Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 01, 2021, 07:47:03 PM »

Quote
Dale Eastman, let's be honest with each other. Assuming enough of the population were radicalized and, shall we say, empowered enough to laugh in the face of government and secure individual liberty for all, what then would happen? I cerainly find it unlikely that such an event would be accomplished through totally peaceful means, nor maintained that way. Those demagogues would rise. Chaos ensues. We've been avoiding the term, I think, but it would practically be anarchy until some new "rulers" take power--which would, historically, be inevitable--and all this is also part of the inherent problem of government on the whole.
Quote
Dale Eastman I'm very much interested in doing what I can to make people think as much as possible and ferret out the faults in government but, like a dog chasing a car...what would we do if successful?
Quote from: June 2 09:57
➽ We've been avoiding the term, I think, but it would practically be anarchy until some new "rulers" take power--which would, historically, be inevitable--and all this is also part of the inherent problem of government on the whole.

I have specifically been avoiding the term anarchy. I would have continued to do so if you had not brought the term up.

Anarchy does NOT mean chaos, nor does it mean riots, breaking windows, and burning businesses which is the cultural and government lie going around about Anarchists. The term has been co-opted, corrupted, and appropriated to mean other than the original meaning, which is simply "no rulers".

In fact, you and I are practicing anarchy right now. You made your own choice to interact with me, I made my choice to interact with you. This was done without a government ruler ordering you and I to do so. Unlike the government rulers ordering you and I into a twelve year relationship with, and incarceration in, a government public school system learning what the government wanted us to learn.

Rah rah 'murica... You neeeeeeeed government else chaos. No government, no law, no order. The conflation of those two terms is invisible to most everyone. "Law and Order". Politician's opinions and no outliers. Harrumph!

IMO, because of the above, True liberty minded people have coined the terms Voluntary Society, Voluntaryism, and Voluntaryist. Also, IMO, these terms are just as inscrutable as the terms anarchy, anarchism, and anarchist in their connection to actual True liberty.

You and I are having a voluntary interaction. I direct your attention back up to my Inside Voices treatise, where two people are dead because of an involuntary interaction.

➽ Assuming enough of the population were radicalized [...]

Pedantic asshole here...
⚠⚠⚠
Radicalization is the process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly radical views in opposition to a political, social, or religious status quo.
⛔⛔⛔

So lemme adjust that statement:
Assuming enough of the population were enlightened to the bogusness of government's alleged authority.

Suppose I stood at the exit door to the store where you and yours most frequently shop. Every time you or yours make a purchase, I demand you pay me 5% of your purchase price. What are you going to do? Laugh and keep walking? Angrily tell me to go pound sand? Pay me 5%?

➽ [...] empowered enough to laugh in the face of government [...]

What, specifically, is government? Is it not mere men and women? What makes me standing at that door demanding payment (compliance) to my dictates any different from any one of those mere men and women making the same demands.

➽ [...] empowered enough to laugh in the face of [mere men and women] and secure individual liberty for all, what then would happen?

This would be a case of securing individual liberty for THAT individual, one interaction at a time. Multiple times with multiple individuals. Setting that minor (or not so minor) point aside...

The problem here with this discussion of speculations, might bes and could be's is that I don't think your crystal ball is any better than mine. In order to make our guesses more accurate, You and I need to take into account, as best we can, the psychology of the many humans caught up in this potential happening. Which indicates to me that trained Shrinks need to weigh in on the topic.

➽ I cerainly find it unlikely that such an event would be accomplished through totally peaceful means, nor maintained that way.

Sadly, I agree.

Yet I am of the opinion that once this change to true liberty starts to happen, it will reach a tipping point. Speculation: When the rulers understand that superior force of arms is NOT legitimate authority, Will they double down on use of force, Or will they admit to the obvious, their extortion is not wanted and everybody now sees them as the extortionists they actually are.

➽ Those demagogues would rise.

I find I must ask, what, specifically, do you mean by demagogues? What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of these demagogues? What would they look like in society?

➽ what would we do if successful?

I don't know what you would do. I would do whatever I want, so long as I don't harm or injure another human.
Quote
❓ Is the conversation over? It's been seven days.
Quote
I thought it was your turn to reply, dude. 😅
Quote
Hmmm. I thought the same thing. My last:
https://www.facebook.com/hannahd.../posts/231566295443664...
Of course, Fecesbook might have not given you notification. I've had that happen. That's why I bookmark permalinks to review the threads where I'm having decent (IMO) discussions.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 01, 2021, 04:57:13 PM »

Quote
Dale Eastman you may be a pedantic asshole at times but you are a correct pedantic asshole and, as far as I'm concerned, that'll fly. I could have been more specific.

Focusing on the latter portion, with extreme appreciation for the quotations of Henry and Jefferson, it is true that in seeking freedom from the threat of force and extortion from any government, that government's people must be at least relatively unified in their belief in freedom from it.

In belief that it is illegitimate; that if it has any powers of authority then it has only those powers granted to it--or, say a warlord has only those powers allowed to him or her--by the people.

Anyway. Getting a bit off here, I think; I'm rushing. In the waiting room for an appointment now.

Assuming a group of people united in their belief in individual liberty were to buck the rule of a government and fully liberate themselves. What is to stop this group of people from meeting bloody ends all, or demagogues inevitably rising to power and their principles crumbling into history?
Quote
➽ In belief that it is illegitimate; that if it has any powers of authority then it has only those powers granted to it--or, say a warlord has only those powers allowed to him or her--by the people.

Which reminds me of this quote, the words of an actual plantation slave Frederick Douglass:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

It is with your inquiry in mind that I paste my Inside Voices treatise here:

Inside Voices

⚠⚠⚠
Radicalization is the process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly radical views in opposition to a political, social, or religious status quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization
⛔⛔⛔

Radicalized views are starting to show up more and more in social media comments as well as in the actions of the people fed up with the extortion of government, having been pushed to their breaking point.

This has been push back of the actual, ongoing, status quo of cops killing people for no logical good reason and getting away with it.

Cops murdering people is irrefutable. An internet search will return way too many links to pages providing proof of cops killing people for no reason. And a deeper search shows that even though some actions are taken against some murderous cops, there are still too many instances of cops getting away with murder.

Cops, Police, Police Force, and LEO's are all the same type people with the same type of job. It is that label LEO that is the most descriptive. LEO: Law Enforcement Officer. Their job is to enFORCE laws. Period. That's it. They don't even have to respond to a 911 call to help anybody in dire straits. This has been the case since the 1855 SCOTUS case South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396.

This is also push back for legislators making tyrannical dictator type rules.

New Mexico State Police Officer Darian Jarrott lit up a pickup truck "for having overly dark tinted windows". That cop is now dead. So is the driver of the pickup.

Why?

Because some extorting politician rule writers (legislators) said that window tint that is darker than they dictate is not allowed. So the LEO stopped somebody who was going about their own business of life doing NO HARM to anybody else.

I must most emphatically suggest that killing government gangsters is counter productive... For now.

Why?

Because the government gangsters will spin such attacks on the people's alleged protectors (cops) as attacks on the people themselves by violent criminals. The indoctrinated people being too brainwashed won't even be aware of the conflation, much less be aware of government's own hypocritical violent criminal actions.

If government convinces the indoctrinated that the people questioning government's alleged authority are a bunch of violent criminals, the attempts of these liberty minded folks to present the truth to the indoctrinated minds just becomes that much harder.

Killing government actors will not convince indoctrinated minds of the government's total lack of valid authority. Only words have a chance of doing that. And just barely at that. Indoctrinated minds don't want to recognize irrefutable logic that proves they have been brainwashed by their incarceration in Government Indoctrination Centers, also known as public schools.

Logic, morality, and valid authority is not on the government's side. Using violent action just like the government will not present this reality to the indoctrinated minds.

The indoctrinated minds can just barely entertain an inkling of thought on the topic. Calling them STUPID F∪⊂KTARDS guaranties that they will NOT entertain any thoughts on the topic. Hence the title of this essay is Inside Voices.

➽ Assuming a group of people united in their belief in individual liberty were to buck the rule of a government and fully liberate themselves. What is to stop this group of people from meeting bloody ends all, [...]

I think you and I have different ideas on what a transition to liberty would look like. I can't say it will be bloody, Nor can I say it won't be bloody. Because... It depends.

How many YDOMists might it take, laughing in the face of those claiming authority over others, before the usurpers understand nobody believes their authority is valid?

What then? More and louder belligerent threats of violence?

This is where the "depends" ends up in the view through the crystal ball. Does the YDOMist cave or does the YDOMist prepare for battle?

[...] or demagogues inevitably rising to power and their principles crumbling into history?

I had to look up "demagogue".
demagogue n. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
n. A leader of the common people in ancient times.

Demagogue implies becoming a ruler... Becoming a government. YDOM! You can stop your impassioned bullshit now.

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 31, 2021, 03:02:28 PM »

Quote
Dale Eastman appreciated. I'm no expert in law, taxes, or the full and direct text of most pertinent documents but I have enough prior knowledge of them to contemplate the ideas.
Also, I agree with the logic of your points; what I question is the meaning. The ultimate sum of these finer points dictates that no government is legitimate in governing an individual as even one individual could not legitimately govern another. Certainly, in this government, even the voting of the masses is disregarded and even the given consent is made illegitimate and thereby the contract annulled. Only the threat of force, at the behest of government, remains to maintain the rule of "law."
That is unsatisfactory.
What do we do about it?
Quote
The legitimacy of the government, like currency, has only the value we attach to it as a society. Individually, you and I may put little stock in it but we cannot deny that if we stopped paying taxes, tickets, and fines while disregarding existing laws we'd soon be in jail and that would be deemed acceptable by the vast majority. It may not be right but it is true. If we were to garner the support of the masses against all this then it would become an altogether different situation. So, we discuss things, we spread the word and help people to understand and in delegitimizing the current regime we find ourselves with a vacuum of power. Let us not be naive. Somehow this vacuum will be filled. Can we start over? Create a more legitimate government? What is the natural course of action, what is probable, what is possible, and how do we balance the lot?
Quote
I must confess, this discussion is not what I expected. I am pleasantly surprised.

You wrote, and I challenged:
➽ Some semblance of government is a necessary evil

Most statists would omit the word evil, or if they didn't, they would ignore its horribleness, Like trains to Auschwitz.

I get some statists who will NOT address the evil(s) of government, DEMANDING answers to the what if questions before they will even begin to question the bogusness of state and government. Let me clarify that, they never question the bogusness of the state and government.

My anti-statist prejudice stems from my publicly posted words answered with angry outright name calling attempting to piss me off to make me go away. (That doesn't work so well.) I then attempt Socratic Questioning in a relatively honest attempt to drill down to what makes them believe the need for a state.

I say relatively honest, because in doing the drilling down, It is my intent to expose the inconsistencies of their beliefs so that they can see their inconsistencies that exist in their thinking. These all end the same way. The statist goes silent or claims I'm an idiot not worth having discussion with followed by going silent. Then the statists go away. You can see this in all of my publicly archived discussions.

The words that I posted to a political discussion group and reposted up at the top of my engaging in this comment thread, has been outright ignored.

Now to reply to your latest post.

➽ The ultimate sum of these finer points dictates that no government is legitimate in governing an individual as even one individual could not legitimately govern another.

That is exactly the conclusion I come to after spending a few years thinking and analyzing these "finer" points.

➽ Only the threat of force, at the behest of government, remains to maintain the rule of "law." That is unsatisfactory.

I tentatively agree.

➽ the rule of "law"

Is why I have reservation.

The rule of law IS the rule of politician's opinions (rules) called law. Politicians rules that others are expected to obey. Rules created by politicians with the same lack of authority to rule others as any body else.

➽ What do we do about it?

Context tells me the question is what is to be done about the threat of force [...] to maintain the rule of "law." That translates in my mind to What is to be done about extortion to obey mere opinions?

In the vein of what can be done, I find that "I" must challenge errant thought regarding the issue. And specifically, this is a segue to your next comment.

➽ The legitimacy of the government, like currency, has only the value we attach to it as a society.

Government, and the mere mortal men and women and men called thus, do not have any legitimacy. The issue, IMO, is the indoctrination, the inculcation, the brainwashing, that is done by government schools to make people believe government is legitimate. I believe in Her Pinkness, Invisible Pink Unicorn. She shared creating the universe with Flying Spaghetti Monster, He boiled for our sins.

I have had a few discussions with statists who believe extortion is authority. Yeah... Like A.H's authority over Poland.

➽ Individually, you and I may put little stock in it but we cannot deny that if we stopped paying taxes, tickets, and fines while disregarding existing laws we'd soon be in jail and that would be deemed acceptable by the vast majority.

That is exactly the problem. That is why I'm out here on FecesBook attempting to aggravate statists into interaction.

Rumor has it, AKA, Anecdotal story, Prohibition went away because the people's juries stop convicting for alcohol possession.

What "could" happen when enough people understand the government has ZERO legitimacy and its alleged authority 100% bogus?

➽ So, we discuss things, we spread the word and help people to understand and in delegitimizing the current regime [...]

Any regime is illegitimate, As you have basically accepted.

It's NOT the issue of helping people delegitimize the current regime. It's helping people to understand that the current, (and any), regime is illegitimate. Thus the reason for my being a Pedantic asshole.

➽ Can we start over? Create a more legitimate government?

No government is legitimate. Therefore no government can ever be more legitimate than any other government. The simple answer is "NO."

➽ What is the natural course of action, what is probable, what is possible, and how do we balance the lot?

Those are questions that I find have value. Though not posted as a specific question, the following words raise a valid and important question.

➽ [...] we find ourselves with a vacuum of power. Let us not be naive. Somehow this vacuum will be filled.

What, specifically, is meant by "a vacuum of power"? IMO, what is meant has bearing on how this reality can be addressed.

Often statists will hold up Somalian Warlords as a reason to keep the "legitimate" governing entities that currently exist. Ask the indigenous native people about the British Empire's colonies. The aboriginal people in Australia, The native Americans in the U.S., The first nation's people of Canada, The native Indians of the Indian continent. And not to be forgotten, the Polish people under the Wiemar Republic.

So my definition of a power vacuum is the belief that some entity must and will make rules and threaten violence if these opinions called rules are not obeyed. This "power" is nothing more that a ruling extortionate group willing to use violence to get compliance.

I am trying to get YDOM into the liberty minded people's lexicon.

YDOM means You Don't Own Me. And likewise I don't own you. If the warlords or other government wannabes don't own me, they have no authority to tell me or you what to do or what not to do.

Quoting Patrick Henry:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.

Anybody attempting to tell me or you what to do or what not to do is certainly attempting to approach that precious jewel.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

If people understood YDOMism, they would tell wannabe dictators "FREEDOM - I WON'T!" "You have no authority over me and I have every right to protect myself from your extortion."




Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 31, 2021, 08:25:48 AM »

Quote
Dale Eastman the long view is a direct result of having a working knowledge of history. Can't understand these concepts without it.

I think the key element we're driving at here is the legitimacy of any "government." Can there be a true representation of the people, their consent and will, within government that would allow for government of the people, by the people, for the people? Only periodically at best, one might say. As we see now, the will of the people is doomed to be subsumed by the governing body.

That genuine representation, though, is the loophole in the contradiction. By way of voting, consent is given to a smaller group of representatives who may govern. The loophole is doomed, however, so long as the threat of violence is in the in the hands of government. The 2nd Amendment was included so that the threat of violence would be a weapon of the people to keep the government in line, in which case the consent, will, and representation of the people in government of the people might be a social contract rather than serfdom.
Quote
I like how you worded your reply. This signifies to me that you do indeed understand most of what I am driving at.

➽ I think the key element we're driving at here is the legitimacy of any "government."

"We are" as in you and I, are examining the legitimacy of any "government." You and I, presently, are seeing this topic from two different perspectives. I may be imagining what I see... What I see is you looking to find some way to maintain a belief that any government can be legitimate or have non-bogus authority.

➽ By way of voting, consent is given [...]

That is a claim that is only partially correct.

The Declaration of Independence, an organic document of the United States, says in part: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;" [...]

This self evident truth is that every human is created with equal LACK OF AUTHORITY over any other human. Because you do not have any authority over me, you can NOT consent for me. When you vote, you can ONLY consent for yourself to be governed.

I refuse to vote. I do not consent to any other human with an equal lack of authority over me to have authority over me.

➽ By way of voting, consent is given to a smaller group of representatives who may govern.

If consent can not be withdrawn, it was never consent in the first place.

[...] "many consider a significant starting point to slavery in America to be 1619" History dot com. Did slaves of the colonies consent to being enslaved?

In order for a human to consent to a thing, wouldn't such a human need to be presented with a choice? Were slaves presented with choices?

Copy/paste from my website:

⚠ 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? ⛔

Clearly, there is no contract.

I also have copy/paste words regarding "Representatives".
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 30, 2021, 11:13:20 AM »

Quote
Sorry, Dale, I logged off yesterday for some outdoor activities. My pleasure in clarifying that statement and I'm happy to speak openly on these topics as well.

Death penalty cannot be entrusted to the government or any establishment rightfully and is probably little or no cheaper than a life sentence; agreed. I'll have to research Talion law.

Cops are totally absolvable of guilt in neglecting to prevent harm to a victim; relatively true dependent upon arbitrary rules of engagement. They certainly have no absolute duty except to the state over the individual. Ultimately self-defense is just that and is up to the individual, meaning weapons. "Shall not be infringed," is an interesting topic to broach here.

No, nothing to add to the list of evils; thus far we haven't managed to discuss how to combat the ones listed aside from "individually defend oneself," which requires the (currently restricted) freedom to do so. In combatting these evils, challenging the indoctrination of the masses is paramount. Having as large a portion as possible learn to understand these ideas, learn even the grammar necessary to frame the concepts, is necessary. And one might argue that the only people who should wield authority in a government agency should be those who recognize that said authority is bogus. Does this then create a duty to wield bogus authority? To spread the word, helping to educate others as to the bogus authority? To what extent are we able and/or obligated to help/defend ourselves and others? How do we achieve this agency for the people?

By the by, I genuinely appreciate the depth of this conversation with you and your source materials; respectfully, I must admit that I am rather rusty and out of practice with such and have just written this response during my time on the toilet. I hope only to lighten the mood and not to lessen the gravity of the discussion.
Quote
Forgot to mention, I also appreciate the use of the word bogus.
Quote
My notification of your post caught me just before leaving to go to my father n law's to do yard work.

I actually appreciate your willingness to discuss this in front of an unknown, uncounted audience.

As I pointed out, I'm archiving this discussion on my website. Our discussion is here:
synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=919.0
I use it for review of discussions. You can also.

synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php#c14 is where I've archived other discussions.

synapticsparks[DOT]info/ is the home page.

I'll specifically address your post later when I get back.
Quote
➽ Sorry, Dale, I logged off [...]

Not a problem at all.

Though I might come across as a grumpy, impatient curmudgeon, when I get a serious discussion, my suspense date is the day before I end up on my death bed. Just make sure to tag me so I know a response has been posted.

I do take the long view on certain things.

It's not an argument if we agree on things. So I'll just breeze past what looks like agreement.

➽ Ultimately self-defense is just that and is up to the individual, meaning weapons. "Shall not be infringed," is an interesting topic to broach here.

How would you like to approach this?

By what authority? is one way I approach this.

Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON - THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY?

My examination of the chain of authority, as posted on my website?

The lack of evidence as to who, specifically, is this "We" that did "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"?

The lack of evidence as to who, specifically, authorized the 39 signers of the Constitution to act as their agents to ordain and establish the Constitution?

➽ And one might argue that the only people who should wield authority in a government agency should be those who recognize that said authority is bogus. Does this then create a duty to wield bogus authority?

If authority is bogus, then it's not authority.

As the organic document opines, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"

Now I transform those words with simple definitional substitution:
"Rulers are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Ruled;"

If it's consent of the governed, then why do those governing (ruling) need men with guns to make sure the are obeyed?

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 -  Author of THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION.

Larken's book can be found online for free. I'll stump for him. Throw some bucks his way.

[Does this create a duty]
➽ To spread the word, helping to educate others as to the bogus authority? To what extent are we able and/or obligated to help/defend ourselves and others?

Do you or I have a duty to free slaves from their enslavement? Do you or I have a duty to attempt to free the minds of the slaves so they are mentally able to free themselves? With the government indoctrination clouding minds, making the slaves believe they are free, is there not a duty to present truth?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 — Martin Niemöller

How do we achieve this agency for the people?

By speaking out, politely or not, just as I have done in this comment thread.

I piqued your interest in having a discussion. I hope the lurkers might find value in our discussion.



Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 29, 2021, 05:08:48 PM »

Quote from: 1608
Fascinating. My apologies for the vagueness of my grammar. Even in seeking to mitigate evils for the sake of a better society government inevitably turns to wield various evils and becomes the perpetrator thereof, eventually declining further into decadence. The death penalty, specifically, is a very much called-for example in the case of certain crimes but we fully understand that the government to which our society entrusts the dispensing of justice is at the least riddled with corruption--although I tend to agree that it is inherently corrupt--and therefore cannot be trusted with the weight of any man's life.
So, if we are to remove the inherent problem of state, combat the specific evils listed within society, and see to it that we are no longer extorted...how do we do it? How do organize and affect these changes to society?
Quote
No apology required. You fixed it, I have understanding now. Thank you.

➽ The death penalty, specifically, is a very much called-for example in the case of certain crimes but we fully understand that the government to which our society entrusts the dispensing of justice[...]

It was just in the last week that I became aware of Talion law. Link below. I have a bit more reading and cogitation to do on the topic. That said, in view of my previous cogitations on the topic of capital punishment itself, I am against Capital punishment. I think Talion might have some nuances proscribing retaliatory killings. More to study.

The bottom line for me is that when the state has capital punishment laws on the books, the state is premeditating murder. My biggest issue with this is that once the state kills a human, that bell can NOT be unrung. Add to that fact the issue of how many people convicted and condemned to death have been exonerated because of DNA evidence. This is clear evidence that the court system does not work.

Be that as it is, I have not vetted what I read years ago that after all is said and done, It's less expensive to be locked up for life when the costs of appeals and litigation is counted. It is also my conclusion that killing a murderer punishes the murderers family. How is this just and fair to the murderers family?

➽ So, if we are to remove the inherent problem of state, combat the specific evils listed within society, and see to it that we are no longer extorted...how do we do it? How do organize and affect these changes to society?

Because of your awareness and admission to "the inherent problem of state", you are the FIRST debate and discussion opponent that I have interacted with where I am happy to discuss this with.

These evils within society are real and threaten harm to potential victims. Regardless of state.

Humans need security and defense against these potential harms. Self-protection and self-defense both start with self. And they both start with having the appropriate defensive tools available and on hand. So my first demand, not suggestion, is to remove that which attempts to remove an individual's access to the appropriate defensive tools.

As you asked, "How [t]o organize and affect these changes to society?" The first thing is to challenge the indoctrinated beliefs of the masses. Which is what I am and have done, crudely or not, in poking my stick into this thread of dialog that appeared in my news feed. I am challenging the legitimacy of a provably illegitimate government with provably bogus authority at every chance I get. Government is alleged to exist to protect its humans, (treatise upon request). I present just the statutes of the State of Illinois, (New Jersey and California read almost verbatim):

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.

I back this up, (actually preface this) with the SCOTUS case South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855):
Where, in an action upon a sheriff's bond, the declaration did not charge the sheriff with a breach of his duty in the execution of any writ or process in which the real plaintiff was personally interested, but with a neglect or refusal to preserve the public peace, in consequence of which the plaintiff suffered great wrong and injury from the unlawful violence of a mob, the declaration did not set forth a sufficient cause of action against the sheriff and his sureties.
[...]
The breach alleged is, in substance,
"that while Pottle was engaged about his lawful business, certain evil-disposed persons came about him, hindered and prevented him, threatened his life, with force of arms demanded of him a large sum of money, and imprisoned and detained him for the space of four days, and until he paid them the sum of $2,500 for his enlargement."

That South, the sheriff, being present, the plaintiff, Pottle, applied to him for protection and requested him to keep the peace of the State of Maryland, he, the said sheriff, having power and authority so to do. That the sheriff neglected and refused to protect and defend the plaintiff and to keep the peace, wherefore, it is charged, "the sheriff did not well and truly execute and perform the duties required of him by the laws of said state," and thereby the said writing obligatory became forfeited and action accrued to the plaintiff.
[...]
The declaration in the case before us is clearly not within the principles of these decisions. It alleges no special individual right, privileges, or franchise in the plaintiff from the enjoyment of which he has been restrained or hindered by the malicious act of the sheriff, nor does it charge him with any misfeasance or nonfeasance in his ministerial capacity in the execution of any process in which the plaintiff was concerned. Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action. ⛔

There are multiple cases that say the same thing. I have just 3 of many cases quoted on my website. Bottom line: Cops have NO DUTY TO PROTECT.

So that is "an" evil of government. Not required to protect you. Makes rules that you are not allowed to own the appropriate tools of self protection.

IMO, the first need for self protection is to remove the government created road blocks. Illinois "had" laws on the books that made possession of a bullet a felony for each bullet possessed. I don't know if they still do.

Anything you think to add?
Theft.
Savings.
Insurance.
Murder.
Violence.
Threat of violence.
Enslavement and slavery.
Fraud.
Emboldened liars causing fraud.

Best guestimate is I spent 2 hours composing this post and archiving the discussion on my website.


https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=talion+law&ia=web
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 29, 2021, 01:09:33 PM »

Quote from: Original Post
Quote
Though this was written for, and posted in, a political group, It is my opinion that it deserves to be posted here to piss off all you statists.

Most of you actively posting members of this group have shown me that you do not understand what Liberty is.

My purpose, much like Dorothy's dog Toto, is to expose government's lack of legitimacy. My purpose is to show the bogus authority of your government-god that you all worship.

I write and post these words knowing how hard it is to deprogram indoctrinated members of a cult. Because such minds are clouded by the lies and inculcated "beliefs", I'm going to KISS my post. I'm going to Keep It Simple, Stupid.

So I will begin with the words of your holy cult:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;" [...]
The self evident truth is that every human is created with equal LACK OF AUTHORITY over any other human.

YDOM is the exact same truth looked at from a different angle. YDOM means You Don't Own Me. And likewise I don't own you. In other words, I have no authority over you and you have no authority over me.

Some dead guy wrote with simplicity and clarity:
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.
Quote from: AM
Dale Eastman no one cares how much you know until they know you care.
Calling people cultists, or not feeling sorry for calling people cultists is a sure way to make sure you are never heard by people that matter. And by that I mean the people who don’t already believe what you do.
If you want to change minds you have to make connections, not corrections.
Quote
The only thing I need to know about you is if you are a cultist or not.
In other words, how good was your government school indoctrination? Do you still believe or have you shed that superstition that government is good.
synapticsparks[DOT]info
Quote
Here's how I test for cult brainwashing:
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. Prove me wrong.
Quote
Dale Eastman, leave put your hot words there for a moment. Suspend them, if you will. HC, in your open-mindedness, consider and debate his argument rather than his rhetoric. AM, I genuinely hope they engage here. I'm tryna see sumn
Quote
I'm also curious as to how you all feel about the veracity of this image and how it relates to our "liberty."
Quote
I am assuming the question about the image was directed at me. I am also assuming the original post image is the one I am to opine about.

In the right half the large white box is labelled "People who allow other people to live in peace." While I agree with that specific concept as being a "good" thing, It is my opinion that the box is too big. I'll explain below.

The purple half of the box is labelled "People who use government to control you." How people use government to control you happens in a variety of ways. I'll just focus one of the ways. The way the indoctrination claims. By voting.

If you vote, you are in the purple box. This includes the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism is Statism Lite™, And Statism Lite™ is still statism.

The following is copy n paste of parts of my other writings.

I will begin with the words of your holy cult:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;" [...]
The self evident truth is that every human is created with equal LACK OF AUTHORITY over any other human.

YDOM means You Don't Own Me. And likewise I don't own you. Now if I don't own you, I have no authority to tell you that you what to do or what not to do provided your free will choices do not harm me or mine. But then you already know this.

Now let us pretend and assume I just won an election and hold the office of Legislator.

Elected Legislators have the job of making rules, called laws, that purport to have authority over you. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to do. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to set how you shall be punished if you get caught not obeying my Legislator rules. The LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) have the job of arresting you if they catch you breaking my Legislator rules. To include using escalating force, up to and including killing you if you forcibly resist being arrested.

In other, and less words, I have just described how "government" works: COMPLY OR DIE!

How did I get authority over you by being elected as a Legislator?

If none of the people that voted for me own you, then they do not have authority over you. How could they delegate an authority that they do not have over you? They can't.

Any five to eight year old child, who exclaims to another child, "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!" understands YDOM's basic "Don't tell me what to do!"

Why have you voting idiots forgotten YDOM?

◎ Ruler (Tyrant) A
◎ Ruler (Tyrant) B
◎ I want to change the rules C
◉ YDOM
Quote
I enjoy your reasoning and opinions and yet, the idealism is palpable. Some semblance of government is a necessary evil--not so if one is far enough in the wilderness but generally a stable society requires it and a bit of bureaucracy to boot.
Also, I remind you to be careful of such phrases as "you idiots." It seems as if you are insulting those of us who speak to you directly but with my interest in discussion I choose not to think so. I trust, rather, that you do not know of our personal opinions, choices, votes, or lack thereof and figure that you speak generally.
Back to the point, who is the enemy? The state? The rich? The media? Or some combination thereof?
Quote
➽ Back to the point, who is the enemy?

People who believe the state is necessary.

➽ Some semblance of government is a necessary evil

If you believe a "necessary evil" is required, then you believe "evil" is required.


Quote
➽ I trust, rather, that you do not know of our personal opinions, choices, votes, or lack thereof and figure that you speak generally.

That is correct.
Quote
Required or not, evil is a fact. An ultimate remedy is impossible and in current society some governing body is required to mitigate it. Yes, it consistently turns to wield it instead. So, do you have any propositions for solutions to these problems? An alternative to the state?
Quote
➽ Required or not, evil is a fact.

Agreed without reservation.

➽ An ultimate remedy is impossible[...]

I can neither agree nor disagree. The specific evils have not been defined, neither have specific remedies already attempted for the specific evils. Nor have creative thoughts on potential cures for specific evils been discussed.

Well, I have identified a specific evil. That PROVABLE evil is called government. You have already agreed that government is evil because you claimed, "Some semblance of government is a necessary evil."

To me, a "semblance" of government is still government. It is an entity that makes comply or die rules.

➽ [...] and in current society some governing body is required to mitigate it [evil].

I disagree. I do so considering that the assumptions in your claim could make this into a communications error problem. For example, Parsing your words with my definitions results in this: in current society some [evil] governing body is required to mitigate [the evil governing body.]

➽ Yes, it consistently turns to wield it instead.

Sorry. It's sentences like this one turns me into a pedantic asshole. "It" is a referent; A shortcut in speech and writing. Translating your sentence as I understand it returns this: Yes, [something] consistently turns to wield [something] instead. Reviewing your words for context, I'm still clueless as to what you are trying to say to me.

➽ So, do you have any propositions for solutions to these problems? An alternative to the state?

Yes.

I generally decline to engage on this issue, mostly because there is not enough of common frames of reference to discuss such propositions with understanding. For whatever reason in my subconscious, I am more inclined to engage the questions with you than normal.

So I will tentatively engage by attempting to communicate the frames of reference.

I am assuming that you understand I use "state" and "government" synonymously.
I have already defined government as a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. I also define government as "mere" men and women called government.

You ask of solutions to problems. I am aware that there is a whole litany of different problems on the list of problems.

Is extortion for money on your list? It's on mine.

What is YOUR solution to YOU being extorted for money?

I'm ending here with a reminder to myself of what I see as problems for you and I to discuss.
Murder.
Violence.
Threat of violence.
Enslavement and slavery.
Fraud.
Emboldened liars causing fraud.

Best guestimate is I spent 1.25 hours composing this post and archiving the discussion on my website.