Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: March 27, 2021, 07:50:30 PM »
❯ Are you claiming I misrepresented...
My paragraphs are intended to be consumed wholesale, not piecemeal. Put the two starting paragraphs together, and from them collect the following quote:
❮ Do you really [think] I can't spot the strawman you've attempted to build to make your argument easier [within your specific outline format]? I haven't pulled your same tricks in misrepresenting your original argument.
Not that you have, outright or directly misrepresented, but that within the format of your summary you've made it easier to move forward with a misrepresentation of the argument within "the meat of our contested points."
[unchanged and unchallenged changed points omitted for brevity]
❻ Claimed: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") by government is not a moral wrong. Contested.
I don't like this wording, it only adds a layer of convolution to this point. This reads as something entirely different from all previous iterations of ❻.
❼ This is not claimed. My contesting within ❺ is wholly limited in scope to your definition, not the revised definition. My justification to this within ❻ is similarly limited in scope. I agree (see ❸) that "Extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") is in fact, a "criminal" ("Malum in se") act. To require both definitions be equated or forced to be included is to commit the Equivocation Fallacy, as I've outlined previously.
❽ Implied: Eastman is [attempting to] [misrepresent] something.
❯ You chose to connect my non-statism position with capitalism
I connected your wholesale position to the broad belief system known as "Anarcho-Capitalism" not just "capitalism" as you suggest. I gathered that from your public discourse outside this conversation. From your connection to the page through which I found you, from your own website, and from your personal posts/shares that you leave in public view on this forum. I also have confirmation of this connection within these recent replies.
❯ Government does not own me...
This was not claimed by me or anyone. It wasn't even claimed within the sentence you took out of context to fabricate this claim. This is also not contested in the slightest. The sentence in fact is just a tie-in to the next point, which you don't contest.
❯ What you can NOT do, is force me to purchase any of that property from you.
Irrelevant to the point. Are you, by omission of a challenge to the claim of the legitimacy of an HOA (and instead focusing on the counter you gave), agreeing that contracts limiting the authority of your ownership over a property (such as HOA agreements) are valid and binding?
❯ Either the people, to also include you and I, own our "house/land/property" on that landmass, or government does.
This is an example of false dichotomy. These are not necessarily the only mutually exclusive options for ownership of a property. See above which creates the allowance that it's actually both have valid ownership over aspects of the property. To deny this is to similarly deny HOAs, rentals, tenancy, cooperatives, joint ownership/partnership, and all the various names that refer to this same concept. Unless, of course, you wish to deny the legitimacy of this concept with a formal proof as to why.
❯ Alleged jurisdiction and alleged authority is NOT ownership of the landmass. Even if it was, alleged jurisdiction and alleged authority is NOT ownership of privately owned houses/lands/properties.
I did not claim it was. I do not need to claim it is. Easements are not ownership of the landmass, HOAs are not ownership of privately owned houses/lands/properties, mineral rights are not ownership. They are ownership of authority and rights themselves, they are ownership of jurisdiction in itself. You still own the land and the house, but you do not own the right to violate these contracts that limit your authority over your land and house.
What you are attempting to do, implied or not, is claim the CONstitution is some sort of contract. Lysander Spooner debunked that bullshit 151 years ago.
❾ Claimed: The CONstitution is NOT a contract. I'm assuming you WILL contest this.
❿ Claimed: The CONstitution has NO non-bogus AUTHORITY over any non-governmental human. I'm assuming you WILL contest this. I would have said any non-governmental entities, but corporations ARE governmental entities because they are creations of the government/state.
You chose to connect my argument to this. I do not claim the "CONstitution" is "some sort of contract." Such a claim is unnecessary, and largely indefensible. It doesn't follow the form of a contract in the slightest. It is, at best, a set of bylaws and procedures for one of the parties within a contract. I do not contest neither ❾ nor ❿. In fact, I see this potential for authority as coming from something else entirely. Again, I am not arguing that our current government is legitimate, per se. I am refuting your argument as it stands. You wanted a valid refutation, and a valid refutation to an argument does not require proving the polar opposite as truth, especially not in an argument that contains a very much distributed middle like this one.
❯ What, specifically is "government"? Is not government merely men and women called government?
Government is not the people themselves, but is instead the institution binding those who fall within its authority. Is "Wal-Mart" the employees? Is it the building? What is "Wal-Mart?" In both cases these institutions are actually a collection of rights and procedures which bind persons and property with authority, via various and potentially dissimilar contracts, both express and implied in nature. Not every contract need be explicitly stated, written down, and physically signed to be binding. No matter what system of belief one holds, walking into "Wal-Mart" and leaving with unpaid product is a violation of the contract I agreed to as a customer upon entry to the property.
❯ implied claim that government has an express right
again, my explicit claim is that you have not met a valid standard of proof for your claim. That is not a claim to the opposite. A refutation need only show that the bag you're holding is empty of value, not that I actually possess a bag with something of value inside. As far as you're concerned, I may actually agree with your claim about state/federal government within the USA being criminal and/or illegitimate, my beliefs and/or counterproofs are not what's on trial here though.
❯ My claim can be restated as "Mere men and women do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance."
I'll allow this version of restatement in spite of my challenge above on what "government" is only because I believe it follows more closely with what your intended claim is better than anything previous or that could be constructed in light of my challenge. Also, because it makes my refutation equally clear as to what your argument has been lacking as far as proof is concerned.
❮ Mere men and women [Security staff employed by landlords, officers within HOAs, "Wal-Mart"(/generic) employees, and homeowners] do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance.
Your supporting arguments for the specific example of "government" have to be of equal caliber to someone arguing this augmented claim.
I hereby accept your definition in ⓫: Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.
In case they're needed:
⓬ ⓭ ⓮ ⓯ ⓰ ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ ⓴
1 of 3
In case they're needed:
⓬ ⓭ ⓮ ⓯ ⓰ ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ ⓴
Thank you. I have added them to my Tidbits file. My copy & paste special characters source.Screenshot attached. I'm still thinking about if I want to use them or not. They are smaller than the ones I already have (❶ - ❿). The size difference is why I changed from what I used the first time (① - ⑳). Unlike a BB forum, FB doesn't allow text sizing.
➽ Not that you have, outright or directly misrepresented,
I can understand heat of the moment, wrong words slipping out. So that admission gets a thank you for the correction.
➽ but that within the format of your summary you've made it easier to move forward with a misrepresentation of the argument within "the meat of our contested points."
Those explanatory words can't get a thank you because those words indicate an assumption being projected. When I actually misrepresent, then you call me on it.
➽ My paragraphs are intended to be consumed wholesale, not piecemeal.
From my website, which you've indicated you've read:
⚠ Be forewarned: I take positions apart, sometimes word by word, to show where the logic fails. If you post really goofy stuff, I might even devote a webpage to ridiculing your goofiness. If you can prove to me that I am wrong, I'll change this website. ⛔
A devoted webpage means a static page. The warning was written before I installed the (SMF) Simple Machines Forum freeware where I find it easier to post constantly changing words (discussions). Alas, I digress.
➽ ❻ Claimed: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") by government is not a moral wrong. Contested.
I don't like this wording, it only adds a layer of convolution to this point. This reads as something entirely different from all previous iterations of ❻.
Evolution of ❻ (⑥):
You have indicated that this is your position via ❷ (unchanged and unchallenged changed points omitted for brevity):
⚠ Government does have an express right to "extort" people. ⛔
⚠ ⑥ You rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that extortion by government is not a moral wrong. ⛔
⚠ ⑥ is not how I support this argument ⛔
⚠ ⑥ You do not rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that extortion by government is not a moral wrong. I disagree. ⛔
⚠ ⑥ I do not rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that "extortion" (again, as defined below) by government is not a moral wrong. You disagree.
My definition of "extortion" is no longer relevant to my revised refutation, we can continue using only your implied, now explicit definition: Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you. ⛔
⚠ ❻ Claimed: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") by government is not a moral wrong. Contested. ⛔
➽ This reads as something entirely different from all previous iterations of ❻.
I hope laying out ❻ (⑥) in the order presented in the discussion helps you see what I see.
➽ ❼ This is not claimed.
I'm making claim ❼. You've contested claim ❼.
➽ To require both definitions be equated or forced to be included is to commit the Equivocation Fallacy, as I've outlined previously.
The definitions, next to each other, for comparison:
Ⓐ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.
Ⓑ obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so.
Ⓐ Do what we tell you to do = Ⓑ obtaining a desired outcome
Ⓐ or we will hurt you. = Ⓑ by using threat or use of force
Ⓒ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you, where one has no express right to do so.
Just sayin'.
Nevertheless, at this time I see no reason why I can't drop ❼
➽ ❽ Implied: Eastman is [attempting to] [misrepresent] something.
Those words [ALSO] indicate an assumption being projected. When I actually misrepresent, then you call me on it.
2 of 3
➽ I connected your wholesale position to the broad belief system known as "Anarcho-Capitalism" not just "capitalism" as you suggest. I gathered that from your public discourse outside this conversation. From your connection to the page through which I found you, from your own website, and from your personal posts/shares that you leave in public view on this forum. I also have confirmation of this connection within these recent replies.
I find that this is a plausible reason for you to make the connection. I challenged only on the fact that such evidence was not directly observable in our discussion. And as admitted, Not fatal to your intent in doing so. The other reason such connection is "lightly" contested is because the specific properties, attributes, & characteristics of Anarcho-Capitalism and Capitalism have not been laid out; I might or might not have alignment with those specific properties, attributes, & characteristics.
➽ I hereby accept your definition in ⓫: Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.
I'm putting that here, antecedent to the use of "authority" that follows.
➽ ❯ Government does not own me... This was not claimed by me or anyone.
I made that statement because you claimed ownership as a source of authority when you wrote this:
➽ I own my house/land/property, and I have ultimate authority over who enters/uses said property and any such parameters or behaviors while using my property. If I say "no hats on in my house" then you either remove your hat, or find yourself unwelcome. I'm allowed to defend my property, with force if necessary. If someone refuses to leave my property, I'm allowed to defend my property with a firearm, including using it in a deadly manner. This could even theoretically extend into incarceration by making those entering my property aware that doing so is conditioned on agreeing to such a penalty for certain infractions.
Therefore, If ownership creates authority, the claim of government ownership of the people as a path to authority over the people is preemptively forestalled.
➽ The sentence in fact is just a tie-in to the next point [...]
So, um... No.
➽ ❯ What you can NOT do, is force me to purchase any of that property from you.
Irrelevant to the point.
If you can't force me to purchase the property, then your HOA condition of ownership and contractual relinquishment of self-authority does not, and can not, apply to me. You want to force discussion of HOA private contracts as a means to prove government has legitimate non-bogus authority over people and their property.
This means you want to use the idea of a contractual relinquishment of self-authority to State/government.
➽ Are you, by omission of a challenge to the claim of the legitimacy of an HOA (and instead focusing on the counter you gave), agreeing that contracts limiting the authority of your ownership over a property (such as HOA agreements) are valid and binding?
No.
I neither agree nor disagree that contracts limiting the authority of your ownership over a property (such as HOA agreements) are valid and binding.
I do specifically note that you are attempting to use this very concept of contracts limiting the authority of ownership over a person or their property to give alleged non-bogus authority to State/government.
Below, you deny that the CONstitution is a contract, and you deny the CONstitution has any authority over anybody. Lysander Spooner agrees with you.
➽ ❯ Either the people, to also include you and I, own our "house/land/property" on that landmass, or government does. This is an example of false dichotomy.
As I presented the dichotomy, it is not false. Given your supporting words, I admit: Maybe.
➽ See above which creates the allowance that it's actually both [that] have valid ownership over aspects of the property.
How does that valid ownership over "aspects" of the properties you list (HOAs, rentals, tenancy, cooperatives, joint ownership/partnership), etc. come into existence?
By contracts, yes?
So you are still trying to make the case that government's alleged authority over people and their property is by means of some alleged, unpresented, and unexamined contract.
So the dichotomy is State/Government on one side and its diametric opposite, authority over private property via contracts.
➽ Easements are not ownership of the landmass [...]
Same questions: How does that easement come into existence? By contracts, yes?
⚠ Easements are usually created by a transfer in a deed or some other written document such as a will or contract. Creating an easement requires the same formalities as the transferring or creating of other interests in land. It typically requires a written document, a signature, and proper delivery of the document.
Findlaw.com ⛔
➽ You still own the land and the house, but you do not own the right to violate these contracts that limit your authority over your land and house.
Yes. Easements come into existence by contract.
➽ I do not contest neither ❾ nor ❿.
❾ & ❿ omitted as noncontested points... Unless your double negative was NOT a typo.
➽ I see this potential for authority as coming from something else entirely.
Feed back verification:
You are claiming that government's authority to demand "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you" does NOT come from the CONstitution?
3 of 3
My claim is that government is a criminal syndicate. As this discussion has been addressing the point of criminality, the focus has been put on the whether or not extortion is a crime.
You have agreed that extortion is a crime, with proviso when you wrote:
③(❸) [...] without an express right to "extort" people, when government "extorts" people, the government is actually doing a criminal act. I actually agree with this.
Your proviso shows in point ④(❹) wherein you wrote: government extorting people is something government is capable of having an express right to do and thus is not necessarily a criminal act.
By what authority? By what authority is government given an express right to "extort" people. Once this alleged authority is presented, it can then be examined as to if it bogus or non-bogus authority.
➽ You wanted a valid refutation, and a valid refutation to an argument does not require proving the polar opposite as truth [...]
Agreed.
I am refuting your argument as it stands.
What, exactly, is my argument... used to support for my claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control?
Criminal syndicates extort. Extortion is criminal. Refuting my argument requires you to prove extortion, when done by government, is something government has an express right to do. Failure to prove an express right to extort is a failure to prove government is not doing a criminal act.
I am not arguing that our current government is legitimate, per se.
If our current government is not legitimate, then it is criminal, acting without authority.
❯ What, specifically is "government"? Is not government merely men and women called government?
➽ Government is not the people themselves, Rude interruption and immediate SNIP!
If every single human working in or for government quit at midnight tonight, then there would be NO government tomorrow.
➽ Government is not the people themselves, but is instead the institution binding those who fall within its authority.
Well now... There's that issue of authority again. Please present your evidence that I fall under this alleged authority.
➽ the contract I agreed to as a customer upon entry to the property
Verifiable evidence of this contract you allege?
As I assume you are aware, there are four basic elements required in order for a contract to exist. These elements are: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds).
This is a pre-emptive challenge to forestall any attempt to claim government gets its alleged authority via a contract. It doesn't.
➽ I may actually agree with your claim about state/federal government within the USA being criminal and/or illegitimate, my beliefs and/or counterproofs are not what's on trial here though.
If you actually agreed with my claim, and you wanted to school me on logic, wouldn't suggesting a better way to present the claim and explaining why be a better way to school me on logic? Wouldn't that be a better way to challenge my "errant" presentation of something you agreed with? Perhaps if you wrote, "IMO, Here's a better way to present this fact." You didn't do any of this, so I don't believe you have any agreement with me on the evil of government.
What you are suggesting to me with those words, is that you might have agreed with the statement even before challenging me for proof. If you actually agreed, I would expect a different demeanor in your words. Anytime I engage in discussion of the criminality of the states, governments, the people who make up such, and the people who support such, human nature and human psychology is part of that environment.
➽ I'll allow this version of restatement ["Mere men and women do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance."] because it makes my refutation equally clear as to what your argument has been lacking as far as proof is concerned.
➽ Your supporting arguments for the specific example of "government" have to be of equal caliber to someone arguing this augmented claim.
Note to self: Specific example & equates. Expound or not?
➽ ❮ Mere men and women [Security staff employed by landlords, officers within HOAs, "Wal-Mart"(/generic) employees, and homeowners] do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance.
I actually like how you have laid that out. Now I can ask questions, my preferred method of debate.
Is the demanded compliance, "Give my property back", or is it "Give me your money"? Is the demanded compliance, Initiatory or reactive? Is the demanded compliance, Offensive or defensive?
➽ Your supporting arguments for the specific example of "government" have to be of equal caliber to someone arguing this augmented claim.
➽ my explicit claim is that you have not met a valid standard of proof for your claim.
And you have not proven extortion is not a criminal act.
I am not arguing that our current government is legitimate, per se.
No, you're not. You're arguing that our current government is not illegitimate.
How does government (and the mere men and women thereof) get money? How does calling it taxation make give us money or we will hurt you not extortion?
Remember the original claim:
Government is an organized criminal syndicate that extorts people for MONEY and control.
How does government (and the mere men and women thereof) get money?
How does calling it taxation make "Give us money or we will hurt you" not extortion?
Remember the original claim:
Government is an organized criminal syndicate that extorts people for MONEY and control.
