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: July 08, 2021, 08:34:33 PM »

Quote
You make claims. I ask questions about your claims. You fail to address my questions about your claims. So I will limit my posts to your claims, singularly, sequentially, one at a time. That is one of the reasons I archive discussions; to keep track of the ignored questions about claims.

➽ You absolutely cannot be the sole governing force in your life or the lives of others simply because you are a sinful human who cannot be trusted to do so, and I cannot make it more simple than that.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what YOU mean when you use the term "sinful".

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.
Quote
➽ You absolutely cannot be the sole governing force in your life or the lives of others simply because you are a sinful human who cannot be trusted to do so, and I cannot make it more simple than that.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what YOU mean when you use the term "sinful".

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.
Quote
YO! DM, Answer my questions about your claim you fucking Buybull thumping ignoramus.

Exodus 20:16
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Deuteronomy 5:20
‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Proverbs 24:28
Do not be a witness against your neighbor without cause,
And do not deceive with your lips.

Matthew 19:18And Jesus said, You shall not bear false witness;

Proverbs 12:17
He who speaks truth tells what is right,
But a false witness, deceit.

➽ You absolutely cannot be the sole governing force in your life or the lives of others simply because you are a sinful human who cannot be trusted to do so, and I cannot make it more simple than that.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what YOU mean when you use the term "sinful".

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 08, 2021, 08:32:08 PM »

Quote
Dale Eastman answering my question does not mean you're right though.

As Ive said; you're the kind of man who thinks government has only ever been used for evil and thats rather shallow thinking of you and quite a mundane way to defend your position.

The founding fathers for instance specifically created our form of government to prevent your specific fears. They designed the government to be ruled by the people, they designed the government to check and balance itself from multiple branches and angles.

The issue is how man was able to corrupt even their attempt at government, not the idea and structure of the government itself.

Quite simply, it does not have enough redundancy measures in place to prevent corruption, as most governments don't, but if you read the constitution and the bill of rights, you can see plainly just how hard they worked to protect peoples rights and liberties, it is simply the greed of man that has lead to the corruption you see today, no more and no less than that.

Communism would work if people weren't greedy.
Socialism would work if people weren't greedy.
A monarchy would work if people weren't greedy.
Oligarchy, anarchy, capitalism, each and every facet idea of government or lack thereof COULD work to the betterment of every man, woman and child, it is simply the people who are the problem, not the structure of government.

As I have said, you need to look at the larger picture.

Quote
➽ Dale Eastman answering my question does not mean you're right though.

➽ As Ive said; you're the kind of man who thinks government has only ever been used for evil and thats rather shallow thinking of you and quite a mundane way to defend your position.

➽ The founding fathers for instance specifically created our form of government to prevent your specific fears. They designed the government to be ruled by the people, they designed the government to check and balance itself from multiple branches and angles.

➽ The issue is how man was able to corrupt even their attempt at government, not the idea and structure of the government itself.

➽ Quite simply, it does not have enough redundancy measures in place to prevent corruption, as most governments don't, but if you read the constitution and the bill of rights, you can see plainly just how hard they worked to protect peoples rights and liberties, it is simply the greed of man that has lead to the corruption you see today, no more and no less than that.

➽ Communism would work if people weren't greedy.
Socialism would work if people weren't greedy.
A monarchy would work if people weren't greedy.
Oligarchy, anarchy, capitalism, each and every facet idea of government or lack thereof COULD work to the betterment of every man, woman and child, it is simply the people who are the problem, not the structure of government.

➽ As I have said, you need to look at the larger picture.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 08, 2021, 06:13:21 PM »

Quote
I will admit that in the beginning, I answered your comments with KISSed truths about the government you continue to imagine is not evil. It is because people who believe as you do seem to be impervious to logic. Now, I am really curious about your thinking, and how you and those like you use your thinking to defend your beliefs. I have answered every one of your points presented, Sometimes unpacking three of your points that you have thrown willy nilly together in a sentence.

You, on the other hand, have ignored many of my sentences... So much so that I must keep putting the topics and concepts back on the table after you ignore them.

I find your psyche exposed in and by your words, "Fascinating." Be that as it is, I'm trying to emulate one of my internet friends in honestly trying to understand the other's (yours) thoughts presented.

➽ Dale Eastman you believe that government was created solely for extortion.

Function follows form. I have already proven that the only way government can rule, Is by extortion. You keep seeming to ignore that point.

➽ That would be the same as saying the knife was created solely for murder.

I do understand the point you are trying to make. My counter to that is: If the knife was only ever used for murder, then that is what it was created for. Tying that to "Function follows form", the reason any government was allegedly created, Is to rule people. So repeating what I have said, again:  The only way government can rule is by extortion.

➽ This is where you are, and will remain wrong, until you better understand why people need to be governed.

A claim without evidence may be refuted without evidence. I won't fully dismiss this specific claim because you presented an avenue where you could present evidence. While I don't think you will present evidence of my thoughts being in error, I do anticipate this as a chance to learn more of how and why you think and/or believe as you do.

➽ Your argument is "I don't need government to check people for me, ill check them myself"

You've actually got that one correct.

➽ But what you fail to realize is that if absolutely everyone holds that opinion, then they will view YOU as the force trying to govern them.

And again you're claiming you can read other human's minds. You can't, so stop claiming you can. And again, you're claiming you have the authority to speak for others. Present their documentation making you their representative, or stop claiming by implication that you have their blessing to speak for them.

With that dross evaporated away by the light of logic, What is left is YOU speaking for YOURSELF.

Since I'm the one with that "I'll check them myself" opinion, and I'm the only one in this discussion, What you are claiming is that YOU believe that I would be a force attempting to govern you. As I wrote, I am trying to understand your cognition patterns. What, specifically, did I write that makes you think I want to rule and control you. An-Archy... Without rulers. Why would I want to be what I don't want?

Reading between your lines, I see a coward afraid of imagined threats. I have seen this over and over in your words. You want extorting criminals to protect you from extorting criminals. Somehow, you just can't seem to understand that you are presenting that you want criminals to protect you.

➽ You're going to argue that without concent, no one can tell you what to do, then argue for a system in which you are the one getting to tell other people what to do.

You're claiming that you can read my mind and/or you can read the future.

Regardless, On the first point, I have been arguing from the beginning, that without consent, I have not delegated (given) authority over my self to any other human or reified concept.

On the second point, you seem to have conflated defensive warnings with criminals demanding the obedience of their victims. Full transparency, I will have to wait to see if I have observed correctly.

➽ Your problem therein lies with authority, your pride is the flaw in your false ideas about people needing to be governed because you belive that you yourself do not need to be governed and can be the governing force in your life.

If, in controlling myself and my own life, I do not attempt to harm you or any other human, You really have NOTHING to say on the matter. This is again, your cowardice and fear about the anarchist boogie man surfacing.

➽ With this, you simply are not following the logical conclusion that within YOUR life still hangs the lives of many others, and your attempt to be the sole governing force in your own life is equivalent to being the sole governing force in the lives of those around you.

Please present all the logical steps that proves the claim; That proves my being the sole owner and controller of my life is the same as being the sole controller of other's lives.

➽ You'll argue "no that's not what I meant" [...]

You are correct because that's what you imagine I meant.

➽ and I agree you didn't think it through realistically

Writes the guy who imagines that what he imagines is correct.

I have thought this through far deeper and far longer than you know.

➽ and the idea you intended to get across was simply some unrealistic fantasy in your mind.

Pot-Kettle-Black. Or in other words, there you go calling my by your maiden name.

Perhaps the unrealistic fantasy is what you keep trying to use to support your fantasy that extortion is good.

➽ The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while your think your intentions are pure by removing a larger governing force than yourself simply because you're terrified that every human with more power than you will attempt to extort you, through this you've blinded yourself to the possibility of a governing force that doesn't require extortion.

There you go imagining shit again. What I'm terrified of is people like you who believe it's good to have extortionists ruling everybody. What I see is YOU being terrified of not having extortionists ruling everybody.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how a governing force, that is, how an official government works without extortion.
 
➽ Until you learn to see past your own inadequacies in the face of a greater power than yourself, you will never be looking at a picture large enough to benefit all of humanity [...]

Your claim of my inadequacies: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Your ad hominem attack of me is dismissed for lack of evidence.
But enough of my dealings with you calling me by your maiden name.

➽ [...] you'll only be trying to benefit yourself with the excuse that you're helping others.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you come to the conclusion that I am trying to benefit ONLY myself.

➽ You absolutely cannot be the sole governing force in your life or the lives of others simply because you are a sinful human who cannot be trusted to do so, and I cannot make it more simple than that.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what your definition of "sinful" is.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 08, 2021, 02:49:34 AM »

Quote
Dale Eastman you believe that government was created solely for extortion.

That would be the same as saying the knife was created solely for murder.

This is where you are, and will remain wrong, until you better understand why people need to be governed.

Your argument is "I don't need government to check people for me, ill check them myself"

But what you fail to realize is that if absolutely everyone holds that opinion, then they will view YOU as the force trying to govern them.

You're going to argue that without concent, no one can tell you what to do, then argue for a system in which you are the one getting to tell other people what to do.

Your problem therein lies with authority, your pride is the flaw in your false ideas about people needing to be governed because you belive that you yourself do not need to be governed and can be the governing force in your life. With this, you simply are not following the logical conclusion that within YOUR life still hangs the lives of many others, and your attempt to be the sole governing force in your own life is equivalent to being the sole governing force in the lives of those around you.

You'll argue "no that's not what I meant", and I agree you didn't think it through realistically and the idea you intended to get across was simply some unrealistic fantasy in your mind. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while your think your intentions are pure by removing a larger governing force than yourself simply because you're terrified that every human with more power than you will attempt to extort you, through this you've blinded yourself to the possibility of a governing force that doesn't require extortion.

Until you learn to see past your own inadequacies in the face of a greater power than yourself, you will never be looking at a picture large enough to benefit all of humanity, you'll only be trying to benefit yourself with the excuse that you're helping others.

You absolutely cannot be the sole governing force in your life or the lives of others simply because you are a sinful human who cannot be trusted to do so, and I cannot make it more simple than that.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 07, 2021, 08:48:14 PM »

Quote
Extortion Is...

Any rational and moral person would understand that extortion is when some person or persons say to another, "Do what I or We tell you to do or else I or We will hurt you."

This is an act of offensive aggression; This is an act of initiating harm to another; This is a malum in se criminal act (Legal Definition of malum in se : an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature irrespective of statute).

This is not to be confused with a defensive act such as "Do what I tell you to do and stop aggressing against me, or I will hurt you by using escalating defensive force and violence against you until you stop trying to harm me."

I presently know of no person that would argue against what I have written above.

That is, until I specify who the criminals actually are and what things they attempt to get by extortion.

Their morality, logic, and bravery evaporates when I state:

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

➽ Dale Eastman you seem to be missing the idea that the government is little more than people and buildings, and the buildings aren't hurting anyone.

You seem to be missing that the only difference between government and Santa Claus is that you know the truth about Santa Claus.  You seem to be missing that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ You seem to think that government is the enemy, when really its the people in the government, and destroying the structured government won't change the hearts and goals of the villains within.

Do you really think NON-villains structured the government? Do you not realize that government was structured to extort people for money and control? Do you not realize that government has structured public schools into Indoctrination Centers? Are you unaware of the "Prussian Method/System" designed to create good little submitizens (sic)? used within the 50 states United?

➽ Government, don't government; centralize, don't centralize; such discussions will head no progress for humanity because it seems to address the big issue as whichever system we are using or may use.

Care to proof read what you wrote. I'm not able to guess your intent on this one.

➽ Tearing down our government won't change the situation in America because the greedy people will still remain and continue their actions in even darker rooms, and furthermore this would only weaken us to other governments of the world, terrorists, etc.

Which situation would that be? The situation where government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control? Evidence on extortion for money already written and ready for copy - paste.

The situation where greedy people in government will use extortion to satisfy their greed?

Though I don't think it to be your intent, I like that you merged government with terrorists. Because governments ARE terrorists. Both use threats and force to get what they want.

➽ You claim the government does more harm than good, and I agree, but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being governed, even if we disagree on the amount of good it produces, but a lack of government eliminates all good that it was producing while simply allowing all the bad it was doing to continue unchecked.

Another compound sentence to be unpacked.

➽ You claim the government does more harm than good, and I agree, [...]

If you agree that government does more harm than good, that means you agree NOT having government will do more good than harm.

➽ [...] but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being governed, [...]

Parsing the statement, [...] but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being extorted, [...] Nah, I don't think so. I've not had reason to present why just yet.

➽ [...] A lack of government won't provide more checks against the villains of the country.

And having government won't provide checks against the villains in government.

How many people have been killed by 'government'? 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.

➽ [...] So my question for you is, what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and prote t their power and resources and all organized crime could simply continue without it?

Another compound sentence to be unpacked:

➽ [...] So my question for you is, what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and prote t their power and resources [...]

You are asking me what is the benefit of taking down a government that extorts people for the people's resources? Have you bothered to read anything I have posted? I don't think so.

You are asking me what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and protect their power. Obviously you have NOT read the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, to wit, these words: "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"? You know, the reason for the second amendment that you wrote Joe's speech about? This one: "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."

➽ [...] and all organized crime could simply continue without it? [...]

Are you implying that non criminals can't organize but criminals can?

➽ It seems most anarchists simply aim for a system that puts as few checks and balances between them and their ill desires as possible, and little more than that.

➽ I can already trust myself to be a good person, with or without your opinion on the matter,

Seems to me you continue to imagine that you are superior to anybody who isn't you.

You have just called those who don't believe like you, Villains.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 06, 2021, 03:34:44 PM »

Quote
Dale Eastman you seem to be missing the idea that the government is little more than people and buildings, and the buildings aren't hurting anyone.

You seem to think that government is the enemy, when really its the people in the government, and destroying the structured government won't change the hearts and goals of the villains within.

Government, don't government; centralize, don't centralize; such discussions will head no progress for humanity because it seems to address the big issue as whichever system we are using or may use.

Tearing down our government won't change the situation in America because the greedy people will still remain and continue their actions in even darker rooms, and furthermore this would only weaken us to other governments of the world, terrorists, etc.

You claim the government does more harm than good, and I agree, but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being governed, even if we disagree on the amount of good it produces, but a lack of government eliminates all good that it was producing while simply allowing all the bad it was doing to continue unchecked. A lack of government won't provide more checks against the villains of the country.

So my question for you is, what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and prote t their power and resources and all organized crime could simply continue without it?

It seems most anarchists simply aim for a system that puts as few checks and balances between them and their ill desires as possible, and little more than that.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 06, 2021, 09:19:26 AM »

Quote
Part 1

➽ Dale Eastman villains would be defined as those who impose or infringe on the rights of others for their own personal gain.

Excellent! 100% agreement.

➽ I have no doubt our current government is already doing that but thats not the issue, the issue is letting it run rampant and unchecked.

Checking the archive, I see that I have not asked you if you've ever read NO TREASON by Lysander Spooner. Have you?

Published in 1870, Spooner wrote: "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."

My issue with you is your concept of "Checking" the unchecked. The three branches of government, according to the myth and lore, those three branches are supposed to be the checks built in to the government by the CONstitution (sic). As a matter of course, I will be looking for your suggestions for "Checking" the criminal syndicate members infesting "government."

As placed, your second sentence doesn't really belong between the first and third. This is why I have to unpack and parse your words. A critique for feedback and improvement. Not meant as a denigrating criticism. Just explaining why I sometimes spent an exorbitant amount of time composing my posts.

➽ Their [the villain's] agendas and goals would be to seize as much land, weapons, and resources for themselves as possible and use that as a leveraging tool against those less powerful, less fortunate, and less aggressive, as human greed is the root of all evil.

And you just described government, exactly, and provably, as it is. I say provably, because I can prove my claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. My proof is already written, canned, and ready to be presented via copy-paste.

I'll toss the inclusion of government villains aside for now and just focus on the criminal miscreants and malefactors who impose or infringe on the rights of others for their own personal gain. Thus leaving this focus on ordinary criminals who look for weak people to victimize. What then to do to provide security? That is really the question in either case, be it ordinary criminals or "official government" criminals. Setting this aside because your next paragraph goes off on a tangent.

➽ Civilians would be defined as the common folk who want to live in a peaceful society without war and hate, without a constant battle for survival, the people who are perfectly fine working 30+ hours a week to better their lives and community without infringing on the rights of their fellow man.

I find that to be a good start of a definition. I find it to also be lacking. The common folk are NOT the ruling folk. So I am forced to contest this description. Civilians would be the non-ruler class. The ruler class would be every officer, employee, or elected official working for, within, or as government.

I object to the 30+ hours a week because it is an arbitrary standard. (A standard that, IMO, really needs discussion and examination regardless of this discussion.)

➽ This could be achieved through government or anarchism, but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

Decoding the sentence:
[Common folk living in a peaceful society without war and hate, without a constant battle for survival, without their rights being infringed upon] could be achieved through government or anarchism, but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

"Could be" also means "could NOT be". In other words, just a meaningless guess.

Looking first at government.

❶ Government can NOT achieve common folks living in a peaceful society, because government will NOT leave the common folks alone.
❷ Government can NOT achieve common folks living without war and hate, because government, especially the U.S. government, creates enemies, creates phantom menaces, to scare the common folks into believing they need government to go to war to for protection.
❸ Government can NOT achieve common folks living without a constant battle for survival because government steals from the people at every turn via Taxes, fines for victimless crimes, and license fees.
❹ Government can NOT achieve common folks living without their rights being infringed, because government is the worst offender of such rights. I find your ignorance of all the dead people, killed by their own governments, appalling and disgusting.

Government, by its very nature, infringes on the rights of its victims, a.k.a. those it rules. Again I state: My proof is already written, canned, and ready to be presented via copy-paste.

Now looking at anarchy.

❶ Common folks living in a peaceful society already happens in most folks interactions with other folks in the anarchy of life that government has not attempted to control.
❷ Anarchy doesn't pay attention to hate, until hate causes actions to violate and harm others. Most folks don't go to war killing other folks. It takes a government to whip the folks into a hateful frenzy.
❸ Anarchy doesn't have governments claiming a right to extortion, then using the euphemism of taxation.
❹ Anarchy doesn't have governments infringing on the folks rights.

Anarchism= No ruling class= No class extorting the victim peons to rule them.

Larken Rose calls the belief in authority The Most Dangerous Superstition. That is the title of his book. If you are willing to find it online and read it, I won't have to copy/paste portions of it in this discussion. This dangerous superstition is how so many people have been murdered by their own governments. Milgram and Stanford experiments support this concept.

➽ [...] but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. I have to chastise you for posting your assumptions as if they are facts. This is not the first time you have done this. I have to reject your implied claim that you know what goes on in other folks minds and call you on attempting to speak for others.

The only thing I can me sure of is that you have have posted what goes on in your mind. You are telling me that YOU are easily corrupted because of YOUR greed. Greed meaning the intense desire for more of something than you actually need.

The only thing easily corrupted is the folk's minds. You are a prime example of this. You believe you need a criminal organization to extort funds from you in order to be protected from criminals. Corrupted minds that were exposed to corrupting influences starting early in childhood and lasting for the next twelve years. Minds indoctrinated, inculcated, and corrupted in the education system the ruling class controls.

Minds indoctrinated, inculcated, and corrupted into believing: That the ruling class has a right to rule; That the ruling class has a right to exist; That the ruling class has a right to use threats and violence to force obedience; That the ruling class has a right to extort compliance from their victims.

That is where the corruption presently exists. Greed and shitty humans notwithstanding.
Quote
Part 2

➽ Mafias are a tactical organization of criminal lords and possibly the best modern day example. They have rank and file, leaders and bosses, weapons and agendas against other humans, and as ibstated previously, their main goals consist of resources and land, which gives you [them?] power over people who require those resources to survive a basic life.

Congrats. You just described the minor league mafia teams. Small potatoes compared to the major league mafia teams, the governments of the world. Their main goals are the resources of the people. They get access to the people as a resource, and the people's resources to be farmed, by conquest. They farm the people's resources by extortion called "taxation."

➽ Its easy to say that the common folk would rally against them, but with strategic criminal activity, its easy to cut off supplies; water, food, nitrate, weapons, materials for crafting and trade, etc, making it much harder for an unmilitarized group of patriots and/or "civilians" to even consider fighting back.

It's just as easy to say that the common folk would not be able to fight back (your belief and assumption). I challenge and deny your assumption about common folk fighting back against villains. You have not presented enough detail about these criminal villains to even begin to discuss how to defend against them.

Never mind your assumption; your imagined magic mind reading; about what victims will or will not consider in regard to protecting themselves from criminals, organized or not. I can not deny on this particular point in specific situations. In specific situations you are actually correct.

The specific situation is when the criminal villains have brainwashed the victims to believe that the criminal villains have a right to victimize the victims. As has been said, The only difference between the mafia and the government is the mafia doesn't educate its victims with twelve years of teaching the victims what they do is not wrong.

The moment the common folk pick up weapons to defend themselves, they are the Militia. Just as when the common folk picked up arms to defend themselves from the depredations of King George's officials and military of the first civil war, known as the revolutionary war. The actual militia of able bodied men, with their own arms. This militia is NOT the U.S. National guard. That's just more goverment corrupt Jedi mind tricks on the population.

I, as presently one of the common folk, have actually had military basic training. There are other common folk who have had advanced military training such as to advanced hand to hand skills and lethal soft points on the human body. So there are common folks with skills and knowledge on combat tactics and strategies to teach the farmers how to use their pitchforks and torches.

➽ People such as A advocate for a peaceful land of consensual anarchism and self responsibility, but the moment war lords do not consent to such a relationship with the common folk is the moment such ideas of peaceful anarchy collapse into our current struggle; a fight for a system that allows consensual peace, responsibility, and prosperity for everyone.

Anarchy is NOT a system. That is a flaw in your thinking. That parses in my mind as being the same as a Theist claiming Atheism is a religion. This leads me to wonder what else regarding anarchy do you not understand.

"Consensual Anarchism?" Are you fucking with me? You practice consensual anarchism every day you interact with people by your own choice and with free will everyday. Even while interacting with me (though I had to be an asshole to get you re-engaged}. Thank you for re-engaging in the discussion. Besides, how would NON-consensual anarchism work? I order you to not interact, with whomever you don't want to interact with ? ? ? ?

How, exactly, is a war lord different from any other criminal villain? Speaking of war lords, have you examined the actions of the Federal United States? Here's the resumé of the U.S. Federal War Lord:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
Military conflicts funded by extortion. A critical analysis will reveal that these actions are NOT about protecting the people of the U.S. hegemony.

Your description is correct though. The U.S. Federal "war lords do not consent to such a relationship with the common folk"

➽ But don't worry, im more than capable of handling tactical war, assessing situations, rank and file, strengths and weaknesses of units along with their capabilities or absence thereof in unusual situations.

I will accept your claim at face value. You have the brains you claim you have until you prove to me that you don't.

Sun Tzu's art of war is about government wars funded by the people, That is to say war funded by extortion of the people. And the issue of getting the people to accept the taxes funding the war was handled most adroitly by the present criminal villain U.S. Federal War Lord lying about weapons of mass destruction. The false flag operation taking down the Trade Center towers sure helped by viscerally emphasizing The Phantom Menace. (How prescient that movie was.)

➽ people need to [...] understand that winning a battle or war is not the same as winning the favor of the people

That is a poorly written sentence. That is why I have to unpack and parse your words. In this case I must interpret your intent and assume what you mean. So...

Correct me if I misunderstand. [Anarchists] need to understand that winning a battle or war is not the same as winning the favor of the people

As I assume that is directed at me, I give you notice that I do understand what you are trying to present. What is not clear to me is the assumed context, the assumed situation of this war. Nor have you presented what these wars are about.

I am actually in a war against the corruption of thought created by the forced indoctrination, inculcation, and brainwashing done by the criminal syndicate called government. My weapons are words.

Your words indicate a war by conventional government, regardless of your attempt to spin this as a war against other malefactors.
Quote
Part 3

➽ I could easily make a light that would permanently blind 1000 soldiers at once and ensure victory on nearly any boots-on-ground situation, but such tactics are barbaric, absolutely no one here would live our society to dissolve into a state of anarchy where I'm forced to rule over this town by permanently blinding any incoming human threats, and trust me, there would be A LOT OF THREATS.

Your run on sentences imply to me that you don't proof read what you write. The problem with that particular run on sentence is that it jumps topics. So now I unpack the sentence.

➽ I could easily make a light that would permanently blind 1000 soldiers at once

Of no import: Chemical, Electrical, or Nuke powered? I'll accept the sentence at face value.

➽ and ensure victory on nearly any boots-on-ground situation

"Nearly" is a weasel word. In other words, you just claimed NOT 100% effective in ensuring victory. I'll accept your claim as 100% victory.

➽ but such tactics are barbaric

And shooting guns at humans, killing and maiming them is not? And war is not barbaric? I silently, to myself, question your morals.

➽ absolutely no one here would live [like] our society to dissolve into a state of anarchy

There you go, presuming to read the minds of others. I reject such assumptions on your part.

➽ a state of anarchy where I'm forced to rule over this town

Do I understand you correctly? You intend to become the thing you allege you will protect against? If you were ruling the town, you would be extorting the town's people's compliance. The town's people must do what you tell them or you will hurt them.

And this segues back to the topic of greed.
You are telling me that YOU are easily corrupted because of YOUR greed, YOUR intense desire for more of something than you actually need. The word is megalomania.

➽ forced to rule over this town by permanently blinding any incoming human threats

How, specifically, does your "permanently blinding any incoming human threats" force you to rule? How does this rule you to rule?

➽ and trust me, there would be A LOT OF THREATS.

No! I do not trust you. Nor do I trust your imagined claim of "A LOT OF THREATS." With what you have described, you would be the first threat to a society of humans minding their own business. Fuck you. Then and now.

➽ If humanity has shown us anything at all in our history, its that they cannot be trusted to remain peaceful when dirty warfare would benefit themselves or their tribe AND such warfare is easily attainable.

Who, specifically, is this "us"? You do NOT speak for me. You "might" speak for others, however, absent my knowledge of the consent of any other, you can NOT speak for them either. Nor can you know what's in their minds.

Did you write Biden's spew, I mean speech, "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons"?

➽ [humanity] cannot be trusted to remain peaceful

Since you are part of this "humanity", you are stating that you "cannot be trusted to remain peaceful."

You cannot be trusted to remain peaceful, yet you imagine ruling a town. One does NOT rule without extorting compliance by threatening and using violence

You made this claim earlier:
➽ You ask if I include myself in the people that can't be left unchecked, and the answer is no, I can already trust myself to be a good person, with or without your opinion on the matter, because its simply an irrelevant opinion compared to the facts of the matter.

You trust yourself to be a good person. I DO NOT. As I work through your slew of words, I trust you less and less.

I previously asked you to:
Please present your evidence, with specificity, as why you are "special" and I am not. You did not. Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. Translation: "Who is silent, when he ought to and might have spoken, is seen to agree.”

Turns out, you're not special. Turns out, you're a megalomaniac. Turns out, you're a control freak.

➽ [...] when dirty warfare would benefit themselves or their tribe AND such warfare is easily attainable

Dirty warfare? Like the U.S. nuking and destroying two Japanese cities? Like the U.S. using depleted uranium? The U.S. government is the biggest user of weapons of mass destruction. I'll let you do your own search to learn about DU munitions.

Such warfare is only easily obtainable with the deep pockets government fills by extortion.

➽ Our government, as cruel as it may be, does in fact act as an amazing deterrent to civil war, they have the power to rain death and destruction on entire cities and leave a nuclear fallout that makes it uninhabitable for decades, and nobody wants to challenge that.

"That" actually being the U.S. criminal syndicate's willingness to kill indiscriminately. That is what cowards like you don't want to challenge.

➽ Is it coercion? Oh yes indeed.

Your acceptance of such coercion, Your acceptance of such extortion, shows me just what an immoral person you are.

Is it better than unchecked warlords bringing death and destruction on a daily basis in their fights for resources and weapons?

You mean like the unchecked U.S. Federal warlords bringing death and destruction on a daily basis in their fights for most of the 235 years it has existed?

That would be a hard NO!

You can be the judge of that, its more of an opinion than anything, my point is that neither system is truly better than the rest because it relies on humans remaining peaceful and friendly, and while you might find 100Million peaceful americans, what are you going to do about the other 200Million who would be fighting over resources and supplies?

I'm leaving this to remind myself to answer it. I will address this with specifics when I actually do.
 
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 04, 2021, 04:13:46 PM »

Quote
Dale Eastman villains would be defined as those who impose or infringe on the rights of others for their own personal gain. I have no doubt our current government is already doing that but thats not the issue, the issue is letting it run rampant and unchecked. Their agendas and goals would be to seize as much land, weapons, and resources for themselves as possible and use that as a leveraging tool against those less powerful, less fortunate, and less aggressive, as human greed is the root of all evil.

Civilians would be defined as the common folk who want to live in a peaceful society without war and hate, without a constant battle for survival, the people who are perfectly fine working 30+ hours a week to better their lives and community without infringing on the rights of their fellow man. This could be achieved through government or anarchism, but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

Mafias are a tactical organization of criminal lords and possibly the best modern day example. They have rank and file, leaders and bosses, weapons and agendas against other humans, and as ibstated previously, their main goals consist of resources and land, which gives you power over people who require those resources to survive a basic life. Its easy to say that the common folk would rally against them, but with strategic criminal activity, its easy to cut off supplies; water, food, nitrate, weapons, materials for crafting and trade, etc, making it much harder for an unmilitarized group of patriots and/or "civilians" to even consider fighting back.

People such as Alex advocate for a peaceful land of consensual anarchism and self responsibility, but the moment war lords do not consent to such a relationship with the common folk is the moment such ideas of peaceful anarchy collapse into our current struggle; a fight for a system that allows consensual peace, responsibility, and prosperity for everyone.

You asked if I have military training but I've never enlisted in our military, I had considered it before but I've never wanted to be some pawn in another super-power's war for resources and power over other people. But don't worry, im more than capable of handling tactical war, assessing situations, rank and file, strengths and weaknesses of units along with their capabilities or absence thereof in unusual situations. I've read Sun Tzu's art of war many times just to further my understanding of tactical situation analysis in my past and have moved far beyond that, because while his words hold true, they're still only the fundamentals of war and need to be heavily expanded on in our day and age. I play chess nearly everyday and, while this doesn't apply to real life war situations obviously, I do enjoy many world conquering war strategy games, most notably Civ 6, and I greatly enjoy the new expansions they've added to the game that add more political and congressional actions in the world, giving more consequences in choices and ethics. I actually really enjoy that last part because people need to heavily understand that winning a battle or war is not the same as winning the favor of the people, I could easily make a light that would permanently blind 1000 soldiers at once and ensure victory on nearly any boots-on-ground situation, but such tactics are barbaric, absolutely no one here would live our society to dissolve into a state of anarchy where I'm forced to rule over this town by permanently blinding any incoming human threats, and trust me, there would be A LOT OF THREATS.

If humanity has shown us anything at all in our history, its that they cannot be trusted to remain peaceful when dirty warfare would benefit themselves or their tribe AND such warfare is easily attainable. Our government, as cruel as it may be, does in fact act as an amazing deterrent to civil war, they have the power to rain death and destruction on entire cities and leave a nuclear fallout that makes it uninhabitable for decades, and nobody wants to challenge that.

Is it coercion? Oh yes indeed.

Is it better than unchecked warlords bringing death and destruction on a daily basis in their fights for resources and weapons?

You can be the judge of that, its more of an opinion than anything, my point is that neither system is truly better than the rest because it relies on humans remaining peaceful and friendly, and while you might find 100Million peaceful americans, what are you going to do about the other 200Million who would be fighting over resources and supplies?
Quote
I give you a like, because I appreciate the engagement of discussion. You've put a lot of words, so I have some unpacking, and parsing to do. Keep in ,mind that I am publicly archiving this discussion. You can use it as I do. Easy to review to keep track of points and topics forgotten in the heated parts of discussion. Lemme know if you need me to post that link again?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 03, 2021, 07:45:39 AM »

Quote
Dale Eastman dude I have been working 12-15 hour shifts for the last 5 days and I'm on break right now ill get to it when I get to it
Quote
Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being ignored. I can be patient now.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 02, 2021, 11:54:34 AM »

Quote
It's been almost 48 hours. Time for another coward Dakota Abdur Mohammed call out post.

➽ Dale Eastman what im asking is, if the villains just stayed organized and teamed up, wouldn't the civilians lose unless they tactically organize to defend themselves?

Who, specifically, are the villains to which you refer? How, specifically, do you imagine these villains would be organized? What, specifically do you image would be their agendas and goals?

Why do you refer to the two sides as "villains" and "civilians"? What criteria are you using to describe these opposing groups? What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of these people. What makes them what they are?

Have you ever had ANY tactical military training? I have.

You write of tactical organizing. What specifically do you mean? What would this tactical organization look like?

Do you realize that tactics in the scenario you presented means denying the villains achievement of their agendas and goals without getting one's self killed in the process?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 30, 2021, 12:42:13 PM »

Quote
Being unaware of how he has described himself Dakota Abdur Mohammed stated:
➽ Dale Eastman seems you're either unable to read or simply too foolish to do so properly, so ill keep waiting for your reply to my previous questions and statements, avoiding them will get you no further here.

So I will take this claim at face value, review this discussion from the top, and post my replies to evaporate his claim that I am avoiding his "previous questions and statements".

I will do so about every 48 hours giving him time to examine my quotes of his words, my replies to his words, and grow some balls to allow him to engage honestly on the topics under discussion.

On my public archive of this discussion, I will provide JUMP LINKS so that the reader can examine what the source words are when I do edits for clarity as shown in the following quote.

➽ My real question is, [...] anarchy, whats to stop the criminals from becoming an organized mafia fueled by greed?

What's stopping you from seeing that all the governments that exist are all organized criminals acting just like the mafia, also fueled by greed?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 28, 2021, 01:31:36 PM »

Quote
I am calling out the coward that posts to Fecesbook as Dakota Abdur Mohammed. kota.king.7568

I made one specific claim ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably⚠ in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.

The record shows that ⚠you have gone away⚠ leaving myself and others to speculate why you are no longer interested in this discussion.

synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=923.0
Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.

➽ Dale Eastman maybe because weirdos like you show up and say stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.

Which is why I'm calling you out in your very own conversation on my status wall.

I'm aware of your D⁶ games: Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail the topic.

This discussion topic is about your statist beliefs and your cowardice to interact with me while I dissect your statist beliefs.

I don't think you have the balls to engage me. Prove me wrong.

➽ You've made it clear that you're one of the reasons why a peaceful , loyal, dignified group of people need to oversee the larger needs of the people.

Please articulate, with specificity, exactly how I am one of the reasons why YOU believe a government of extortionate rulers is needed.
Quote
Please take your time to think about what you wish to present. Write it in a non Fecesbook text editer. Proof read what you wrote. Then post it, tagging me dale.eastman.75 so that I know you have replied.

Take your time. 48 hours to reply is perfectly okay with me because I know real life demands can slow discussion.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 28, 2021, 11:01:14 AM »

In yet another location...
Quote
At least the coward will discuss with you. He refuses to discuss his statism with me. I wonder why?
Perhaps this is a clue:
synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=923
Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.
Quote
➽ Dale Eastman cowardice? You the guy sounding like a fucking dumbass joining a conversation you obvious know nothing about and had no information to provide anyone.
Literally you Dale Eastman, are like that six year old that walks up while the adults are talking about taxes, and says loudly how much they really like skittles while there's a bag of skittles on the table right there.
Thats you, thats your vibe, autistic six year old.

If I'm such an idiot, you should have no problem decimating MY logic using YOUR logic
Quote
Dale Eastman seems you're either unable to read or simply too foolish to do so properly, so ill keep waiting for your reply to my previous questions and statements, avoiding them will get you no further here.
Quote
Dale Eastman I try not to insult them...I try.

Quote
As do I... Yet sometimes... Even when "they" (code for "him") insult me.

I am going to attempt to take his complaint at face value: ➽ "so ill keep waiting for your reply to my previous questions and statements"

Even though I have to "unpack" his statements to figure out exactly what he intends to present, even when he does so, so horribly.

So I'll spent the one to three hours decoding his words and composing a reply.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 27, 2021, 05:17:32 PM »

Quote
That name looks familiar.
I made one specific claim ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably⚠ in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.
The record shows that ⚠you have gone away⚠ leaving myself and others to speculate why you are no longer interested in this discussion.
synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=923.0
Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.
Quote
Dale Eastman maybe because weirdos like you show up and say stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. Your post didn't even include the word prerequisite or college a single time, you had absolutely nothing to add here.
You bore me.
Quote
Just posting to remind you of your cowardice. Carry on.
Quote
Dale Eastman cowardice? You the guy sounding like a fucking dumbass joining a conversation you obvious know nothing about and had no information to provide anyone.
Literally you Dale Eastman, are like that six year old that walks up while the adults are talking about taxes, and says loudly how much they really like skittles while there's a bag of skittles on the table right there.
Thats you, thats your vibe, autistic six year old.
Quote
Anytime you wish to continue the conversation you ran away from, you go ahead and tag me.
Quote
Dale Eastman okay Dale, explain to the class why YOU think prerequisite courses don't contain any indoctrination at all, that IS the discussion we are having here, isn't it?
I'm waiting child
Quote
Dale Eastman hurry up
Quote
Dale why ya running away man I thought you were letting the record show how brave you are, go on, share your entirely well thought out ideas with the class man, I promise no one will finish reading it laughing out loud. Cross my heart, you don't have to be afraid of discussions at the adult table.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 06, 2021, 07:23:11 AM »

Quote from: CB
https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
Quote from: 6 June 01:20
this helped me realize one thing; anarchy can't work in a society where people can't be trusted to be left unchecked. Likewise, the argument against government is that people can't be trusted anyways so we can't give them power, but the solution there is simple; those people also cannot have the power to remain unchecked. Everyone, officials included, needs to volunteer transparency to ensure they are adequately checked, this is more so a requirement for people placed in a governing position, since as the ones with the most power, they could do the most damage.

The only real solution for a society is completely, 100% transparent officials and businesses. If they have a cell phone, everything on it is declassified always. Any computers, always declassified.

I don't care if we are worried about the secrets of our national defenses, we can accommodate for that some other way.

I see the real problem as the fact that the people are unable and, for the majority of them, unwilling to truly keep the official powers in check. And I can understand why, bribery is a big political deal. You have leftist politicians out there everyday offering "free (for non tax payers)" services to people in exchange for ignorance and turning the other way when they don't want to be checked and kept in line.

That article makes it clear that others agree, other nations will invade if we fall into anarchy, not "local warlords" like this article describes, or mercenaries for hire, entire nations would wage war on our land and seize it for themselves. It might take them a few decades but eventually we would lose those battles completely, America as an ungoverned nation simply could not defend from invading countries attacking at once, and privatized defense simply won't cut it on an invasion scale that massive. Imagine if Russia and China and Korea attacked the west coat. England and the Middle East attacking the east coast. The south being invaded by Mexico and any countries boats that just roll on up.

The people need protection from the other 7billion people in the world, half of which would readily attack our country if given the chance.

People can't be left unchecked, so they need to be governed, but more importantly, those governing need to constantly be in public check to ensure the governing is done properly.

The answer to this? The government can't threaten to threaten or arrest the people, but the people can threaten or arrest the government. Our government acts like threatening its officials is a bigger crime than theft, when in reality, thats just to cover their ass and remain unchecked. Government isn't the issue, the people placed in power using that privilege to remain unchecked is the issue
Quote
I made one specific claim in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.

I made the claim: ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably. I presently believe you are a coward for that reason.⚠

I hope your posting five comments after my last post directed at you and then you going away was because real life demanded your attention.
Quote from: June 9 12:20
I made one specific claim ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably⚠ in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.

The record shows that ⚠you have gone away⚠ leaving myself and others to speculate why you are no longer interested in this discussion.