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 31, 2021, 10:52:36 AM »

Quote from: MJ on July 30, 2021, 03:12:39 AM
Quote from: Dale Eastman on July 24, 2021, 11:46:58 AM
"In both situations a motorist has a gun pointed at them, and the person holding the gun yells, "GET OUT OF THE CAR!" In the first case, the gun holder is a car-jacker. In the second, the gun holder is a cop."

This is incorrect, in that a car-jacker means to steal your property. Whereas the police officer is not trying to do that. but is trying to follow the law. Car jackers do not adhere to that rule. [A car-jacker] pulling you over is in no way the same as an officer pulling you over.

Minor nit, pedantic A-hole here. Assumption and scenario is both motorists already at a stop.

This is the first friction in our thinking. To me the demand at gunpoint is exactly the same. You do not agree.

This is where you and I get to do some serious head butting.



I find I must put the definition of extortion on the table.

Extortion is "Do what we tell you to do, Or we will hurt you."

Those words, all by themselves, are irrefutable.

Extortion is a crime. Those words should be irrefutable, and they are... Until I specify a certain group of people as the ones doing the extorting.

As soon as I identify that government actors are the ones doing the extorting, the definition of extortion suddenly becomes a fact to be refuted. I can only forgive them for They know not what they do. As soon as I present the truth of what they do, I can no longer forgive them for they have become an enemy with ignorant, but nevertheless, bad intent.

Quote from: MJ on July 30, 2021, 03:12:39 AM
Whereas the police officer is ... trying to follow the law.

I am assuming arguendo; that is, I am assuming for the sake of discussion - argument, that the purpose and intent of the law is to protect humans from harm.

When I merge this to the reality of extortion, The law then becomes; You will be harmed in order to protect people from harm if you do not do obey.

How many people have been harmed by government protecting them from the harm of using drugs; drinking unpasteurized milk; having a burned out tail light; or having an expired vehicle registration sticker? That reality changes law to You will be harmed in order to protect YOU from harm if you do not do obey.

I'll just drop this quote in passing: "Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime."

So as to move on, my last comment on law is: "Law is a politician's opinion." By what authority do politicians get the right to make their opinions Do what we tell you or we will hurt you? A.K.A. Comply or die?

Quote from: MJ on July 30, 2021, 03:12:39 AM
Which leads to the point you made. Is authority extortion? There are cases where this can be made. But on the whole is this true? I think not.

You are arguing that authority is not extortion. The acts of (alleged) authority that uses extortion is extortion. How does this (alleged) authority get a right to use extortion?

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of YDOM.

YDOM is You Don't Own Me.
YDOM is A self-evident truth.

To argue otherwise is to argue that humans are not created with equal rights.

If You Don't Own Me, then You don't have authority over me. Neither do politicians known as Legislators, Executives, nor Judges. No government officer, employee, or elected official was created with authority over me, you, or anybody else.

Thus, government's alleged authority is all provably bogus, Of which I expect to be challenged on, based upon some unexamined assumptions. Which, when it is posited, I will address.

Getting back to what you provided in support of your claim that authority is not extortion.

Quote
Fear of authority keeps the vast majority in line.

This authority does not exist. Fear of something will keep the vast majority in line. Per your words, fear of arrest will keep the vast majority in line.

What then is this "arrest"? Is this arrest not the harm of having your life interrupted? Is this arrest not the harm of having your freedom of movement curtailed? Is this arrest not the "or we'll hurt you" because you didn't obey some opinionated dictates of legislative politicians?

Quote
Many people in my life have said something to the theme of "I would do this, but I would be arrested."
Emphasis mine.

"This" is a nebulous generality. As such it does no good as a representative example of the specific behavior the actor is in fear of doing.

Let me parse that as I read it so that you can see how I think about that in light of what I've previously presented in this post...

"I would buy and smoke marijuana, but I would be arrested." "I would install a fence around my yard without tyrant's permission, but I would be arrested." "I would refuse to pay the extortion called taxation, but I would be arrested."

Make no mistake, government WILL harm people over victimless crimes.

I do NOT agree that humans need an extortionate band of criminals harming them in order to protect them from other criminals that MIGHT do them harm.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 30, 2021, 09:13:54 AM »

Quote from: MJ on July 30, 2021, 03:12:39 AM
as I have not figured out how to link quotes

Just like HTML, opening and closing tags are needed.

Code: [Select]
[quote]Hello world[/quote]
Quote
Hello world

The link part of quoting starts with clicking the "Quote" button on the top right of the post you wish to quote.

The entire post is inside the tags in the edit box.

If you want to see how somebody did something, This is where you can look and see what tags were used to change other items in a post. Just hit the back button after you've reviewed the tags in a comment.

I have put the quote tags where they need to be to quote just this phrase:
Quote from: MJ on July 30, 2021, 03:12:39 AM
as I have not figured out how to link quotes

This is what it looks like:
Code: [Select]
[quote author=MJ link=topic=890.msg15455#msg15455 date=1627636359]
as I have not figured out how to link quotes
[/quote]
The quote opening tag can be copied and pasted beginning a new quote of any section of a post you are quoting. Just remember to set a closing tag at the other end of the quote. This is if you want the quote linked to the post you are replying to.

I have found as often as not, just highlighting the sentence and clicking the edit quote button is sufficient when only one comment of one person is being replied to.

One of my techniques for replying to wordy posts is to space out the sentences or phrases, delete what I'm ignoring, highlight what I'm quoting and click the quote button... Not necessarily in that order.

Quote from: Me, Dale Eastman
You can tag the quotes with labels

Code: [Select]
[quote=Me, Dale Eastman]You can tag the quotes with labels[/quote]
Does "modify" show in the top right. In reviewing the settings as the admin, it looks like you have that permission to modify your own posts.

This is my actual response to the items in your post. I've shown it here as the code so you can see the relationship to what I posted and the codes - tags that format the post.
Code: [Select]
[quote author=MJ link=topic=890.msg15455#msg15455 date=1627636359]
[quote author=Dale Eastman link=topic=890.msg15438#msg15438 date=1627148818]
"In both situations a motorist has a gun pointed at them, and the person holding the gun yells, "GET OUT OF THE CAR!" In the first case, the gun holder is a car-jacker. In the second, the gun holder is a cop."
[/quote]

This is incorrect, in that a car-jacker means to steal your property. Whereas the police officer is not trying to do that. but is trying to follow the law. Car jackers do not adhere to that rule. [A car-jacker] pulling you over is in no way the same as an officer pulling you over.
[/quote]

[size=7pt]Minor nit, pedantic A-hole here. Assumption and scenario is both motorists already at a stop.[/size]

This is the first friction in our thinking. To me the demand at gunpoint is exactly the same. You do not agree.

This is where you and I get to do some serious head butting.

[img]https://j.gifs.com/yaZ9dQ.gif[/img]

I find I must put the definition of extortion on the table.

Extortion is "[glow=red,2,300][b][i]Do what we tell you to do, Or we will hurt you[/i].[/b][/glow]"

Those words, all by themselves, are irrefutable.

[i][b]Extortion is a crime[/b][/i]. Those words should be irrefutable, and they are... Until I specify a certain group of people as the ones doing the extorting.

As soon as I identify that government actors are the ones doing the extorting, the definition of extortion suddenly becomes a fact to be refuted. I can only forgive them for [i]They know not what they do[/i]. As soon as I present the truth of what they do, I can no longer forgive them for they have become an enemy with ignorant, but nevertheless, [glow=black,2,300][color=red][i]bad intent[/i][/color][/glow].

[quote author=MJ link=topic=890.msg15455#msg15455 date=1627636359]
Whereas the police officer is ... trying to follow the law.
[/quote]

I am assuming arguendo; that is, I am assuming for the sake of discussion - argument, that the purpose and intent of the law is to protect humans from harm.

When I merge this to the reality of extortion, The law then becomes; [glow=gold,2,300][b][i]You will be harmed in order to protect people from harm if you do not do obey[/i].[/b][/glow]

How many people have been harmed by government protecting them from the harm of using drugs; drinking unpasteurized milk; having a burned out tail light; or having an expired vehicle registration sticker? That reality changes law to [glow=red,2,300][b][i]You will be harmed in order to protect YOU from harm if you do not do obey[/i].[/b][/glow]

I'll just drop this quote in passing: "[i]Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime[/i]."

So as to move on, my last comment on law is: "[glow=blue,2,300][b][i]Law is a politician's opinion[/i].[/b][/glow]" [b][i]By what authority[/i][/b] do politicians get the right to make their opinions [b][i][glow=red,2,300]Do what we tell you or we will hurt you[/glow][/i][/b]? A.K.A. [i][b]Comply or die[/b][/i]?

[quote author=MJ link=topic=890.msg15455#msg15455 date=1627636359]
Which leads to the point you made. Is authority extortion? There are cases where this can be made. But on the whole is this true? I think not.
[/quote]

You are arguing that authority is not extortion. The acts of (alleged) authority that uses extortion is extortion. How does this (alleged) authority get a right to use extortion?

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of YDOM.

[glow=green,2,300]YDOM [glow=yellow,2,300]is[/glow] [i]You Don't Own Me[/i].[/glow]
[glow=green,2,300]YDOM [glow=yellow,2,300]is[/glow] [i]A self-evident truth[/i].[/glow]

To argue otherwise is to argue that humans are not created with equal rights.

If [glow=green,2,300][i][b]You Don't Own Me[/b][/i][/glow], then You don't have authority over me. Neither do politicians known as Legislators, Executives, nor Judges. No government officer, employee, or elected official was created with authority over me, you, or anybody else.

Thus, government's alleged authority is all provably bogus, Of which I expect to be challenged on, based upon some unexamined assumptions. Which, when it is posited, I will address.

Getting back to what you provided in support of your claim that authority is not extortion.

[quote]Fear of authority keeps the vast majority in line.[/quote]

This [i]authority[/i] does not exist. [i]Fear of[/i] something [i]will keep the vast majority in line[/i]. Per your words, fear of arrest [i]will keep the vast majority in line[/i].

What then is this "arrest"? Is this arrest not the harm of having your life interrupted? Is this arrest not the harm of having your freedom of movement curtailed? Is this arrest not the "[i]or we'll hurt you[/i]" because you didn't obey some opinionated dictates of legislative politicians?

[quote]Many people in my life have said something to the theme of "I would do [color=navy][b]this[/b][/color], but I would be arrested."[/quote][size=6pt][color=navy][b]Emphasis mine.
[/b][/color][/size]
"[color=navy][b]This[/b][/color]" is a nebulous generality. As such it does no good as a representative example of the specific behavior the actor is in fear of doing.

Let me parse that as I read it so that you can see how I think about that in light of what I've previously presented in this post...

"I would buy and smoke marijuana, but I would be arrested." "I would install a fence around my yard without tyrant's permission, but I would be arrested." "I would refuse to pay the extortion called taxation, but I would be arrested."

Make no mistake, government WILL harm people over victimless crimes.

I do NOT agree that humans need an extortionate band of criminals harming them in order to protect them from other criminals that MIGHT do them harm.
Posted by: MJ
« on: July 30, 2021, 03:17:40 AM »

Edit the comment to car-jackers is not the same as an officer pulling you over.
Posted by: MJ
« on: July 30, 2021, 03:12:39 AM »

I am just copying and pasting here, as I have not figured out how to link quotes. "In both situations a motorist has a gun pointed at them, and the person holding the gun yells, "GET OUT OF THE CAR!" In the first case, the gun holder is a car-jacker. In the second, the gun holder is a cop." This is incorrect, in that a car-jacker means to steal your property. Whereas the police officer is not trying to do that. but is trying to follow the law. Car jackers do not adhere to that rule. An officer pulling you over is in no way the same as an officer pulling you over.
Which leads to the point you made. Is authority extortion? There are cases where this can be made. But on the whole is this true? I think not. Many people in my life have said something to the theme of "I would do this, but I would be arrested." Fear of authority keeps the vast majority in line.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 24, 2021, 11:46:58 AM »

Quote from: MJ on July 23, 2021, 02:16:24 AM
And yes the message board format is a little disorienting. The last time I was on one, was around 2005. I will get more used to it though.

Different BB forums have different features. The one they do share is text formatting to emphasize a point. One of the ways to learn or re-learn BB code is to click the quote button to be able to see how certain tricks are done. Then hit the back button. And as always, just ask if you get stymied.

Quote from: MJ on July 23, 2021, 02:16:24 AM
I think the first difference of our views, stems from the question "by who's authority?"

I agree with you that our difference surrounds "authority".  As you are not the first person I've had discussions with regarding how you just described authority, A definition I most vehemently disagree with for reasons I hope to convey, You have actually done me the favor of triggering a possibly better way to describe why my definition is what my definition is.

Quote from: MJ on July 23, 2021, 02:16:24 AM
In my opinion authority exists beyond an individual. If you are surrounded by a group of people and they insist you do something "or else" then ,at least at that time they have authority.

Many people think as you do on this point. I always, and as strongly as I can present, accuse such definitions as being made by people who confuse extortion as authority.

Extortion is not authority!

<digression>
This triggers a bewildered wonder on my part, trying to figure out how people come to that belief. I specifically use the word belief and not the word conclusion. If something has not really been thought about and examined with critical thinking, then the result can not be a logical conclusion. Emotional conclusions... I see boatloads of that all around me. I've read enough of your words to know you are a critical thinker, so that doubles my curiosity on how you got to equating extortion to authority.
</digression>

I know I can sway you with reason, so although we don't agree on certain things, I'm already enjoying the discussion. Of course, the fact that we seem to agree on other things gives me good feelz.

To emphasize the difference in thoughts of myself and many others, I've a scenario of comparison. Two different situations, both exactly alike except for one difference:

In both situations a motorist has a gun pointed at them, and the person holding the gun yells, "GET OUT OF THE CAR!" In the first case, the gun holder is a car-jacker. In the second, the gun holder is a cop.

Both demands are extortion. PERIOD. Do what you are told or be hurt. The indoctrinated believe the cop has "authority". The cop does NOT and I can prove this. For now though, I'll just make the presently unsupported claim that both situations are exactly the same.

Here's where I inject the thought you triggered (thanks); Does the car-jacker own the motorist or their car? Does the cop own the motorist or their car?

Taking my cue from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created with an equal lack of authority over any other humans; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, it is the right of each individual to proclaim and enforce the You Don't Own Me standard against any and all who would attempt to enslave any human.

I have a 30 step examination of authority, starting anywhere in the chain of alleged authority climbing up the chain to its alleged source, "We The People".

Then there is this stubborn logic: Nobody can delegate something they do not possess or own.

Quote
[...] at least at that time they have authority. Regardless if it is moral or not.

It's not. To attempt to argue otherwise is to attempt to argue that it's moral for some humans to be treated as property, as slaves, by other people.

Quote
Most people, as a norm tend to congregate in groups of like minded people. While at times force need not be used to encourage their views, there is always that threat.

That threat violates the YDOM Principle. That threat is tyranny of the majority.

"Most people ... congregate in groups."

Nobody can delegate something they do not possess or own. Thus even when congregated into groups, the collective still does not have authority over any person human (corporations are "persons"). To argue otherwise is to argue the congregation as an entity owns some human.

Quote
This [threat] will exist beyond any form of government.

I parse that as "This threat of harm to humans by humans will exist beyond any form of government."

Quote from: MJ on July 23, 2021, 02:16:24 AM
In fact at least with how the United States government was founded, it was originally meant to protect you from a group of people trying to force you in a certain direction.

I have no choice. I must parse your words as "How the United States criminal extortionate syndicate was founded."

Quoting Lysander Spooner's 1870 Treatise NO TREASON:
"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 [the government] is unfit to exist. "

Quote
And while I will be the first person to say that the US Government has strayed very far from that noble goal there are still many benefits to it, the law, at least to an extent, still protects people from mass rule better than anarchy would.

What you call a noble goal, I call smoke and mirrors. I would be happy to detail the smoke and mirrors.

What you call the law, I call politician's opinions. I would be happy to detail why those opinions are based upon non-existent authority. If you haven't figured out my claim of no authority by the Declaration of Liberty and YDOM Principle (YDOM P not fully presented).

I parse to an extent to mean not always. Not always means instances of missing protection.

Protection from what? I find there's some frayed loose ends here. I'm going to need some detail on what, exactly, you mean by mass rule. For instance, maybe an example of a rule that has some negative consequence to which you actually see as a (potential) problem. And wouldn't mass rule be mass law?

Protects people ... better than anarchy would

Protection and security from harm seems to be the friction point between liberty purists (anarchists) like my self, and anybody wanting government of any type. With you being what I call a minarchist, as it were.

As part of my ongoing... education... in discussing the government - no government issue, I must admit that Protection and security from harm is presently an undefined, unexamined issue. This is where the minarchists attack the anarchist's position. You've earned my respect, so I'm happy to discuss this issue with you. The Bigarchists, the Statists, with their worship of government... Such discussion is not gonna happen.

So my seed for the next set of comments is: What, specifically, and projected, are the things humans need protection and security from.?
Posted by: MJ
« on: July 23, 2021, 02:16:24 AM »

I think the first difference of our views, stems from the question "by who's authority?" In my opinion authority exists beyond an individual. If you are surrounded by a group of people and they insist you do something "or else" then ,at least at that time they have authority. Regardless if it is moral or not. Most people, as a norm tend to congregate in groups of like minded people. While at times force need not be used to encourage their views, there is always that threat. This will exist beyond any form of government. In fact at least with how the United States government was founded, it was originally meant to protect you from a group of people trying to force you in a certain direction. And while I will be the first person to say that the US Government has strayed very far from that noble goal there are still many benefits to it, the law, at least to an extent, still protects people from mass rule better than anarchy would.

And yes the message board format is a little disorienting. The last time I was on one, was around 2005. I will get more used to it though.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 17, 2021, 01:02:42 AM »

Quote from: MJ on July 16, 2021, 01:20:55 AM
OK, I think we have the kinks worked out for logging onto your site. Whatever you did, it worked. There has been a lot added to this conversation and I am not sure what is in response to me and what is in response to someone else. Let me read all of it over and I will respond to what I can

Top post or bottom post? I don't care, so whatever works for you. If your not familiar with Bulletin Board techniques just ask. Top post works best for quotes of quotes etc. Quotes nail the response to the post being replied to. Interlaced responses work good when too many topics get in a single post.

Though this is presently a discussion 'tween you and I, I hope others might join in. At the very least, I hope others will read.

Unlike others who disagree with me, I find your disagreement to be a breath of fresh air. You are willing to discuss as real life allows you time and I'm good with that.

Perhaps we could start over with the disagreement placed on display to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong... On anything I misinterpret  regarding my parsing of anything you post. Keep me honest, in other words.

You view "anarchy" as untenable. I do not.

As a registered member, you can set the BB settings to email you when a post of yours is replied to.

I changed some settings. That was the SNAFU on you being able to post. I found the problem and it was me.
Posted by: MJ
« on: July 16, 2021, 01:20:55 AM »

OK, I think we have the kinks worked out for logging onto your site. Whatever you did, it worked. There has been a lot added to this conversation and I am not sure what is in response to me and what is in response to someone else. Let me read all of it over and I will respond to what I can
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 01, 2021, 01:42:39 PM »

Quote
Begin Part 3.

Bottom line: You want a criminal syndicate that extorts people to protect natural rights, property rights, and give you "REAL" safety.

➽ [...] yes I do.

You are NOT ignoring the fact of a criminal syndicate extorting people, NOR are you arguing the fact doesn't exist. For that reason alone, you have earned my Kudos and respect.

➽ [...] As anarchy has failed on all those issues, yes I do.

You are arguing about what you see as a "failure" on the part of "anarchy" to provide "security" "for" humans as your reason for arguing against "anarchy", whatever that is. I intend to set discussion of whatever anarchy is on the shelf for later examination.

Human needs for "security" is one thing we do seem to agree on. How it's to be provided, not so much. The minutia of security has not been examined, so we might well agree on much. I am defining "security" as defense from harm... When I add "any harm" this is where we diverge, because in my lexicon, "any harm" includes harm caused by government.

Taking my cue from your article, I've attempted to distill your concerns as presented. I'll be adding my own because I think you had a bit of tunnel vision in the potential harms to be secured against.

Upon reviewing your article, I find myself surprised at how little potential harms to be secured against were listed. But then, as an overview, I don't expect the minutia to be listed. IMO, suitable for the article, not suitable for discussion of the article, which I would parse and title: Why Anarchists Are Wrong.

Quoting from your article.
➽ [T]echnological advancement in military technology. [A]ttack from a hostile government, who would be armed with considerably more advanced military force. [A]n anarchist society would quickly fall to any outside government action.

First thing to be noted is that such an attack would not be done by a voluntaryist society that does not do involuntary interactions. Such a consortium of individual humans would never agree to initiate force and violence against others because of what others have.

I must point out the obvious: Societies are conglomerations of individual humans. Governments are criminal syndicates that extort people for money and control. An attack by a government is always an attack by a hostile. ANY entity that extorts people is a hostile. Given the irrefutable nature of governments always extorting people for money and control, what then would an attacking (violence and force initiating) government be looking to gain?

⚠The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with approximately 165,000 of its active-duty personnel stationed outside the United States and its territories. This list consists of deployments excepting active combat deployments, which consist of troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Wikipedia⚠

Could the government of the U.S. deploy troops to 150 countries without funds to do so? How does it get the funding for this hegemony? Extorting its own populace for money, that's how. Such an attack would not be done by a voluntaryist society that does not, as a matter of procedure, extort its people for money.

So a paradox seems to appear here: If not for governments with militaries, people wouldn't need a government with a military.

At this point I must attack the conflation, implied or actual, that any government provides security. Governments govern. Governments rule. Governments extort for funds. Security secures. Security defends against harm(s). Governing and securing are NOT the same thing. Because of this, I label myself as a pedantic asshole.

What then is a military? What is a militia? Those questions go on the shelf right next to What is anarchy? for later examination.

Moving on to the next need for security:
➽ [L]awless urban centers[...]

Still being a pedantic asshole, I object to the word "lawless". I object because when discussing governments, laws are merely politicians opinions. So the phrase of potential harms parses in my mind as urban centers not ruled by extortion to obey politician's opinions. The law of gravity is self enforcing. Politician's opinions need extortion for compliance.

I translate the complaint about "lawless urban centers" to be a complaint about "urban centers not ruled by extortion". Anarchy does not mean without rules. Anarchy means without a ruling class dictating rules.

Regardless, there are potential threats and harms that the humans in urban centers, or anywhere else, will need security from. I'm sure we will agree regarding these potential threats and harms to humans.

Potential threats and harms would be what a conglomeration of humans, a society of humans, would need security from. Potential threats and harms could be natural or non-natural.

The non-natural threats and harms would be human initiated harms. Things generally accepted as "crimes". I specifically do NOT include disobeying politician's opinions, disobeying politician's rules, as "crimes." Crimes would be harms initiated and done to other humans that are bad and wrong in and of themselves. Malicious things like murder, robbery, slavery, rape, theft, injury, extortion. Things nobody wants done to themselves.

I can not list those malicious actions without a quick look at potential motivations to do such malicious actions.

In order to initiate such actions against innocent victims, the victim's attacker must view the victim as less than equal. In the case of a government or state initiating such action against people of a different society or "stateless" society, such attacking government must convince its own slaves that the other people are less than human. My assumption is the attacker simply wants and takes that which is not theirs to take.

The motivations of revenge actions, payback if you will, is understandable. I would categorize this in the end, as the issue of conflict resolution. My focus with situations such as this, is how to minimize the harm to all parties involved in such a conflict. Conflicts not being resolved and revenge motivations creates the dilemma of getting warring parties, be they single humans, groups of humans, societies, or nation states to find a way to resolve the conflict.

The Hatfield-McCoy feud comes to mind. An actual war between two families. This feud has entered the American folklore lexicon as a metonym for any bitterly feuding rival parties. (Metonym is a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that thing or concept.) On a whim I read the Wikipedia article about the Hatfield-McCoy feud. Short story: A civil war related killing started the shit storm that was the Hatfield-McCoy feud. A civil war with two governments, two extortionate criminal syndicates fighting over control of turf and control over which "official" dictates are to be obeyed in a given territory.

End Part 3
Quote
Reserved for Part 4
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 26, 2021, 07:46:14 AM »

Quote from: Jeff Smith in The introduction of liberty



WILL ANOTHER GOVERNMENT OR RULER SIMPLY TAKE OVER A FREE (ANARCHIST) SOCIETY?

Police The Police recently posted the meme pictured. We hear people say the same thing, when "cops" reads "government." For either, it is "imagined fears" that is used to convince people that we NEED the state and the state run police.

Following is the reasoning I use as the counter argument for those that support the state and that "right" of aggression.

One of the main arguments I have heard over the decades, against allowing a free society (anarchy) is that people will naturally form another government to rule over us.

This cannot happen unless there is a "right" of aggression, the legal/moral right to use aggression (force, coercion, violence) in order to have a government to rule over the life, liberty, and property of others.

One of the best examples of why this would not occur, is the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany (1919-1933). During this period in Germany's history, the two worst aggression-based doctrines, the Nazis and the Communists were fighting one-another, in the streets of Germany for power.

Between 1919-1933 the Nazis and Communists protested and fought each other in the streets of Germany, much like antifa (left-wing) and anticom (right-wing) do today in the US. Both examples, present and past, were just street thugs that the people did not see as their rulers. Though they gained supporters in those 14 years, neither could simply "become" a government and rule, because the people did not mentally "allow" themselves to see either side as "rulers."

On March 23 1933 that all changed. The German Republic gave Adolph Hitler a government position. He suddenly and immediately had the "right" of aggression, and the people allowed/accepted this, changing everything. In just a few weeks Hitler was able to do more damage to liberty than he did in fourteen years of street thuggery. We all know the rest of that history, but understand that it would NEVER could have taken place without the people mentally allowing rulers and the "right" of aggression.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 20, 2021, 04:16:59 PM »

Quote
I for one, would not like to live like this.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city

Because of my "bias" and the differences in our viewpoints, I have presented how I see the quoted words from the article. I don't know that a point by point response is required at this time. I'm thinking that this will serve for observing the juxtaposition of the differing viewpoints later in the discussion. Since this is being archived by me, going back to review and pick up points is available to you and I and any of the curious.

Between the picks, ⛏the words⛏ I dug out and quoted from the article.

⛏Anarchic, organic, surreal, this enclave was once among the most densely populated places on Earth.⛏

⛏Most densely populated[...]⛏ My first thought: The denizens chose to live there.

⛏350 buildings, almost all between 10 and 14 stories high, occupied by 8,500 premises, 10,700 households, and more than 33,000 residents.⛏ Children notwithstanding, that's a lot of choices to live there.

⛏There was little uniformity of shape, height, or building material.⛏ You say "anarchy" like this is a problem. To be fair, I am projecting and assuming that you are against ⛏little uniformity of shape, height, or building material.⛏ because you are against anarchy. This specific challenge is only for the purpose of highlighting that what "anarchy" is or is not, has not really been agreed to, other than no rulers in my lexicon, and no government in your lexicon.

⛏Wiring and cables covered every surface: running vertically from ground level up to forests of rooftop television aerials, or stretching horizontally like innumerable rolls of dark twine that seemed almost to bind the buildings together. ⛏ I ditto this form of anarchy as an extension of the prior paragraph.

⛏Entering the city meant leaving daylight behind.⛏ Again, a free will choice of some 33,000 living there. I dunno 'bout the postman written of in the article.

⛏There was no law to speak of. This was an anarchist society, self-regulating and self-determining. It was a colony within a colony, a city within a city, a tiny block of territory at once contested and neglected. It was known as Kowloon Walled City. But locals called it something else. Hak Nam—the City of Darkness.⛏ Hearsay evidence, not valid in any court. This is NOT the direct testimony of the "locals" where the "locals" can be questioned on the specifics of the local's locality. Living in the city? Or living outside the city? And if outside the city, how often did they visit? If living inside, how often did they exit?

⛏Appalled by the conditions, the Hong Kong authorities made plans to clear the refugees.⛏ In other words, translating the euphemisms to descriptive words, The Hong Kong [extortionists] made plans, ignoring the refugees wishes.⛏the Public Works Department, supported by a large police presence, removed the squatters and demolished all the slum housing.⛏ The people paid for out of the extorted funds treasury, supported by the civil mercenaries paid for out of the extorted funds treasury, removed people from their homes and destroyed their homes.

⛏Within a week, however, the occupiers had returned to rebuild their shacks.⛏ They rebuilt their homes destroyed by a criminal syndicate called government. ⛏When the police attempted to intervene, a riot broke out.⛏ As it should be when the criminal syndicate called government comes to destroy your homes.

⛏Officials from the Chinese government traveled to the Walled City—and officially encouraged the refugees to continue the struggle against their British oppressors.⛏ Officials from the Chinese criminal syndicate called government traveled to the Walled City—and officially encouraged the refugees to continue the struggle against their British criminal syndicate called government, of which both are criminal syndicate extorting oppressors of liberty.

⛏What kind of city? [...] The result was a city outside the law: There was no tax, no regulation of businesses, no health or planning systems, no police presence.⛏

No planning systems; no zoning tyrants; no materials tyrants. And yet those ⛏350 buildings, almost all between 10 and 14 stories high⛏ didn't collapse in on themselves.

I will admit to a possible stroke of luck... But then, I will also call out the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse November 7, 1940; The I-95 Mianus River Bridge collapse June 28, 1983; and the I-35W Mississippi River bridge August 1, 2007. These three are in my top of head immediate awareness.

⛏People could come to Kowloon, and, in official terms, disappear.⛏ Again, hearsay. Disappear exactly how? Drop dead? Get kidnapped by aliens? Get rendered in vats to make candles our of their fat, with the gold from their teeth being an extra profit margin?

Or did they "officially" disappear from the nosy "officials" of the bigger criminal syndicate called government wanting to extort them for money and control?

End Part 1.

Quote
Begin Part 2.

⛏It was little surprise that criminal activity flourished.⛏ Which criminal activity is being discussed? Extorting people for money and control by the biggest gang on the island? ⛏Five Triad gangs—the King Yee, Sun Yee On, 14K, Wo Shing Wo, and Tai Ho Choi—took up residence.⛏ Or these tiny gangs?

⛏Kowloon’s extralegal status made it the perfect place for the manufacture, sale and use of drugs such as opium and heroin.⛏ And... Do I correctly interpret your fear that you can't control yourself to not get addicted to these "illegal (against the politician's dictates) drugs. Does this mean you are okay with people getting addicted to "legal (okayed by the politicians) drugs like alcohol and tobacco?

If these addictions do not directly harm you or yours it's none of your business. If these addictions indirectly harm you or yours, what are you doing to help educate potential addicts to not start and thus not go down that road? Are you are going to rely on government extortion, that is are you going to rely on government harm, to keep potential addicts from harming themselves.

⛏Organized crime may have dominated much of Kowloon, but it did not define the city. Entrepreneurs, attracted by low rents offered by private landlords, saw a unique opportunity. Hundreds of factories were established, with entire families manning the production lines. Conditions were often appalling, yet productivity—and profit—remarkable. ⛏

Free will. No government organized crime (extortion) keeping some 33,000 people doing what they see best for themselves and their loved ones.

⛏The citizens of the Walled City demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for change and adaptation. The boundaries of their world were tightly constrained, yet, as more people continued to enter the city, their architecture met the demand. As modern high-rises grew up in Hong Kong, the builders of Kowloon copied what they saw, erecting tower blocks of their own. Thin columns, established on foundations often consisting of thin layers of concrete poured into shallow trenches, started to extend skywards. With no requirement for planning permission, structures were thrown up with amazing speed. Subsidence and settlement were common. Because the high-rises would often lean against each other, residents called them “lovers’ buildings.”⛏

Subsidence and settlement. No collapse. How much better would the innovation have been with access to modern engineering knowledge? Like them little libraries, those little bulletin boards, and those little social / engineering platforms everyone carries in their pockets?

Do the right thing. Do not do the government comply or die thing.

⛏A system of self-government gradually emerged. In 1963, for the first time in over a decade, the Hong Kong authorities attempted to intervene in Kowloon, issuing a demolition order for one corner of the city, and proposing to relocate the displaced residents to a new estate development nearby. When the plans were made public, the community instantly formed a “Kowloon City anti-demolition committee.”⛏

Statist bullshit plain and simple. To quote Larken Rose:
⚠⚠⚠
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.
⚠⚠⚠

⛏For six months, the Housing Department kept Kowloon under surveillance to gather evidence of population numbers.⛏ That sure looks like an attempt by the criminal syndicate's Housing Department, in official terms, to make people reappear.

⛏This is the story of the rise and fall of a slum. It was born out of a quirk of history, it exploited its unsavory reputation, and, as is the fate of all slums, it became an embarrassment before being leveled by the authorities. ⛏

More statist bullshit.

⚠⚠⚠
A slum is usually a highly populated urban residential area consisting mostly of closely packed, decrepit housing units in a situation of deteriorated or incomplete infrastructure, inhabited primarily by impoverished persons.
⚠⚠⚠

So where, exactly, are impoverished persons supposed to live? Another way of defining a slum is, "I don't like the way your housing looks." A.k.a. "I don't like that you can't afford to make your housing look like I believe it should look."

⛏it [the slum] exploited its unsavory reputation.⛏ The "slum" didn't do any such thing. The "slum" is a composite of bricks and other structural components. This does NOT include the denizens living within the bricks and structural components of the "slum". The humans might have exploited this alleged "unsavory reputation." Or the denizens might have simply exploited the lack of a criminal syndicate called government extorting people within the boundaries of the "slum."

⛏as is the fate of all slums, it became an embarrassment⛏ An embarrassment to whom? How did this alleged "embarrassment" create any harm to those embarrassed by the slum's existence? If it was such an embarrassment to the denizens, then why did they not simply move?

⛏before being leveled by the authorities⛏ Before destroying people's homes by the extorting criminal syndicate called government.

End Part 2.

Jump link to Part 3.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: June 20, 2021, 10:28:31 AM »

Quote
Started a new thread in a partisan bullshit arguing group:

In reply to a partisan BS comment, I posted:
⚠
If we are all born with equal rights, this means we are all born with an equal lack of authority over any other human.
You people are arguing over which person you wish to pretend has authority over any other human.
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
Y'all just continue to ignore me pointing out that your nose is right in front of your face.
⚠

➽ I’m as libertarian as you can get but I have to shake my head at people on my own side who can’t live in reality and just work to make things better. Defeat the left’s philosophy (which is as anti liberty as you can get) and educate the people on the right to live up to liberty, small government values. When you take a scorched earth approach flaming out everyone who isn’t to your exact standards you will never build the consensus needed and will be completely ineffectual and useless.

I have omitted my replies to RC to consolidate his words in an attempt to distill what his "focus" seems to be.

➽ Ahhh. I get it. You’ll just screech like a bum in the park yelling to the world. You’re right. We aren’t on the same side. Never will be. Carry on.

➽ Why play those games Dale? We understand each other completely. I have absolutely nothing to learn from you. On a freedom/liberty scale, let’s say we are operating currently at a 65 or 70. “Republicans” want a 60. “Democrats” want an 80. Some of the most left wing want a 90.
I want a 5. If it doesn’t have to do with protecting natural rights, property rights and REAL safety….I don’t want the government involved in any way. You want a 0. And you’ll scream like a scalded baby til you get it. There would be no change in the volume or intensity if you got a 4. You don’t do any damage like a hard core collectivist but you are physically unable to do any good. You are of no help to my side (you are mouthing the philosophy I agree with but you are so ineffectual and impotent that it becomes a distraction). As I said, you are regulated [relegated?] to be that guy who screams at the world and never accomplishes anything. Why bother?

➽ See….that’s the bootlicking statist drivel I’ve come to expect from the left. Dale Eastman every lefty should be your sworn enemy as they are the enemy of freedom and liberty. Many times people on the right need to understand their inconsistencies but save the beat downs for the real poisonous zombies. Otherwise, you will be left severely outnumbered amongst a bunch of VH's.

➽ Dale Eastman don’t care. You’d use a flamethrower on everyone who is 1° off of what you believe. But you’re all talk so what does it matter? I agree with your original statement. We aren’t on the same team and I don’t want to be on any team that would have you. You are running out like this is an individual sport and you can take on the world. Have at it! Good luck!

Did I hurt your feelz because I don't believe what you believe?

Lemme make sure I understand what you believe.

❶You believe I'm the one that can't live in reality?
❷You believe I'm not working to make things better?
❸You believe I'm not working to educate people about liberty?
❹You believe "small government" will make things better?
❺You believe that I will be completely ineffectual and useless.
You mislabeled a freedom/liberty scale. Per your use of numbers, you meant a government/ruler scale.
❻You don't want government/ruler scales of, per your post, 90 or 80 or 60. You want a government/ruler scale of 5.
❼You want this "limited" government/ruler to protect natural rights, property rights, and give you "REAL" safety.

You have failed to acknowledge I wrote this: Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
It is my opinion, from attempts of discussions with many statists, of which you are just another, Statists think that by ignoring the statement they can avoid addressing the statement.

Bottom line: You want a criminal syndicate that extorts people to protect natural rights, property rights, and give you "REAL" safety.
Quote
As anarchy has failed on all those issues, yes I do. And offers none of the advancements we have enjoyed in the last 200 to 300 years.
Quote
Since anarchy was the original state of man. Why has this superior form of society not endured?
Quote
I for one, would not like to live like this.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/kowloon-walled-city
Quote
I gave you likes on the previous two posts. I don't agree with you, yet I find your rebuff of my thoughts refreshing, because you are willing to focus on attacking the concepts and not me as the presenter of the concepts. So I'm still looking forward to our friction of concepts, rubbing them together forcefully, perhaps even melting them together to create a third concept.

First sentence of the article I will now go back to reading is: The most densely populated city on Earth [...]. Now to see if it means what I thought of at first read.
Quote
Dale Eastman While I disagree with you as well. Your attitude resonates with me. If you do not mind. Can we take at least some of our discussion to private messages? I am, as well looking forward to having a conversation with you. And the idea of coming to something different, sparks something in me. This may take time, which is why I propose the DM route. I think you might be on to a very good idea.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 17, 2021, 09:26:20 AM »

Quote
Can we continue this on a different post? Either on my page or yours? I am sure BO, does not appreciate our updates in his timeline. Also can we limit it to two or three responses? It it hard to reply to your many questions{at least for me}.
Quote
Sure thing. I would ask BO if he really cares that this continues here because it was his original post, but since we're changing venue, Bob, thanks for the great convo starter.

I'll tag you on my timeline, mostly because I haven't figured out if I have my privacy settings correctly adjusted to allow original posts by others on my time line.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 11, 2021, 05:19:21 AM »

Quote
Well while i do believe people will do really shitty shit. This is what happens when humans congregate together. So when you reply by who's authority. My reply that the masses will force it,. Which means the idea of being left alone, is a non sensical idea. It is a great dream, but not a realistic one. Until things like scarcity are dealt with, humans will always congregate in groups.
Quote
Although for the case of shopping carts, I do not feel that we do need to appeal to any authority. Just a general lack of morals. Which indicates that a society which lacks morals{as we currently have}, cannot contain itself.
Quote
➽ Well while i do believe people will do really shitty shit. This is what happens when humans congregate together.

Agreed.
Though I must insist on the caveat "some" people "sometimes" will do really shitty shit.

I note that "really shitty shit" can be hurting feelings, not really harm IMO - sticks and stones, or actually causing harm and damage to the rights, and thus the property of others.

A tangent for later discussion and examination is the alleged raison d'être; the alleged reason for government to exist.

➽ So when you reply by who's authority.

We have a failure to communicate here. Mea Culpa. I overlooked Voltaire's alleged Admonition; If you wish to communicate with me, first, define your terms. I did not define my terms.

"Authority", as I am using it, means the right to rule others.

As a piece of support for my position, I quote these words for their logic: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal[...]" I stop there to pre-emptively forestall the word games lawyers and others have played, and will play to for purposes of D⁵ - Distract, deflect, divert, disrupt, and derail. By equal, this means any human's equal lack of authority over any other humans; any human's equal lack of the right to rule over any other humans.

➽ So when you reply by who's authority. My reply that the masses will force it,.

There is again a problem with communication. I don't know if the error is because of my leading error or if the error is because what I interpret you attempting to present and it just does not compute for me. 7 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBAijg5Betw

Substituting the interpreted "it" in the sentence: "So when you reply by who's authority. My reply that the masses will force [authority].

Another substitution is in order: "So when you reply by who's authority. My reply that the masses will enforce [the right to rule others.]

I redirect your attention to the fact that when every single human in the mass of humans, being equal in their lack of authority and their lack of a right to rule others, can NOT delegate such missing authority or rights to the collective masses.

Without authority, without a right to rule, you have just described Argumentum ad baculum.

Argumentum ad baculum is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force or threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position.

Or as I call it, "Extortion" - "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you."

➽ Which means the idea of being left alone, is a non sensical idea. It is a great dream, but not a realistic one.

The issue of being left alone is the central point of a voluntaryist society. No involuntary interactions.

An involuntary interaction is where a criminal violates your rights to life, liberty, property or any other of your rights "too numerous to list." Quite clearly, such acts of crime are involuntary interactions for the victims who just want to be left alone.

A ruler's rules are extortion; ruler's rules are argumentum ad baculum: "Do what they tell you to do or they will hurt you." Rulers and their rules are indisputably observed as non-voluntary interactions for the victims who just want to be left alone. The reason I specifically choose the word victim is because without non-bogus authority, the rulers are no more than extortionists threatening humans who just want to be left alone.

Anarchy in the pure, original, un-corrupted, un-co-opted meaning, is simply "Without Rulers." "Without rulers" is basically synonymous with not being forced into non-voluntary interactions. Because of the corrupting of what anarchy means, I find it needs to be linked to a Voluntaryist Society and a Voluntary Society's reasonable traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics.

The above points are why my intent is to get YDOM, YDOMism, and YDOMist into the lexicon of those who understand liberty. YDOM - You Don't Own Me.

➽ Until things like scarcity are dealt with, humans will always congregate in groups.

Non-sequitur. I dismiss the statement because of the assumed and disputed right of some humans, created with an equal lack of a right to rule other humans, to have ANY right to rule other humans absent the consent of those to be ruled (extorted).

Next post.

➽ Although for the case of shopping carts, I do not feel that we do need to appeal to any authority. Just a general lack of morals. Which indicates that a society which lacks morals{as we currently have}, cannot contain itself.

I'm sorry, I must challenge on your assumptions.

Morals? Whose definition? By what authority?

The definition(s) of morals, regardless of source, will be a segue to a discussion on how, exactly, these missing morals (presumably assume) negative affects on society. With that leading to discussion of how members of a voluntaryist society "could" protect their selves. (Sort of snide comment with attempt at humor; protection from vandal shopping carts?)
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: May 03, 2021, 09:29:01 AM »

Quote
Dale Eastman
I will start with a reply to this question- SCT: Therefore the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it.
That statement right there is very much relevant to our discussion.
And I'm going to chop completely through that relevance with this (not) simple question: Whose rights are being violated by failing to return the cart?
Adding more questions to drill down on the issue(s)...
Whose rights to life, liberty, and property is being violated by not returning a cart?- My answer, many people have been violated. Have you even seen a cart slam into someone's car during wind? My car was one of those, I was lucky to have insurance which covered it. Also in my life I have seen 3 people seriously hurt by errant shopping carts, one being a kid. So yes, it can have effects on peoples right to life and property.
Quote
Dale Eastman
And thank you, yes I am feeling better. Took me 2 days to recover. If you were ever inclined to try a product called 5 hour energy. I strongly do not recommend it. From what I have read it probably nearly pushed me to a heart attack.
Quote
As a Boomer with age related, not in my 20's good health, I can relate. Sometimes takes me two days to recover from physical exertion.

➽ Have you even seen a cart slam into someone's car during wind? My car was one of those, I was lucky to have insurance which covered it. Also in my life I have seen 3 people seriously hurt by errant shopping carts, one being a kid. So yes, it can have effects on peoples right to life and property.

Regardless of me playing DA (dumb ass; district attorney, devil's advocate), I understand your point.

"So yes, it can" as in yes, it could and conversely it could NOT "have effects on peoples right to life and property."

SCT: [...] tweeted: I worked at a grocery store in the past and you’d be absolutely shocked at how many people don’t. Even worse often they’ll like kick it up on the curb so it doesn’t roll away, meaning they literally put effort into not returning it.

Guilty as charged.
Hooking the cart on the curb keeps the wind from vandalism. Other times I do return it to the corral. The point I intend to present here is the nescience of most people.

<Tangent>
IMO, Nescience is not knowing. Ignorance is pretending at not knowing. Ignorance is deliberate.
</Tangent>

As a 16 year old driver, I noticed that a truck starting from a stop will shift gears 4 or 5 times before clearing the intersection. Because I noticed the puffs of exhaust smoke during the gear change.

As you correctly observe, "the wind".

Lack of awareness of the wind, and the slope of the parking lot, IMO sort of excuses the nescience. But only sort of. On the other hand, knowing of such, I take action to protect others. For sake of this discussion, If we label those with the knowledge yet refuse to protect others against wind blown or gravity motion of the carts vandals, the same problem occurs in identifying the actual party deliberately damaging the property of others. I think of arsonists and graffiti taggers as an analog. Sometimes the injuring party can be identified, other times not.

As you pointed out, you had insurance and you didn't know who the party was that damaged you. Another way of saying that is that you took steps to protect yourself from the shit that happens in the world.

As to you observing actual human injury, That piques my curiosity on all the relevant environmental factors. The first one being the people blindsided by the attack of the cart. I wouldn't expect the child to be as aware of the surroundings as I do expect an adult to be. Full transparency, my expectations of adults is often for nought. Anecdotal story of the arguments I had with my wife over "You need to look further ahead" upon request. Also, I used to drive truck and haul oversize loads. I am NOT surprised by how blind people are. Pic of my largest attached. That's coming up the interstate and merging drivers can't see it, or expected me to change lanes and let them merge. In spite of the rules of the road for merging.

My point being, People will do SHIT. And some of it is really shitty shit.

Circling back to the alleged authority of rule makers...

You wrote: "But people forget that there will always be people who make the rules." And I replied: "By what authority?"