thought: Since the federal [thingy] was established. This is a detour from my point, which is that what exists, is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ Unfortunately due to the disparity of representation in congress between the agrarian south and industrial north this led to the war of Northern aggression.

I have come to use the title, "the war of Northern aggression" myself. IMO, slavery was the excuse. Others have opined, and I agree, that the mechanization of the burgeoning industrial age would have soon made slavery uneconomical.

➽ So long as the right of succession is respected no coersion is required.

Um... Not sure what you intend here.

Obviously the right of succession of the southern states was NOT respected. And coercion was definitely used. You Southerners can't leave the club... Since you have attempted to, we are going to burn your homes, kill your men, and steal your railroad steam engine.

⚠ Western & Atlantic Railroad #3 General is a 4-4-0 "American" type steam locomotive built in 1855 by the Rogers, Ketchum & Grosvenor in Paterson, New Jersey for the Western & Atlantic Railroad, best known as the engine stolen by Union spies in the Great Locomotive Chase, an attempt to cripple the Confederate rail network during the American Civil War.⛔

Speaking of succession, what about the individual's right of succession from being ruled by a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control?

➽ So I prefer direct taxation of states.

Where are the states going to get the money?

➽ You object that the states would then use coersion to fund their levy. But that is not necessarily true. And is a separate issue we can address once we are done with this one.

IMO, it's the same issue. Without "Pay us or we will hurt you" how is the state to get funds from the people? I'm anticipating your suggestion on this issue.

➽ I repudiated my consent to be governed by the demopublican administration which was violating the constitution making them criminal.

Assuming arguendo, that this alleged violation of the CONstitution is the criminal act, who you gonna call? The courts are allowing this very crime to go on. Isn't that aiding and abetting a criminal act? Doesn't that make those two branches of firewood... Er... Those two branches of government co-conspirators of the crime? Not to mention the executive branch creating law by executive order (fiat)?

And while that thought is in my mind, Presidential election promises... WTF? The president is NOT part of the legislative branch.

➽ I lower my standards to the constitution and you ask for a comparison chart. Naturally the ideal is your notion of no govt with all men respecting the rights of others and taking responsibility for the harm they do to others.

That helps me understand your thoughts. Thank you.

It goes without saying, so of course I'm going to say it: There will always be those who do not take responsibility for the harm they do to others. That is an ongoing problem that having a or any "government" has NOT fixed. That is also a problem that could be ongoing without a criminal syndicate extorting people for money and control, erroneously called government.

People buy the BS that cops are for their protection. Provably NOT. The criminal syndicate's monopoly on the use of force actually makes people and their property LESS safe.

IMO, it's the indoctrinated belief in the need for government that keeps people from taking action(s) to make themselves safer... I am quite sure I will need to explain the how and why. It just does not seem evident to cowards and the indoctrinated (indoctrinated cowards?).

➽ But man is not yet there so he organizes govts to defend himself

Sorry. Indoctrinated BS.

Which man? Which men? Specifically?
Are not yet where? Specifically?
Johnny Five need more input.

➽ But man is not yet there so he organizes govts to defend himself

But man is not yet there so he organizes [criminal syndicates that extort people] to defend himself (because indoctrination does not let them see the criminal syndicates for what they actually are.)

Thus the indoctrinated believe criminal syndicates that extort people are to protect them from bad people, never questioning who's going to protect them from bad people in criminal syndicates that extort people. It goes without saying, so I'm saying it: Criminal syndicates that extort people for money and control are bad people.

➽ and those govts form international alliances to protect themselves.

and those criminal syndicates that extort people form international alliances to protect themselves from other criminal syndicates that extort people.

Did the German people invade Poland because they all individually wanted to? Or did they invade Poland because of their superstitious belief in the alleged authority of the German Chancellor named Hitler? Push those Jews and other undesirables into those freight cars or be pushed in yourself?

➽ You ask for a definition of liberty. It is freedom of action.

On this we agree. 100%.

And as old, dead TJ has been quoted:
⚠ Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.⛔

To which I add YDOM! (Which I'm sure I will need to explain.)

As soon as government law is created (politician's mere opinions), action is obstructed.

➽ Liberty should be limited only by the natural law of rights.

On this I think we have a communication problem while basically being in agreement. If you'd be so kind as to explain what you mean by "the natural law of rights". I'm assuming you are intending something to do with Locke's "Natural Law".

The concept of rights is a bit problematic to begin with. Expounded and explained upon request.

➽ My oath was not to the parchment but to the ideas concerning the principles of liberty and instructions for preserving it.

You need an oath to follow the principles of liberty? What instructions do others need to preserve liberty from YOUR depredations? How are instructions to others going to protect them from YOUR depredations?

I do not believe (assume without evidence) that you are a criminal preying upon others. I use this description because I wish to make a point, a very sharp point, about what you believe and probably do not even know you believe.

➽ So my belief is as follows:
A free man should be held responsible for the damage he does to others or their property and otherwise should not be molested.

How, specifically, should a free man be held responsible for the damage he does to others or their property?

I preemptively reject any answer the requires a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. This is an acknowledgement that with or without the criminal syndicate called government, there will be criminals harming others. This harm IS different from government harm.

If I was still young enough to have the strength.

How much strength do you need to use words? My bio dad's clock sets me dead in four years. I to have to deal with the issue of knowing there is more time behind me than is ahead of me. That is why I engage with you and those who think like you. That is why I try very hard to be respectful while at the same time calling BS on the BS presented to me.

➽ The US were the original UN. "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."

That's a fact that has been erased even though it is still true.

➽ Note that 1865 is the last time the Constitution referred to the US in the definite plural: "subject to THEIR jurisdiction".

Likely true and not worth my time to verify. The CONstitution is the creation of the federal criminal syndicate... A "government".

Euphemism: n. A mild, indirect, or vague term for one that is considered harsh, blunt or offensive;
Government - a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

You can not avoid the simple fact, anytime you read the word "government", replace it with the harsh and blunt truth: "a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control".

[Dale Eastman]

I still think you are confusing what we have with the constitution I support.
And I am very interested in what you do support.

I don't have to be the author to support an idea or a system. You are wasting time arguing over my claim to be an ordainer. If you insist on going there you should simply point to my inability to establish it in the face of demopublican tyranny. However I understood you objected to the idea that I support it regardless of my success in implementing it.

I have mentioned I carried a gun erroneously thinking it was in defense of it. I bring that up to show a depth of commitment not to legitimize that use of force. The key is that they were shooting back. I was willing to lay my life on the line for due process and the requirement for warrants.

So that led to your comment, "extortion is not authority." Power is authority. You bend to it. Now you can argue the morality of the authority. But so long as you are willing to bend to power denying its authority is silly.

Nature is not necessarily moral. The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.

What challenges have you been willing to face in defense of your rights?

You had a choice give consent and comply or not. You can say you were forced. But that extortion was no different than the rain. It is the nature of some men to get what they want with force. You knew the rain was coming. It was up to you to seek or build shelter.
You say you were forced to accept that offered by the demopublicans. But you have had decades to find an alternative. At some point you have to take responsibility for your own choices.

You tell me extortion is wrong while you yield to it decade after decade. It sure looks like it works from here. You tell me extortion is not authority but you sure obey.

I always say don't listen to demopublicans watch what they do. Your words say one thing but your actions are much louder.

You need to rework your argument.

I proposed funding the federal govt by taxing only states. So long as the right of succession was respected I submitted the federal govt would no longer be funded by extortion which was your objection to it.

You point out that the federal govt refused to allow succession. But their authority to refuse was not derived from the constitution. I am arguing for the constitution. Don't build a straw man out of something I am not endorsing.

Another straw man is states using coersion to come up with their share. Why would the states need to use coersion to collect the cost of defense? Do you not believe in paying for services you use?

Let's argue that one in its turn.

I don't need indoctrination to know I need defense. You keep acting like that isn't a real need. As if you did not need a roof to keep the rain off. The trick is keeping the roof from collapsing in on you. As this one is doing.

Go back to the declaration. What should man do when a long train of abuses and usurpation occur?

I suggest we go back to the constitutional fundamentals, with a little tweak at the 16th amendment. You seem content to keep paying for your enslavement while rejecting any proposal.

If you come up with a different plan lay it out.

Setting aside other valid concerns for the moment, I observe that you seem to believe that taxes collected by a provincial level (“state”) government are more voluntary than those collected by a federal government. I see no reason to come to that conclusion.

TB and I agree with you that DL licensure criminalizes a victimless rightful liberty and should be ended. Maybe consider such a possibility next time, before lecturing the choir for 3 pages. 🙂

No PJ I notice state govts have the same tendency to use coersion as the feds. I am simply saying that is not the only possibility.

➽ I still think you are confusing what we have with the constitution I support.

I can understand how and why you think that. I used to believe in the constitution myself.

You and I are still having a communication problem. This error in communicating must still be mine. I'm not getting you to see what I see.

You point out two items as if they are separate. They are separate, and at the same time, they are not. Those two things are the "constitution" and "what we have", that is... A government. You keep focusing on the government we have as if it's supposed to be different from any other government because of the CONstitution. It is in that respect that they are the same thing. The one created the other. The one is the origin of the other.

Now moving the frame of focus, There is the government that we have, and there are every other governments everyone else has. It DOES NOT matter HOW those governments came into being. They are ALL the same.

EVERY LAW and penalty associated with that particular law is extortion. Period.

So to K.I.S.S. the discussion, I'm going to post this and wait awhile before returning to the rest of your words.

EVERY LAW and penalty associated with that particular law is extortion. Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.

Well, you keep rejecting my description of the Constitution as a contract, despite that I explicitly, publicly endorse its terms AND SO does every official empowered by its terms. I see it as a detailed agreement for the collective security of the individual rights of its subscribers. Since organized might is inherently dangerous to liberty, the agreement includes terms about keeping officials accountable to the terms. Both in venues like courts, created by the terms, and in special mechanisms retained by the people directly, like gun ownership, jury nullification, and the vote.

What WOULD be an example of a mutual defense contract, in your opinion?

➽ Well, you keep rejecting my description of the Constitution as a contract, [...]

This is correct. For the simple FACT that the constitution is NOT a contract.

Repeating with cited links, here are the minimum elements of a contract:

⚠
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration
Competence/Capacity
Mutual Consent
Legality
Writing
https://www.sapling.com/11368503/7-required-elements-enforceable-contract⛔

⚠
offer,
acceptance,
consideration,
capacity,
meeting of the minds,
legality,
and sometimes a written document.
https://www.upcounsel.com/7-essential-elements-of-a-contract⛔

⚠
Offer
acceptance.
Consideration
Capable parties
Mutual assent
Legal purpose
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/contracts-basics-33367.html⛔

Will you please admit the obvious?

Aka an arrangement, agreement, pact, commitment.

Offer. Citizens may register to become electable to office by the set of registered voters.

Acceptance. If elected they may choose to be sworn in.

Capacity. Self-defense and contracting for mutual defense are basic human rights.

Mutual consent. Already answered. I'm on record endorsing the terms and so are my hired contractors, my govt officials.

Legality. There's no law against contracting for mutual defense.

Writing. Full terms and conditions here.
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/.../us-constitution-full...

He is also still confusing: 1. following his shoeprints from your burgled chickenhouse to his garage, and 2. extortion.

Govt is like the weather. It is everywhere. Some is better some is worse. You seem to be proposing I move to outer space where there is no weather. I find certain difficulties with that proposal. Perhaps you would care to explain how to deal with those difficulties.

Yes a law forbidding him to steal my chickens is extortion.

He promises not to thieve if you'll promise not to prosecute. 😕

You mean like a contract?

➽ Offer. Citizens may register to become electable to office by the set of registered voters.

Who, specifically, are the parties making this alleged contract?

➽ And I am very interested in what you do support.

Presently what I support is what I and others are attempting to do. I support educating the indoctrinated. The indoctrinated that are so indoctrinated that they believe they need government to tell them how to treat others with respect.

Lemme repeat that concept NOT using the euphemism:
I support educating the indoctrinated that are so [educated by the government schools] that they believe they need [the criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control] to tell them how to treat others with respect.

➽ Power is authority.

No. It is NOT! So correcting your statement:
Power is [extortion]. You bend to it.

From my website:
⚠ I am deliberately disregarding the dictionary definitions of (command) authority since they all define authority as something real and do not address the provable fact that authority is a myth.
[...]
Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.⛔

➽ Now you can argue the morality of the authority.

No need to. Except for those who refuse to see. Extortion is NOT authority. Extortion is criminal.

➽ But so long as you are willing to bend to power denying its authority is silly.

FIFY: But so long as you are willing to bend to power denying its [EXTORTION] is silly. Now I agree.

What challenges have you been willing to face in defense of your rights?

For starters, having discussions with indoctrinated statists. Your point? [Rhetorical]

➽ You tell me extortion is wrong while you yield to it decade after decade. It sure looks like it works from here. You tell me extortion is not authority but you sure obey.

Sigh...

Yes. I tell you extortion is wrong, yet here we are with you defending extortion... Because extortion works...

Are you going to tell me extortion is not wrong?

➽ You need to rework your argument.

And here is the crux of our communication problem. You don't seem to want to understand the argument.

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control... And you are perfectly okay with that.

➽ I don't need indoctrination to know I need defense. You keep acting like that isn't a real need.

And you keep acting like eliminating a criminal syndicate extorting people for money and control isn't a real need. You are still continuing to ignore that simple fact.

➽ Go back to the declaration. What should man do when a long train of abuses and usurpation occur?

Go back to the CONstitution. What should the criminal syndicate do when people get fed up with a long train of abuses and usurpation?
I'll go back for you:
"Suppress Insurrections" - Art 1, Section 8.
Translation: Kill those who refuse to obey.

➽ I suggest we go back to the constitutional fundamentals, with a little tweak at the 16th amendment.

Who is this "we"?
It sure isn't you and I. You have no fucking clue as to what the federal tax law actually says. I do. Cutting to the chase, the actual words of the tax law says indirectly, the criminal syndicate called government are LIARS by deliberate omission.

And I just LOVE how you contradict yourself:
➽ If you come up with a different plan lay it out.
➽ I don't have to be the author to support an idea or a system.

Step one: Educate the dumb masses that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ I proposed funding the federal govt by taxing only states.
➽ I notice state govts have the same tendency to use coersion as the feds. I am simply saying that is not the only possibility.

And what, pray tell, is another way? Oh wait, you ALMOST did:

➽ Why would the states need to use coersion to collect the cost of defense? Do you not believe in paying for services you use?

The cost of defending from what, specifically? ⇇ A question.

What services, specifically? ⇇ A question.

If I did business the way government does business and force people to use my services, would I be considered a criminal? ⇇ A question. Think Fulton Street Fish Market & Mafia Protection Rackets.

What is the state going to do when I refuse to pay such fees for services I don't need, don't want and don't use? And yes, I am aware of the "free rider" issue.

➽ Govt is like the weather. It is everywhere. Some is better some is worse. You seem to be proposing I move to outer space where there is no weather. I find certain difficulties with that proposal.

Removing the euphemism: Yes criminal syndicates that extort people for money and control are everywhere. All is the same: Extortive.

If I seem to YOU to be proposing you move elsewhere, you seem to be deliberately missing my point. It DOES NOT matter HOW those governments came into being. They are ALL the same. They are all extortion rackets.

➽ Perhaps you would care to explain how to deal with those difficulties.

Enough with the ephemeral references.
Which difficulties, specifically, are you focusing upon?

TB Extortion you have no right to reCOOP your FOWLly stolen property haha you thug I'll be dining on some fine poultry tonight.

So you support talking about how foolish it is to pay the extortionist while you pay the extortionist. While I refused to pay and took the bruises for it. And you say I am the one who supports extortion.
Ok. Well it is true I finally did surrender. So you have me. I support the extortionist like you. Although I suspect he still gets more from you than me.
I say power is authority. I point out you yield to it.
I think you try to avoid admitting that fact by introducing the concept of moral authority. I grant authority based on power alone may well not be moral. But what is morality?
Earlier in the conversation I talked about the natural law of rights. You did not have much to say on the topic. But your unspoken underlying appeal to morality as a basis for authority is understandable. But I must insist it is not the only basis for authority. Might makes right has been with us as long as morality.
For those years I refused to pay the tyrant and his henchmen were assaulting and kidnapping me and you were paying them what was I justified in doing to cut off his source of revenue?
You say you were forced to pay. But you were not being forced any harder than I was. You were reaping the rewards of your cooperation while I was carrying my water in a bucket.
I say you looked at your options and you chose to obey authority and the morality be damned.
Once you stop deluding yourself about that we can continue this discussion.
I am getting a little tired of you claiming you have the moral high ground while I can't see that you have paid any dues at all.

This conversation started when I butted in on a discussion regarding voting. This conversation has gone all over the place. In reviewing this conversation, I see that I must now focus on my narrative supporting my agenda.

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

This is provable and irrefutable. By extortion, I mean "Do what we (I) tell you to do or we (I) will hurt you."

My discussion opponent claims that extortion is authority. Quote: "I say power is authority." My discussion opponent goes further and says, "I think you try to avoid admitting that fact by introducing the concept of moral authority." That specific opinion of yours is just that and only that: Your opinion. The word describing what you are doing is conflation.

⚠ Conflation is the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, opinions, etc., into one, often in error. In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts. Wikipedia ⛔

Doing a simple equate translation of my opponent's statement: I say [extortion] is authority.

My discussion opponent goes on: I grant authority based on power alone may well not be moral. Translating that: I grant authority based on [extortion] alone may well not be moral. Examining the inverse of that statement results in I grant authority based on [extortion] alone may well [...] be moral.

My discussion opponent asks a question, But what is morality? Such is an excellent question at the same time it is a stupid question. Everybody knows what their own morality is. Everybody knows what offends their own sense of morality. This is what makes the question stupid. Everybody's morality may well be different. This is what makes the question an excellent question.

So I must consider that my discussion opponent does not have the same morality as I.
I note that my discussion opponent doesn't take a stand regarding whether extortion is moral or immoral.

But I must insist [morality] is not the only basis for authority.

Do tell about the non moral authority that slave owners have over their slaves. Oh wait. You did.

Might makes right has been with us as long as morality.

So if I am understanding this correctly, Do what I tell you to do or I will kill you is authority.

Going back to your excellent question, Imagine that you are a slave literally under your master's whip. You got the scars on your back to prove it. In that scenario, Please give myself and the audience your explanation of how that authority your owner has over you is moral.

[Dale Eastman]

Yep be eventually answerable to probable cause for suspecting that you're a chicken thief, or we will eventually have to kill you. Some number of TB's chickens eventually become more valuable than your life, if you keep evading or escaping arrest and trial.
But calling this extortion on our part is bogus. It is self evidently to secure a man's natural unalienable right to use and dispose of his own property.

Please be sure to tag me or click reply. I did not get a notification of your reply.

➽ But calling this extortion on our part is bogus.

How does "this" government acquire operating funds?

So let us go back to the beginning.
You say govt is a criminal syndicate that extortion people for money and control.

I ask, must it be?
Why?

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction.
-- Larken Rose --

There is a BIG difference between self control (self governing) and external, (do what we tell you or be hurt) governing.

The "official" story of government in the United States and the 50 States united is BS PR. Easily refuted BS PR. If it truly is consent of the governed, why do those doing the governing need men with guns to govern?

Shall I take that as a yes govt must always be a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

I do have to admit it works very well for that as proven by your example.

> How does "this" government acquire operating funds?

That's for the consent of its ordainers and establishers to decide. Kinda like it's none of my business what payment methods and schedule you might arrange with Brinks if you hired them to help guard your house.

However, for your curiosity, I will share that one thing we do is charge court costs to duly convicted chicken thieves.

My conclusion to your question is "Yes" govt must always be a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

I am writing about external government, the controllers; the rulers, external to the self. Anybody not me demanding I do what they tell me.

You have made me quite curious as to what you will propose as such external from myself "government" telling me what to do against my will that doesn't use extortion.

{How does "this" government acquire operating funds?}

➽ That's for the consent of its ordainers and establishers to decide.

I will so stipulate.

What did its [government's] ordainers and establishers decide?

Taxes and taxation perhaps?

At what point are you responsible for your own security? You seem to believe you should get it for free.

In a perfect world I admit there would be no threat posed by your fellow men since all men would be moral enough not to rob or steal. However there are still honest disputes, accidental liabilities, and misunderstandings which can be better settled by an impartial third party. Do you still expect that for free?

In any case you don't seem to be very successful on your own. Those willing to use force against you are well vindicated by their success. I still don't understand how you argue against extortion in the face of its success when practically applied to you.
You refuse to pay for your own defense and call it extortion so the demopublicans rob you at will.

By the way my proposal for funding the federal govt requires no extortion.

> What did its [government's] ordainers and establishers decide?
What's it to you? You're not party to the agreement. And I already furnished you an example. I'm not here explain my personal business to you.

> What did its [government's] ordainers and establishers decide?
What's it to you? You're not party to the arrangement. And I already furnished you an example. I'm not here explain my personal business to you.

> What did its [government's] ordainers and establishers decide?
What's it to you? You're not party to the arrangement. And I already furnished you an example. I'm not here explain my personal business to you.

Taxation of me by constitutionally elected representatives and for constitutionally authorized purposes is not theft from me. But these days that is a very small minority of taxation of me. It excludes all federal and state and county taxation of me these days.

Taxation of me by constitutionally elected representatives and for constitutionally authorized purposes is not theft from me. But these days that is a very small portion of taxation of me. It excludes all federal and state and county taxation of me these days. Only my city-level tax-setters are constitutionally elected, and plenty of even their taxes are also straight robbery for no goods/services in return, aka wealth redistribution.

Me:
{You have made me quite curious as to what you will propose as such external from myself "government" telling me what to do against my will that doesn't use extortion.}

This was clearly an invitation for you to present your proposal.

You:
{By the way my proposal for funding the federal govt requires no extortion.}

Doing what I do best: Pissing people off by asking them questions about their claims.

What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion?

I so want to address your other statements... And I will, later.

➽ At what point are you responsible for your own security?

The moment I realized that government lies and lied about providing people with security. Government can't and won't provide security to the people.

Proof and support of the claim:
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
California Code 845
Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102
New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4

Those are the ones I know about. There are others.

You seem to believe you should get it for free.

You seem to be imagining things and making shit up in your head. This is not the first time I have called you on your projections. If not for calling you on your projections, I wouldn't even dignify your claim with an answer.

In a perfect world I admit there would be no threat posed by your fellow men since all men would be moral enough not to rob or steal. However there are still honest disputes, accidental liabilities, and misunderstandings which can be better settled by an impartial third party. Do you still expect that for free?

I decline to dignify your attempt at changing the topic with an answer to your off topic question.

I still don't understand how you argue against extortion in the face of its success when practically applied to you.

And I don't understand how you argue FOR extortion. Which logically means you argue FOR extortion by the criminal syndicate called government.

No where in your recent replies do you argue against, nor disprove, that government extorts people for money and control. In fact, in your January 23rd post you were specifically acknowledging the CONstitution, when you wrote: "You rightfully point out its method of funding as its greatest flaw."

The CONstitution is the organic document that created the present federal government. Thus, by implication, you have admitted that government's method of funding is its greatest flaw.

Taxation of me by constitutionally elected representatives and for constitutionally authorized purposes is not theft from me.

It's not theft from me either. It's extortion. What happens when I or others like myself refuse to pay it?

My single focus... Lemme refresh your memory:

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

You have neither disproved this, nor admitted this.

You posted this yesterday as I was composing this post:
➽ [...] my city-level tax-setters [...] plenty of even their taxes are also straight robbery for no goods/services in return, aka wealth redistribution.

And if you refuse to pay those taxes?

Me:
How does "this" government acquire operating funds?

You:
That's for the consent of its ordainers and establishers to decide.

Me:
I will so stipulate.
What did its [government's] ordainers and establishers decide?
Taxes and taxation perhaps?

You:
➽ What's it to you? You're not party to the agreement.

Then why am I extorted to pay for it?

> What happens when I or others like myself refuse to pay it?

I decline to guess. Just tell me. What did in fact happen, the last time you refused to pay a Constitutionally authorized tax levied by Constitutionally elected legislators?

> My single focus

is to blame people whose rights you refuse to help secure, for your rights not being secure.

Take a deep breath. Your frustration is pushing you towards rudeness.

I am not saying the present govt is not a criminal extortion ring. I am debating whether it is possible to have one that is not. And I am suggesting the one created by the constitution was as close as man has come. Though I recognize it could be improved I also realize in an imperfect world perfection is out of reach.

I understand your anger is sparked by my jabbing the open wound you suffer from the depredations of the present govt. I am trying to get you to understand how your response to it appears to justify the use of force. It works on you. Not just for a snatch and grab or back alley mugging but for the lifetime long term.

Slave societies can not work without the cooperation of the slaves. You cooperate. But complain about it. You act like RU and I should save you from it. But both of us have been jailed fighting it. What have you done besides complain?
We have proposed forming a union to counter the out of control govt we have. But while you pay to support the one we have you dismiss our proposals out of hand. You simply close your mind to them.
So I am waiting to hear your plan for countering the extortionists. Stop complaining I am projecting and offer your proposal.

My single focus... Lemme refresh your memory: Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Your refusal or failure to answer the last question is very telling.

Me:
How does "this" government acquire operating funds?

You:
That's for the consent of its ordainers and establishers to decide.

Me:
I will so stipulate.
What did its [government's] ordainers and establishers decide?
Taxes and taxation perhaps?

You:
➽ What's it to you? You're not party to the agreement.

Then why am I extorted to pay for it?

Me:
{You have made me quite curious as to what you will propose as such external from myself "government" telling me what to do against my will that doesn't use extortion.}

This was clearly an invitation for you to present your proposal.

You:
{By the way my proposal for funding the federal govt requires no extortion.}

Doing what I do best: Pissing people off by asking them questions about their claims.

What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion?

And TB doesn't even eat in captivity. FIVE DAYS they held him for not identifying, before deciding they really didn't want his corpse on their hands that time. Five days of him getting the tyrant, whom YOU PAY, to waste time worrying about a peaceful man sitting in their cage, instead of them bothering you.
And you dare say WE'RE making YOUR life more difficult.

I drove with expired license, expired registration and expired safety inspection for over two years. Before I finally got a jury - which maybe you were on, since they turned out to be a dozen dozing nod-along sheep - I was pulled over seven times, summoned 15 times, jailed three times, had my car stolen and ransomed back to me, had them eat part of my hamburger, and search my car with nobody's permission after they already had me locked in their car.
Your refusal to answer what happened the last time YOU stood up to the tyrant is very telling.

Don't be too hard on him Ray. We at least have had a chance to feel like free men. Even while in a cage. He may have avoided the cage. But he also never felt free.

Thank you for your reply where you ignored my challenge to your claim.

{By the way my proposal for funding the federal govt requires no extortion.}

Doing what I do best: Pissing people off by asking them questions about their claims. And doing it a SECOND time.

What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion?

Your SECOND refusal or failure to answer the last question is very telling.

Me:
How does "this" government acquire operating funds?

You:
That's for the consent of its ordainers and establishers to decide.

Me:
I will so stipulate.
What did its [government's] ordainers and establishers decide?
Taxes and taxation perhaps?

You:
➽ What's it to you? You're not party to the agreement.

Then why am I extorted to pay for it?

<Mutters to self about having to be childish in like kind.>

Doing what I do best: Pissing people off by asking them questions about their claims... More than once.

Then why am I extorted to pay for it?
Then why am I extorted to pay for it?
Then why am I extorted to pay for it?

[Dale Eastman]

> What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion?
How, specifically, does making a duly convicted interstate chicken thief pay for the cost of bringing him to justice constitute extortion?

I did reply with my proposal to limit federal taxation to states.

> Why am I extorted to pay for it?

I don't believe you are. I believe you pay them in advance, on schedule, without them ever needing to remind you, much less actually get in your face, bruise your wrists, steal your car and give you a taste of jail food.

Regardless, though, why are you asking someone whose own right not to be extorted you refuse to help secure? Why would I owe you an answer about it? You explicitly reject my terms of mutual defense. Why don't you take it up with Brinks or whoever it is that you're paying, that's doing such a piss-poor job of protecting you?

Oh wait, maybe you're not paying anyone to help protect your rights? Because the world owes you free stuff?

> I did reply with my proposal to limit federal taxation to states.

Told you he doesn't care. He cares only about defining us as extortionists if we won't pay to secure his rights on his terms while he throws away the bill for protecting our rights on our terms.

So all our rights continue to be violated.
And it is all your fault! 😉

Don't you know it only works if we all wave the magic wand of wishing away chicken thieves at the same time?

I asked:
{What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion?}

You replied:
{I did reply with my proposal to limit federal taxation to states.}

You gave a partial reply. Specifically you wrote:
{So I prefer direct taxation of states.}

I asked:
{Where are the states going to get the money?}

You replied:
{You object that the states would then use coersion to fund their levy. But that is not necessarily true.}

So that there is no confusion...

You claim direct taxation of the states removes fed extortion.

You did NOT answer the question:
Where are the states going to get the money?

Point of logic:
If the states must extort the people to pay the state's tax bill to the fed, then the people are still being extorted to pay the fed.

Here is that same inquiry to drill down to the truth after being KISSed:
In order for the states to pay the federal government, what, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the state's governments without extortion?

IMO, you have continued to ignore my question by kicking the can down the road.

> Why am I extorted to pay for it?

I don't believe you are.

What a wonderful segue back to something you danced around earlier and I ignored at that moment...

> What happens when I or others like myself refuse to pay it?

I decline to guess. Just tell me. What did in fact happen, the last time you refused to pay a Constitutionally authorized tax levied by Constitutionally elected legislators?

In order to prove the willingness of the criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control, oft times called "government" to hurt people, I present these quotes.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Decided: August 05, 2005
Before KING, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL, *District Judge. Alan L. Hechtkopf, Samuel Robert Lyons (argued), U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for U.S. Peter Goldberger (argued), Law Office of Peter Goldberger, Admore, PA, Robert G. Bernhoft, The Law Office of Robert G. Bernhoft, Milwaukee, WI, for Simkanin.
[...]
Defendant-Appellant Richard Michael Simkanin appeals his conviction for ten counts of willfully failing to collect and pay over employment taxes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7202, fifteen counts of knowingly making and presenting false claims for refund of employment taxes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2, and four counts of failing to file federal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.   He also appeals his sentence of eighty-four months imprisonment.   For the following reasons, we AFFIRM Simkanin's conviction and sentence.
The court decided to depart upwardly from that range, concluding that a range of eighty-four to 105 months more appropriately reflected the likelihood that Simkanin would re-offend.   The court then imposed a sentence of eighty-four months.
⛔ ⛔ ⛔ ⛔

I'll just mention Irwin Schiff in passing.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠ ⚠
As a result of these judicial rulings Schiff was in a hospital prison serving a sentence of 162 months (13.5 years) at the time of his death at the age of 87. The Federal Bureau of Prisons reported that Schiff died on October 16, 2015.
⛔ ⛔ ⛔ ⛔

[Dale Eastman]

>> What happened last time YOU refused to pay some tax?
> [IRWIN SCHIFF got locked up for life.]

Dale seems to want some libertarian kind of communism. 'What's your rights is yours to stick your neck out for; what's my rights is also yours to stick your neck out for.'

I told you one problem at a time. If the feds can be funded honestly why can't the states?

You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that securing your rights costs money or that you have any obligation to pay for that service.

Yet it has been pointed out that refusing to do so has left you at the mercy of extortionists.
If you won't pay for your defense don't expect to be defended.

➽ I told you one problem at a time.

Yes, you did. Why are you not focusing on first things first?

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. You partially admitted to this earlier.

➽ If the feds can be funded honestly why can't the states?

You claimed direct taxation of the states removes fed extortion.

You did NOT answer the question:
Where are the states going to get the money?

Your claim. Your burden of proof.

So to directly answer your question in the exact same manner you answered mine, Who are the states going to directly tax... The cities, towns, and/or the counties?

So by answering your question I have allowed you to kick the can down the road a little farther.

> Why am I extorted to pay for it?

➽ I don't believe you are.

> What happens when I or others like myself refuse to pay it?

➽ I decline to guess. Just tell me.

➽ > [IRWIN SCHIFF got locked up for life.]

✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ Speculation, a.k.a. making shit up and projecting it, SNIP! ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂

Repeating myself: My single focus:

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Still waiting for a valid refutation.

[Dale Eastman]

> Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Because chicken thieves deserve to get away with it. Or at least you'll be damned if you're going to help pay to bring them to justice. Securing your rights is other people's job, because the world owes you free stuff.

You ask where are the states going to get the money to pay their share of the cost of hiring the federal govt to secure their rights?
Where are you going to get the money? Is the only way you know coersion?
You have yet to admit that securing your rights is a valuable service you would be willing to pay for.
With fifty states there could be fifty ways to pay the feds. Move to the state which seems best. Let the states compete for citizens. Alaska might pay with oil revenue while Nevada might pay with fees for gambling. Since you don't gamble you might get a free ride there.
I agree one plan might be for a state to kick that can down to the next level by only taxing counties. The idea being to bring the taxing body down to a local enough level that an individual would actually have some serious influence.
In any case I still point out that your plan has worked as poorly as you think mine would.

"Govt is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control."
Ours is. The question is whether it must be.

> You have yet to admit that securing your rights is a valuable service you would be willing to pay for.

The world owes him free stuff. That's his sole focus. Nagging us to protect him from extortion while he refuses to protect us from anything.

➽ "Govt is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control."
Ours is. The question is whether it must be.

Sigh...

You wrote:
{By the way my proposal for funding the federal govt requires no extortion.}

Your claim, your burden of proof.

I asked:
{What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion?}

You wrote:
{I did reply with my proposal to limit federal taxation to states.}
{So I prefer direct taxation of states.}

Your claim, your burden of proof.

I asked:
{Where are the states going to get the money?}

You wrote:
{You object that the states would then use coersion to fund their levy. But that is not necessarily true.}

Your claim: {my proposal for funding the federal govt requires no extortion}
Your burden of proof: Showing the funding for the federal government is not extorted anywhere in the revenue stream.

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Still waiting for a valid refutation.

Repeating myself: My single focus:

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Still waiting for a valid refutation.

[Dale Eastman]

Yeah well I'm still waiting to hear what you'll pay for my help defending you from extortion.
I paid in liberty and car use and thousands of dollars of fines and fees and lost work time, and with 100 hours prepping for and schlepping through court appearances, for refusing to pay tribute to extorters for two years, thus partly deflecting them from paying as much attention to you as they could have been, while YOU kept paying THEM to keep extorting ME. You self-righteous self-deluding mafia bankroller.

That was all from 1999-2001 at the county level. From 1996-2010 I also kept the IRS spinning their wheels on why I wasn't filing with them. Let me guess, you filed all 15 of those times? Because you're such a scary foe of extorters?

I am often accused of being self righteous condescending and even arrogant. So I try to refrain from making such calls.
I expect a fair amount of resistance goes unheralded for fear of repercussions. Dale might be a bigger freedom fighter than we know.

I say direct taxation of states by the feds is not coercive so long as the principles of its founding document are respected.
I am of course referring to the declaration of independence which is a justification for secession.
If a state is free to leave it must be acting voluntarily. I don't know what more proof you need.
You continue to ignore the reasons anyone would volunteer to join a mutual defense pact. But your claims of being extorted stand as proof there are reasons.
Would you pay a reasonable price to secure your rights and be free of such depredations.
Or is RU right and are you just a freeloader?

> Dale might be a bigger freedom fighter than we know.

We brought up our past legal tribulations only after he kept not addressing how much of what kind of paying he will commit to to mutually secure Rights. There's a certain amount I would be willing to pay to see someone repeat now our old exploits. Sticking our necks out for windmills to tilt at us.

However the debate centers on two questions.
1. Is it possible to have a govt which is not a criminal syndicate which initiates extortion.
2. How much of your substance would you be willing to pay to secure your rights from govts that do?
If the answer to 2 is none then I agree the answer to 1 is no as well. But the entire burden falls on you. So don't complain to me that you are being coersed. I have my own problems to deal with.

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
Still waiting for a valid refutation.

You replied, not with a valid refutation, nor with an agreement to the claim.

➽ Yeah well I'm still waiting to hear what you'll pay for my help defending you from extortion.

I read your anecdote that followed. I did not see anything that resembled verifiable information of you attempting to defend me from extortion.

You and I did NOT contract for mutual defense from government extortion. Assuming arguendo that such a contract existed, Where do you imagine my funds to help with this defense would be paid?

➽ Dale might be a bigger freedom fighter than we know.

Thank you for at least considering that possibility.

Yes. I am. (A claim presently without evidence. Maybe later I'll supply some later.)

I've been playing my cards close to my chest. Apprising the two of you of that fact by "bragging" of my exploits does not suit my present narrative. ("Bragging" is not really the correct word. Besides, I've not yet paid the pound of flesh the both of you have claimed to have paid.)

➽ I say direct taxation of states by the feds is not coercive so long as the principles of its founding document are respected.

That just forces the coercion down to the state level. That is why I keep challenging on the issue of Where are the states going to get that money without coercion?

➽ Would you pay a reasonable price to secure your rights and be free of such depredations.

Who would such a reasonable price be paid to?

We had them crumbling. A few more and we might have seen real reform. But then 9/11 blew us out of the water.

➽ Is it possible to have a govt which is not a criminal syndicate which initiates extortion.

Have you not been paying attention?

We all know that extortion is when somebody is told "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you." We all know that extortion is what a bad person, a criminal, does to a victim.

Organized crime syndicates use a method of extortion called a protection racket. "If you don't pay us to protect you, we won't protect you (from us)." "From us" may be brazenly stated or only implied.

Politicians write rules. Politician's rules are written demands to be obeyed under threat of being hurt if you don't obey. The politician's rules called "penalties" or "fines" are the threats to hurt you if you don't comply. Thus rules of politicians, dictators, and monarchs are all extortion. Do what they tell you to do or be hurt.

These criminal actions can not be defended by logic or by morality.

[Dale Eastman]

Not if what they are telling you is just to refrain from violating Rights.

Not every use of force is initiatory. But maybe you are a pacifist and thus don't care about that distinction?

You are not paying attention. Nor are you addressing my questions.

So do your rights need to be secured? How would you secure them without using extortion? Is threatening to hurt me if I rob you extortion? Is failing to resist thieves encouraging theivery?

I saw a house with these signs around it. An extortionist must live there, threatening for gunmen to come after me like that if I don't do what he says!

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
Still waiting for a valid refutation.

You replied, not with a valid refutation, nor with an agreement to the claim.

➽ You are not paying attention. Nor are you addressing my questions.

Sorry. Incorrect. I paid attention to your claim:

➽ By the way my proposal for funding the federal govt requires no extortion.
➽ So I prefer direct taxation of states.
➽ You object that the states would then use coersion to fund their levy. But that is not necessarily true.
➽ I proposed funding the federal govt by taxing only states.
➽ Another straw man is states using coersion to come up with their share.
➽ I notice state govts have the same tendency to use coersion as the feds. I am simply saying that is not the only possibility.
➽ I did reply with my proposal to limit federal taxation to states.
➽ If the feds can be funded honestly why can't the states?
➽ You ask where are the states going to get the money to pay their share [...] ? Is the only way you know coersion?
➽ I say direct taxation of states by the feds is not coercive so long as [...]

Summarizing your claim: Extortion is not needed to fund "government".

Your claim, your burden of proof.

You have steadfastly refused to provide a specific plan so that no government funding is ever extorted from the people.
(I acknowledge two "maybes" posted by you.)

⚠ ⚠ ⚠ ⚠
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
⛔ ⛔ ⛔ ⛔

What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion anywhere in the revenue stream; From the people's pockets, wallets, and financial accounts?

[Dale Eastman]

My claim, coercion is not necessarily the only way to fund govt. As proof I offered a voluntary model. I consider the point proven. And in fact this model worked as well as the Wright Brothers aircraft until it was abandoned. And better than any other in millinia.The key here is that each participant had a significant voice in deciding how much needed to be spent and on what.

Now the states started out as a group of only 13. But each brought a sizeable share of resources for the cause of securing the groups rights. Today each state represents at least a million of the top predators on the planet. That is ten to the sixth power.

When the constitution began each state had one thirteenth of a say over any tax being imposed on them. Voluntary govts must offer a significant voice to gain cooperation. The demopublicans you pay offer you no voice at all. They do offer a charade they would appreciate you falling for though.

If you are willing to concede voluntary govts are possible we can discuss proposals such as this:
The association of tens. Ten agree to chip in the amount needed on a per person basis to fund the next level and which one of them should advance to the next level. The chosen of tens would choose the next level the chosen of hundreds.
The chosen of hundreds would choose the county commissioners or town or city councilmembers who would be representing a thousand who agreed to fund the security agreement. The next level would be state legislators. The next congressmen.
Do you have ten friends you trust?

Dale
the parrot incapable of actual dialogue again writes
> Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

So I will again retort:
Not if what they are telling you is just to refrain from violating Rights. Not every use of force is initiatory. But maybe you are a pacifist and thus don't care about that distinction?

--

Now, "NOT IF" is refutational language. And I gave a rationale. Merely ASSERTING that my refutation is "not valid" is NOT DIALOGUE.
Do you CONCEDE that not all violence is initiatory? ARE you a pacifist and thus don't care about that distinction?

His reply RU is that govt does more the stop tres passers. He insists it can only fund itself through extortion.
That is what he and I are debating. Is it possible for govt to fund itself without the coersion?

➽ His reply RU is that govt does more the stop tres passers. He insists it can only fund itself through extortion.
That is what he and I are debating. Is it possible for govt to fund itself without the coersion?

Astigmatism is a type of refractive error in which the eye does not focus light evenly on the retina. This results in distorted or blurred vision at any distance.

Extortion is: "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you." Whether it be pay me or do what I say.

Summarizing your claim: Extortion is not needed to fund "government".

What, specifically, are you proposing that will fund the federal government without extortion anywhere in the revenue stream; From the people's pockets, wallets, and financial accounts?

➽ As proof I offered a voluntary model.

➽ With fifty states there could be fifty ways to pay the feds. Move to the state which seems best. Let the states compete for citizens. Alaska might pay with oil revenue while Nevada might pay with fees for gambling. Since you don't gamble you might get a free ride there.

Those two mights are NOT a specific plan so that no government funding is ever extorted from the people. Assuming arguendo that those two states paid the fed without extorting the people, that still leaves 48 more still extorting funds from the people.

➽ If you are willing to concede voluntary govts are possible we can discuss proposals such as this: [...]

If you can't tell government to go pound sand, then it's not voluntary.

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction.
-- Larken Rose --

Extortion is: "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you." Whether it be pay me or do what I say.

I am focused on what government is because that is what government always has been. Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

You replied, not with a valid refutation, nor with an agreement to the claim, but with two "maybes"; Two "mights". And when I read the anecdotes of how the two of you allegedly paid your pounds of flesh, you both are ignoring the extortion that took that flesh.

➽ So I will again retort:
Not if what they are telling you is just to refrain from violating Rights. Not every use of force is initiatory. But maybe you are a pacifist and thus don't care about that distinction?

No, I do not concede that the extortion called taxation is not initiatory force. Taxation is do what we tell you to do (give us money), or we will hurt you.

Does government threaten to hurt people if they don't pay tribute? That's extortion.
Does government threaten to hurt people if they don't obey politician's opinions? That's extortion.

➽ So I will again retort:

You replied, not with a valid refutation, nor with an agreement to the claim. When I read the anecdotes of how the two of you allegedly paid your pounds of flesh, you both are ignoring the extortion that took that flesh.

Still waiting for a valid refutation.

[Dale Eastman]

Is it possible for Brinks to fund itself without extortion?

Is it possible for anyone? I threaten not to work for you unless you pay me.
Of course Dale's objection is the govts declaration that they will work for him whether he wants them to or not. He does not have to pay them. He can live in a cage at their expense instead.

Everything's extortion if the only amount you're willing to pay is nothing.

If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. And if all you're willing to pay is nothing then everything looks like extortion.

If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. And if all you're willing to pay for a service is nothing then every bill for it looks like extortion.

Only if the bill is backed by force.

You and I found out how hard it is to refuse a protection racket, trying to turn it back into a protection service, with so many people like Dale still paying into it.

You and I found out how hard it is to refuse a protection racket, trying to turn it back into a protection service, with so many people like Dale still funding it.

So many like him on the jury. 😉

He might have been okay with us standing up to an illegal tax. But he would have convicted us out of spite for our Constitutionalism with its compulsory jury service. He can brook no compromise with that thoroughly evil 1787 document that so derailed the progress of human history.

➽ Is it possible for Brinks to fund itself without extortion?

Brinks is not a government, is it?

➽ Everything's extortion if the only amount you're willing to pay is nothing.

If I did business the way government does and force people to pay me, would I be a criminal?

➽ You and I [TB] found out how hard it is to refuse a protection racket, [...]

And yet you refuse to admit that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

"Stockholm syndrome." https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=Stockholm+syndrome&ia=web

➽ He might have been okay with us standing up to an illegal tax. But he would have convicted us out of spite for our Constitutionalism with its compulsory jury service. He can brook no compromise with that thoroughly evil 1787 document that so derailed the progress of human history.

So you can read my mind huh? You know with extreme precision what I will or will not do in any situation?

You are making shit up in your head and then projecting your imagination on to me... Because that's just so much easier than admitting the truth:

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
You replied, not with a valid refutation, nor with an agreement to the claim, but with a Straw man from your imagination.

➽ Is it possible for anyone? [to fund itself without extortion?] I threaten not to work for you unless you pay me.

You appear to be confused as to what extortion is.

➽ Of course Dale's objection is the govts declaration that they will work for him whether he wants them to or not.

You appear to be confused as to what I object to... In spite of my monotonous repetition of said objection. I object to government because government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

You replied, not with a valid refutation, nor with an agreement to the claim, but with a Straw man from your imagination.

The coward RU deleted his originating comment thus ending this discussion.