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: August 14, 2021, 11:16:11 AM »

Quote
My point is that regardless if those statists were right, they would still be wrong because they do have laws that was supposed to protect the rights they have according to their bill of rights which all of their government officials swore an oath to protect.

They are committing treason when wiolating their own oath of office.

It's simply about pointing out the hypocracy and inconsistency of their beliefs.

And no, er do not need their concent to ask them to duck off.

We simply do the same as the finding father did, but we do not replace it with another tyrant.

Instead we create an assosiation of natural right guardians globaly.

You have the same natural right regardless where You are in the world.

My suggestion is to hold the criminals responsible for their crimes regardless who they think they are.

But the punishment should be beneficial for their victims.

They should be held in servitude for their victims to create wealth for their victims.

And these criminals has many victims that time they have been permitted to roam free.
Quote
➽ My point is that regardless if those statists were right, they would still be wrong because they do have laws...

You are possibly not understanding my point about "law".

What, specifically, is a "law"?

If a law needs to be enforced, it's not really a law. (Sorry D.S, I don't remember your exact wording.) The "law" of gravity is self-enforcing. On the other hand, laws made by humans; Government laws made by humans, are merely opinions of the rule-makers.

You keep coming back to the U.S. Constitution. Have you read Spooner's NO TREASON?

The U.S. Constitution is the "Law" that created the U.S. government. As others have pointed out, Russia - Former USSR, China - PRC, even North Korea are all Constitutional Republics, Just like the U.S. of A.

Quoting: "Norway is a constitutional monarchy and divides state power between the Parliament, the Cabinet, and the Supreme Court." So the same... Human created opinions of rule makers. So still the same.

Constitutions are human created law. For me, that is the end of any discussion of constitutions. Why?

YDOM!!!
(Why-Dom U.S. pronunciation. I know parts of the world swap the pronunciation of "W" and "V". WolksVagon v. VolksWagon.)

YDOM!!!
You Don't Own Me.
Your rules; Your laws - Don't apply to me.

I believe in "Government" exactly the same way that I believe in "Santa", Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Leprechaun's pots of gold at the end of rainbows, and the authority mere humans acting as "government" claim they have over me.

The delusions of some other humans are part of my reality. Their willingness, even their delight, to use violence to hurt those who reject their extortion are a real thing in my reality.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 13, 2021, 06:19:16 PM »

Quote
My point is that we are dealing with a brainwashed people who are living inside a cult.

The point is to hold them at least consistent to their own laws so that they may even wake up.

And you are right that you are released from your oath when the other party have not lived up to their agreement.

You have to at least look at the constitution and bill of rights as a contract between the individual and society where if the society break off from the agreement it's null and void.

In this case it's that so called government Official that has failed leaving the people to actually be released from any obligation of that contract.

That said, you would still be subjected to the natural law, where if you try to own others instead of owning yourself then you have surrendered your own destiny to your victim and now it's your victim who owns your property and had å hold of your life to pay up.

There are many nonviolent means to hold you responsible for your wrongs.

Publicity is one way because you would not like to be famous as a rapist or a thief and not even as a racist.

The problem with collectivists is that they will humiliate you even if you have done nothing to deserve it.

But under natural law it would be a crime in it self to wrongfully accuse anyone of anything.

If you know an accusation will cause severe harm, loss, and damage and do it anyway for no reason, it would be no better than if you committed the actual crime you are accusing someone for.

It's actually worse because you cause harm, loss, and damage for an innocent individual and causes it permanent harm, loss, and damage.

Just think how it would feel to be wrongfully accused to be a pedophiles, especially when you have not caused anyone harm, loss, and damage.

You might simply have mental problems them be accused for things you have not done.

Should people be allowed to get away with such things without any repercussions?
Quote
➽ My point is that we are dealing with a brainwashed people who are living inside a cult.

Yes, they are. Yes, we are.

➽ The point is to hold them at least consistent to their own laws so that they may even wake up.

Ignoring all but the salient point... Waking them up.

➽ how do [we] then get the brainwashed to understand if we do not use their words so that they may understand.

By not letting them continue to ignore simple questions.

Dear Statist, do you own me?
Does the politician you voted for own me.

If your favorite politician does not own me, he has no right to tell me how to live my life.

 Since you don't own me either, you have no right to tell me how to live my life. Nor can you delegate that right to anybody because you don't have it to delegate. Voting does NOT delegate rights you don't have.

I was having a discussion with somebody over a decade ago. The discussion (and I use that word loosely) was about U.S. Federal tax law. I asked the person (and I use that word loosely also) the same question 38 times. It's like the child caught with their hand in the cookie jar... What are you taking? Nothing.

Pin them down on specifics.

That's all I have energy for tonight.

20:00 here is 03:00 there.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 12, 2021, 09:27:27 AM »

Quote
Yes, and we can do the same now by electing our own law enforcers and hold also them responsible.
Every single politician would be guilty of treason because they have all broken their oath to the constitution.
Quote from: Dale Eastman
This is where a possible communication glitch is happening.

Here's how I would phrase your statement because of how I view "law" and "law enforcers":
We can elect to hire our own security and protection services.

Because you and I have had discussion, I am assuming you are actually meaning "natural law enforcers". Else I read your law enforcers as law enforcement officers; Police; government goons. I know the money stealing government officers are not what you mean, yet the wording still seems pro government.

I also have an issue with the Constitution. Have you read Spooner's No Treason?

As a former United States Army enlisted soldier, My oath was to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It wasn't to protect all (U.S.) humans from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I parenthetical United States because it must be ALL humans from criminals governmental and non governmental. Nature's Law.
Quote
Dale Eastman No, you misunderstand.

My point is that the bill of rights are fundamental to the constitution because it [s ]ets examples of the individuals natural right that no other can though(?) without criminalizing themselves.

It was these rights you [swore] an oath to protect and as får as I know your oath does not have any expiration date.

Your oath in this matter are for life.

But you need to understand whats the issue is and what we are talking about when we speak of rights.

But you are right that we could use different words, but how do er then get the brainwashed to understand if we do not use their words so that they may understand.

You have woken up.
But there is many individuals who will never have a chance of understanding if you do not use their words.
Quote
➽ Dale Eastman No, you misunderstand.

It is my opinion that I'm not misunderstanding what you are trying to say. It is my error in that I have not presented my point(s) so that you understand me.

➽ It was these rights you [swore] an oath to protect and as får as I know your oath does not have any expiration date.

No expiration date?
It is ONLY my conscience and my morality that determines whether I uphold an oath or keep a promise to anybody.

If I promise to help somebody in need, That decision is mine and mine alone. If the person I've promised that I will help then sits back and does nothing to help themselves, deciding to break that promise (for cause or not) is still my choice. "Duty" is what one owes only to themselves. It is my duty to educate the deluded government worshiping masses about their enslavement; about their lack of ownership over themselves and their property.

The ideal of the Bill of Rights is nice but meaningless. They were included in the Constitution as a specific list of "This ye shall not touch." The mere men and women in government violate those rules with impunity.

Some people have the belief that the Bill of Rights is where their liberty and freedom come from. They are in serious error. Government agents and government sycophants promulgate this error, deliberately in my opinion.

Taking my cue from, and paraphrasing, the United States Declaration of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created with an equal lack of ownership 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;

Thus, YOU DON'T OWN ME is the initial natural state of being. YDOM is a self-evident truth. You don't own me. You don't own my life, my liberty, or my property. Natural Law IS YDOM!

➽ But you need to understand whats the issue is and what we are talking about when we speak of rights.

What rights are you and I talking about? You don't own me. I don't own you. You have no right to tell me to do anything. Neither does any mere man or woman called "government." When somebody attempts to violate my life, my liberty, or my (justly acquired) property, It is my right to use whatever level of escalating defensive force and violence necessary to stop the criminal from continuing to attempt to violate my self, my property, or my liberty.

➽ how do [we] then get the brainwashed to understand if we do not use their words so that they may understand.

My the words I use are as precise as I can make them. And my choice of those words evolves when an ambiguity or other verbal loop-hole is brought to my attention. Government's alleged authority is not legitimate. A lawyer spun that, so now I say, Government's alleged authority is provably bogus. Building on that, I now say, Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

The claim is unrefutable because it's true.

Even so, I've had the brainwashed attempt to argue the point. As a point of logic, it's my claim therefore the burden of proof is mine. Extortion is give us the money we demand or we will hurt you. To prove the point is a simple question, If you don't pay the extortionate demand for money, what happens? Don't pay real estate property taxes, men with guns will show up to evict you from your property because they've taken it.

I've also cited U.S. Federal tax law, the law making the demand and the law promising the hurt for not coughing up the money.

➽ But there is many individuals who will never have a chance of understanding if you do not use their words.

I've chosen to KISS my words. I've chosen to use unequivocal words so that my meaning is precise.

You Don't Own Me is very precise. If this is true for me, then this is true for you. If this is true for everyone, then no government human ever had any non-bogus ownership of anybody else.

Just about ANY action on the part of government, that is, Just about ANY action on the part of mere men and woman of government is a violation of rights and a violation of Natural law.

This is where the Statist's minds melt. And the "Yes But"... sheesh!

There is more to address regarding security and protection from those who would violate rights.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 06, 2021, 08:22:52 AM »

Quote from: Tim Wingate
Yes, justice implies repair, restitution, recompense for the injury. However, the ancient Talion before modern man, (possibly starting with Hammurabi [although he may have been copying some antecedents] started to imitate NL principles with their own mutated codification to preserve their created hierarchies of master/slave social structures), had within the retaliatory factor for life and limb. Not revenge per se rather a making equal of a situation where one was put at odds due to injury that could not or would not be rectified. It seems to me that modern systems have been displacing NL principles for the State to adjudicate a mutated just-us that the central power benefits from. Dueling was only one of the last vestiges of NL that was removed by statute and replaced with State monopoly. Liability insurance by contract also poorly imitates NL. (E.g. "limited liability") much more to say on this, however, William Fagerheim I agree with your take on this as it reflects my own studies and determinations. There must be a code/principles that any individual can aspire to for himself and their kith & kin as in the ancient concept of kinsman redeemer. My family's motto is, Nemo me impune lacessit! "No man injures me with impunity!" There is no such thing as a social contract other than Natural Law. I do not consent to anything just because of the random fate of being born on this patch of dirt with imaginary lines drawn by bullies.
If I am not infringing on the life, liberty or property of another individual, NO ONE may use force against me to steal from me or compel me to do anything that I do not consent to without me exercising my Natural right to defend myself with all the power and might I can muster! Nemo me impune lacessit! Eye for an eye
Tooth for tooth
Forgiveness is always MY option
NOT my imperative!
Quote
Tim Wingate That's why I am talking about life debt for å permanent wrong doing.
There is a lot better option than to take exactly what they have taken and just call it even.
I will rather hold a criminal permanently responsible than let them get away by execution instead.
You see, the best punishment is let them live with it and be reminded every day for the lives they destroyed.
They should not get any easy way out.
Quote from: Tim Wingate
yes indentured for an agreed time. Treated fairly and humanely. There are multiple stories of life debts working out actually in favor of the debtor who eventually became part of the family and was forgiven.
Quote
Tim Wingate Still, it's up to the victim itself not anyone else.

It's about ending a conflict or potential family feud.

That said, if we are talking about a permanent harm, loss, and damage the responsibility should be permanent either way of not the guilty agrees to the arrangement.

That said, it's not certain the victim wants to deal with it any more do it was to be a professional option for the victim to chose rather than to have to deal with it on their own.

The victim can be so traumatisert [traumatized] that they do not want to meet the aggressor at all.

In those cases it would be better to have a professional alternative.

Also, there is a lot of people who do not want to deal with it for other reasons to.

That's exactly why we would also need a public alternative but it should not be funded by taxes, but rather by membership and services.
Quote
➽ That said, if we are talking about a permanent harm, loss, and damage the responsibility should be permanent either way [regardless if] the guilty [does not] agree to the arrangement.

I agree and I disagree at the same time. Things can be replaced... Body parts, not so much. Was the harm done deliberately, or was the harm done by not thinking an action and its consequences through to the end?

Mistakes are how many learn. Smart is learning from your mistakes. Wisdom is learning from other's mistakes. Critical thinking and critical thoughts while examining something is needed to really learn about a topic. Critical thinking is NOT taught in U.S. schools. I can not speak to the schools of other societies such as yours in Norway.

My concern of permanent reparations is Does an error in judgement need the same response as a deliberate harming of another?

Granted, the harm is the same.

What is the nature of the permanent harm?

Everything else not replied to, I agree with.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 06, 2021, 06:47:57 AM »

Quote
Dale Eastman Hope my react emoij answers you here.

You are right on every point.

Even that English is not my first language and I am writing on a smartphone with autocorrect ducking up words for me.

I am trying to correct those errors when I see them.

I agree with every statement you made here.

Now we only need to find agreement on how people should be held responsible and after your statements here i am of no doubt that we could agree.

My point is that any criminal is to be treated as their victims asset because they are in debt to them.

We only have a right to offer the victims out assistance to hold the criminals responsible.

Because it should be beneficial for the victims.

No one is in neither their right nor obligated to take revenge or get others to avenge them.

Revenge/vengance is not justice.
Quote
➽ Now we only need to find agreement on how people should be held responsible and after your statements here i am of no doubt that we could agree.
My point is that any criminal is to be treated as their victims asset because they are in debt to them.

It seems that you and Tim Wingate are closer in thought than I was. Due to some discussion with Tim... I will try to explain what my thinking was, so I can show the transition to what I must conclude is the more correct "attitude" to have.

The present problem is that government, any government, will not hesitate to kill anybody. Now since government is merely men and women that call themselves government, These actions of government are actions of mere men and women. These mere men and women called government won't hesitate to use escalating force against any threats to itself or its members.

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

Why?

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

And this is the part that I am being forced to re-think:
⚠I must most emphatically suggest that killing government gangsters is counter productive... For now.

Why?

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

From these words of the U.S. D of I:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From this concept of humans being created equal, if follows as just as much of a self-evident truth: NO human owns any other human. Therefore NO human was created with any authority over any other human.

This includes any mere man or woman called government. Since no human owns any other human, no human can delegate ownership of any other human to any elected or appointed mere man or woman in any position of government. The self-owned human is the ONLY human that can delegate authority over themself.

Telling me that you own me; Telling me that you have authority over me without my delegation of such authority; Is a declaration of war against me. I have a self-evident right to defend myself from ANY of your attempted depredations of my life, liberty, or property.

Those that believe that others own me; that others have authority over me; are aiding, abetting, and allying themselves with my enemy, thus becoming my enemy as well.

This is why I am forced to re-consider my choice of non-violence against the members of the criminal syndicate called government.

In the meanwhile, It is my hope and intent to present YDOM (You Don't Own Me) as a self-evident truth to the enemy's collaborators so that they might choose to stop collaborating with an enemy that is intent upon enslaving us all.

➽ Revenge/vengeance is not justice.

This is what I'm having to re-think... Thanks Tim...

The following is a tag along thought.
Without the mere men and women called government, government would cease to exist. To put this in perspective, if every old guy that puts on a red suit in December quit putting on the red suit and answering to Santa, Santa would cease to exist in shopping malls around the world. (I'm assuming you have such things happen in Norway. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

As I've said, the only difference between Santa Claus and government is that somebody told you the truth about Santa. Both are make believe reified concepts.
{Reify definition is - to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea).}



Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 02, 2021, 10:57:50 AM »

Quote
Why waste time with anger when you can instead just inform others and just not deal with those toxic people?
Quote
TW I have always tried to be honorable.
And I am fighting for everyone by protecting the individuals natural right.

I fight for myself, at the same time I fight for everyone.

We are all individuals with the same natural right.
Quote
➽ Why waste time with anger when you can instead just inform others and just not deal with those toxic people?

Were it that simple... And stay that simple. Show zee covid passport or leave (society).

I'm hoping that lead injections to stop the infections won't be needed. (The infection's are non-critical thinking.)
Quote
➽ Dale Eastman That passport is s violation of the individuals natural right of it's mandatory with no alternatives.

They can arrange their own things but they can not deny nonvaccinated people an alternative.

It's the individuals own responsebility to take care of their own health and security.

It's not in anyones right to dictate others out of fear.

This is also why law enforcers should be elected by the people in a free market instead of just being hired order followers of the "government"
Quote
I don't think there's much we disagree on regarding the tyrant class.

I've been trying to KISS the concepts for awhile now. This still needs work, connecting it to some other bits of simple I've written.

Quote from: An Image
What is YDOM?

YDOM is You Don't Own Me.

YDOM is A self-evident truth.

YDOM is A self-evident truth that gets ignored by those who enslave
and forgotten by those enslaved.

If the potential victims of the enslavers recognized YDOM, they would see
that even simple words to make them forget YDOM; is an act of war against them.

The victims already enslaved, and the potential victims not yet enslaved,
don't see that The slow taking of their lives is no less a threat to their lives
than a criminal shooting at them.

Once you slaves get the propaganda out of your minds,
How do you think you should interact with those who make personal war against you?

www.synapticsparks.info
Quote
I've just posted a reply to a minarchist that is open to discussion.

synapticsparks[DOT}info/dialog/index.php?topic=890.msg15460#msg15460

Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.
Quote
Dale Eastman We might disagree on what would be most beneficial for the victim and in the victims best interest.
Quote
Dale Eastman The police do not enforce the law, they are order followers and enforce government policy, which is in violation of the law by defenition.
It's illegal to inpersonate a police officer exactly because a police officer is a criminal by defenition.
Quote
A lot to unpack in those comments of yours. Basically we agree on much. There's a few things that appear to be in conflict. I'm assuming this could be because of the words used. If not for Tim observing a possible language issue, I wouldn't have looked to see that you know at least one more language than I.

I try to NOT be angry at the bullshit I am exposed to. I try to ask Socratic questions of those making errant claims. Sometimes not getting angry is hard to accomplish. Which is the reason I commented. Anger and hate suck up so much life energy so I agree that not being angry is the goal.

➽ This is also why law enforcers should be elected by the people in a free market instead of just being hired order followers of the "government"

Law is merely politician's opinions. If you've seen my "Inside Voices" treatise, you know that a New Mexico Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) and a motorist are dead because a majority of legislative politicians agreed with the opinion that window tint darker than some arbitrary opacity shall not be allowed.

Here in the States, police have no duty to protect. I've canned the information for easy copy and paste. You'd have to do some research of your own regarding Norway's requirement of lack of requirement for police to protect humans in their jurisdiction.

➽ Dale Eastman We might disagree on what would be most beneficial for the victim and in the victims best interest.

That statement makes me curious as to whether we would or do disagree on what's best for the victim.

To my thinking, specific potential harms would need to be examined from the potential victims position. Easy enough to do by asking, What and how does this thing harm me? If I am harmed by this, what do I want as compensation? How would I, or other victims, get this compensation in a world where extortionate governments (that is, all governments) do not exist?

The best thing for a (potential) victim is to not be harmed in the first place. Yet automobile crashes and mishaps still happen. (I don't call car crashes "accidents" because it is so very rare for such a mishap to happen if all the best knowledge procedures have been followed. Working brakes, brake lights, turn signals, using proper following distance, staying in one's lane of operation, etc.)

So an open question in my mind is how does a human get protection and security from threats and potential threats without an extortionate government?
Quote
We do agree on your points of hate and anger.
I say like Yoda that it's the path to the dark side.😉

But when it comes to law er do differ because you forget about the natural law which the Magna Carta and the bill of rights are based on.

No government can make up any policy that is in conflict with the individuals natural right.

And I am not talking about the Leo's to be elected, I am talking about the Chief Law Enforcement Official's C.L.E.O's to be elected

And it's elected by you supoorting the professional and you buy it's services or you simply aquire help from them when your natural right jaa been violated.

Police have no duty to protect anyone except from those who has hired them, but an elected Sheriff is duty bound by oath ti support and defend the constitution including the bill of rights.

The problem is, most of them have not even talen their time to actually read the constitution they have sworn an oath to protect, si they basically just end up by following orders.

And their orders is basically to collect revenue trough fines.

They are simply nothing more than government enforcers and taxcollectors.

They claim things that they have not earned basically making them nothing more than criminals themselves.

It's an obvious reason why it's illegal to inpersonate a police officer.

The actions they do is illegal by defenition.

This is why people should learn about Constitutional Sheriff's and natural law so that they know what the law actually means.

The bill of rights was det up as laws that the government could not violate in any way.

1st. Amendment is about freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

That congress/government Shall make no law ingenting om those things.

The second amendment is not about guns at all.
It's about private property and it's no business neither of government or anyone else what you own.

If anyone think you do not own it then it's they who has the burden of proof.

You should also be safe from unreasonable searches and seasures.

The bill of rights where mearly examples og things that neither the government or any other individual, group, nor organization could violate.

Natural law is the true law simply because it's based in science and not created by anyone.

It's as simple as even a child should understand it and also should be able to learn intuetivelly.

It's based in what we perseive as natural to us.

It's natural to perseive oneself as the owner of it's own life, works/trade/business, and property.

Why should anyone else have any right to claim ownership over you?

Why should anyone simply accept anyone to claim ownership over others than themselves?

And the sole reason for law enforcers is to enforce the law.

They should serve the people by protecting the individuals natural right.

So that they love up to their own slogun to serve Is protect.

They is seeking and protecting their own government and the government intrests.

So er basically does not have any law enforcers at all.

And when it comes to the point we might disagree on is what would be in the victims.

It's in relation to whats justice and what kind of compensation would be in the victims best interest.

Revenge is not justice at all because it causes harm, loss, and damage to others than the one who caused harm, loss, and damage to others in the first place either by exessive use of force or trying to make the agressor suffer by going after their lives ones.

Vengance is simply just an extention of revenge where you have been able to get others to do your dirty work for you.

There is simply one way to gain justice and is to get the violator to compensate it's victim for the harm, loss, and damage they caused.

It's basically to create wealth for the victim.

In relations to the harm, loss, and damage caused or intended if the attack was to be successful.

One should also be held responsible for the effort made to cause others harm, loss, and damage.
Quote
Just letting you know I'm not ignoring your post. Your post has triggered multiple thoughts in my mind. I'm not going to do a point by point addressing of each of your comments. I'm trying to write an uber explanation of my thinking, hoping it will help you see why I disagree on the points that I do disagree on. Regardless, the overarching issue is how do victims get protection and security.
Quote
First. I'm archiving this discussion publicly on my website. It's under the title WF.
synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=990.msg15464#msg15464
Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.

Next, I'm assuming English is not your native language plus I am assuming you are accessing our discussion via a smart phone. Thus I see two potential reasons for the misspellings of words. Your choice: I can easily correct the typographic errors because my laptop will highlight misspelled words. So long as I understand the context I see no problem with my assumptions as to what the word is. I'll just make the corrections as I quote or paste your words. You tell me.

➽ But when it comes to law er [we] do differ because you forget about the natural law...

I'm gonna have to object to that. I am well aware of natural law. I think where we differ is about what to do to keep natural law from being violated, and how to keep the victim from being violated in the first place. What to do after such a violation has been done is, IMO, open for a serious discussion after the alleged "right" of government to victimize is exposed for the double-think illogic that it is.

As I previously wrote, I have spend considerable of time trying to KISS my words. KISS, or more accurately K.I.S.S., Means Keep It Simple, Stupid. Even as I compose this reply to you, I'm thinking of how to use these words stand-alone as another KISSed composition.

In my endeavor to propagate the thoughts of true liberty and freedom, I have KISSed the words to this simple concept, which I am repeating because I think you missed it? YDOM!!! Three exclamation points for LOUD emphasis. This is THE mindset that every human should have.

YOU DON'T OWN ME!!!

YDOM is a self-evident truth. As such a truth, No other person, be they corporate or human, has authority to make demands or commands of any self owned human. That self owned human is the only person that has authority over that self owned human. That self owned human is the only human that can delegate an authority over themselves to any other person. That is what being created equal means.

Since YDOM is a self evident truth, the fact that YDOM should apply to any interaction with any other person, corporate or human, should be just as self evident... Including and especially any agent of the government.

Emphasizing the overlooked fact: EVERY government agent has been created NOT owning you and thus NOT having authority over you.

This is the truth that goes with all humans being created equal. This is important truth has been hidden from many humans. The con job has been so well executed that this very truth, when presented, is dismissed as a lie.

I will never, ever forget the fact that being created equal means no government agent ever owns me. Now that I have found that fact to be logically unimpeachable according to the mores of liberty and equality, that is my starting position regarding ANY interaction with any government actor.

➽ Police have no duty to protect anyone except from those who has hired them, but an elected Sheriff is duty bound by oath t{o} support and defend the constitution including the bill of rights.

In 1870 Lysander 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."

That is the last sentence of  Lysander Spooner's No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority
Here's a link: https://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm

➽ Natural law is the true law simply because it's based in science and not created by anyone.

I hope to redirect your thinking on the issue of Natural Law. Any live human has the right to defend their life. Any human's justly acquired property has usually been purchased at the expense of their time and energy. That is to say any such property has been purchased at the expense of their life. To take such property against the owner's consent is to steal the owner's past. To take the human's liberty is to take their present. To take the human's life is to take their future.
H/T to Ken Schoolland: https://youtu.be/V1sX1qkngSg