Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: February 05, 2022, 02:22:18 PM »The above text is attached as an Open Office ODT file.
Private Social Media Platform
Private Social Media Platform
News:
Posting has been enabled without registration.
Posts by unregistered users will not be visible until approved.
Registered users have access to functions not available to guests.
How to post without registering
To register
✨
Posts by unregistered users will not be visible until approved.
Registered users have access to functions not available to guests.
How to post without registering
To register
✨
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: December 29, 2021, 09:13:43 AM »20 Points of YDOM
(1) YDOM! You don't own me!
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
(4) My body; my life; my labor; the results of my labor; property received in exchange for my labor, are all my property.
(5) My rights are my property.
(6) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(7) You do not have a "right to control" my property.
(8 ) I have the highest "right to control" in regard to any of my property.
(9) Concurrent with my "right to control" my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(10) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(11) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(12) This highest "right to control" is the same for every human.
(13) These are the equal rights addressed in the United States' Declaration of Independence.
(14) No human can delegate a "right to control" that they do not have.
(15) Voting can not delegate a "right to control" that the voter does not have.
(16) Governments are always comprised of humans.
(17) Humans that comprise "government" do not own me; do not have a "right to control" me; do not have a right to make rules I must allegedly obey; do not have a right to violate another human's rights.
(18) Humans that comprise "government" do not have a "right to control" me just because they occupy a government office.
(19) Humans that comprise "government" can not delegate a "right to control" (that they do not have) to the reified entity called "government".
(20) YDOM means there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human.
The facts are undeniable. Government's alleged "right to control" is false. Government does not have a "right to control."
The reason you don't believe me is because you were brainwashed (indoctrinated, inculcated) in your government (public) school to NOT think logically; to NOT question the truth of what you were being trained to thoughtlessly regurgitate. You also have been trained to believe you are owned by Officers, Agents, and Employees of government. This started with conditioning you to only use a toilet on the school's schedule, or to get special permission from an instructor to use the toilet during unapproved times.
And after your incarceration in a Government Indoctrination Center (public school), You were and are surrounded by multitudes of thoughtless, superstitious zealots regurgitating and spewing the cacophony of their religious belief of government dogma, continuously stirring into acceptance as a truth, that which is provably false. You might even be one of the deceived repeating and spreading government lies.
It's hard to see the logic imbued in the counter claim that eviscerates the government's lies regarding its alleged right to rule if you never look at the counter claim.
Before you can examine such a counter claim for truth, you must be presented with that counter claim. If that counter claim contradicts the lies you have been taught as truth, and you are not allowed to see that contradicting counter claim, How will you be able to compare and analyze the contradicting claim? How will you learn that the government's claims are actually lies?
You have been presented with a contradicting counter claim in the 20 Points of YDOM.
With these points of YDOM logic in front of you, your choices of what to do with these points are limited:
(A) Deny the points, never examining any of the points to assess their logic, then go away ignoring the points as if you never read them.
(B) Examine and assess the logic of each point, Show the error of the logic at any point to nullify the conclusion, then justly reject the conclusion.
(C) Examine and assess the logic of each point, Find no error of the logic, Accept the truth of the logic, Then consider what you should personally do about the truth presented.
Only non-cowards would dare examine and assess the logic of each point. Only non-cowards would dare consider what to do about those who habitually violate another's rights of self-ownership.
The cowards are cowards because they have been gaslit by their governments to be cowards.
Merriam-Webster defines gaslighting as "psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator."
Governments have gaslit and lied; teaching (indoctrinating; inculcating) people that they do NOT have a right to protect and defend themselves; teaching (indoctrinating; inculcating) people that only "government" can protect them. The evidence of this gaslighting can be found in the excuses the indoctrinated use to continue to support the concept of government even after government's provable lack of a right to control is laid out irrefutably in front of their eyes.
You don't own me is a self-evident truth. ... YDOM means there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human. Ergo: there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human is also a self-evident truth.
A self-admitted Statist, addressing the concept of YDOM, provided these words: "But the acceptance by most isn't likely to occur, largely in my case is you can't offer any alternatives, be it no government or what to replace public schools with." I accept these written thoughts as indicative of how other Statists think.
The criticism is that I (and other liberty minded folks) "can't" offer an alternative to "government".
That is, the criticism is "You can't offer any alternatives to a group of people using extortion and coercion to get their way and to get your money."
The self-admitted statist quoted above has given me words that give me clues as to what he fears. "Is US government perfect no, do you/anybody have a real life workable idea, I know for fact you do not, just an unrealistic dream."
Quoting my Statist friend again: "People thorough time have made bad, if not criminal choices." "It would be nice if people didn’t do evil, but have throughout time."
People through out time have done evil. Correct. So Statists want a government made up of people. I am very befuddled by such Statist thinking.
I, and others who think as I do, have been challenged by the statists to provide 'a workable idea' to replace government. What they seem need as a 'workable idea' is something to protect them from what they fear. I find that what these cowards fear is mostly what other people might do. I find that what these cowards fear is mostly that other people might do an act that causes them harm. These Statists have been fooled into thinking government is the only method available to protect them from what harms other people might do.
I personally think that what Statists 'fear' is merely a minor 'concern'. Something to be dealt with proactively and unemotionally.
What other people might do needs to be categorized by the harm and the causative factors of the harm in order to determine how to best prevent, mitigate, or eliminate the harm.
These potential harms and could be initiatory and offensive; responsive and defensive; or negligent and inattentive.
Any intentional act that causes harm is an immoral wrong regardless how the harm is arrived at. Initiatory and offensive harms are done intentionally and deliberately with intent by threatening or actually using violence to achieve the goal.
Murder, the harm of being killed by another human's actions.
Injury, the harm of being hurt by another human's actions.
Rape, the harm of deliberately disregarding the harms of STD's and pregnancy.
Rape, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Enslavement, the harm of robbing a human of their body.
Enslavement, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Coercion, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Extortion, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Robbery, the use of coercion and extortion to deprive a human of their property.
Obviously, any of the deliberate harms listed above are from immoral humans doing immoral actions against other humans.
Theft, the surreptitious depriving a human of their property, does not use violence or threat of violence. Yet this action as also an immoral intentional action.
Negligent and inattentive harms are not done inadvertently. These harms are done by failure to do due diligence to protect others from the harm of your actions. For example, failure to recognize a hazard caused by your action. That is, a failure to eliminate the hazard, a failure to communicate the hazard, and/or a failure to mitigate the hazard.
Negligent and inattentive harms are not done with intent to do harm. The moral thing to do is attempt to redress the harm once you discover you have caused this harm.
The third category of harms is responsive, defensive, and conditional. Such harms are never initiatory and are always justifiable. An example of such a harm is if somebody is trying to kill you and you kill them instead. In such a situation, you are justified to stand your ground; you are justified to kill your attacker if that is what is required to stop the attack.
Consider this: If you are intent on doing initiatory and offensive harm to another human, and you know they are justified in killing you while you are attempting to harm them, would you still want to attempt to harm them if you know it could cost you your life? This is called deterrence. Attempt to harm another and die. In my opinion, pretty good reason to not attempt to harm another. Do you agree?
I must now address the entities that might do the harms listed above.
Until autonomous machines become self aware, they do not count as an entity. Their actions and choices of actions, unlike humans, are based on their programming. Therefore, the humans that designed the autonomous machines and adjusted their settings are the humans culpable for the harms done by these machines.
Corporations are non-human, legally recognized, artificial, fictitious persons. These fictions can not act because they don't have a will, nor do they have hands and legs. These fictions all, always, require humans to do the act that is errantly attributed to the non-human fiction. Because such a fiction needs humans to act for it, the fiction itself can not be culpable for initiatory and offensive harm and aggression against humans. Only humans acting in the name of the fiction can cause harm to other humans. Only humans actually causing the harm with their actions are culpable for the harms scapegoated onto the fiction.
Regardless of what these fictions are called, be it "Walmart", "General Motors", any "State in and of the Union", the "Federal United States" or even Santa Claus, no fiction ever has ever done could harm a human. No fiction ever can harm a human. Only humans can harm humans.
Natural Law is the right to defend against depredations using whatever level of defensive or responsive harm or violence as is required to halt the initiatory and offensive harm. Natural Law was the justification for the United State's Declaration of Independence. Natural Law was also the justification for the Magna Carta. Per both these documents, any human being harmed by an alleged ruler has a Natural Law, Natural Right to halt such an alleged ruler's depredations and attacks.
Humans acting for government, that is, government actors, always claim ignorance of the law is no excuse. NEWS FLASH! Contrary to the gaslighting, indoctrination, and inculcation by government actors, ignorance of Natural Law is no excuse either. The right to defend oneself is inherent in the right to life. This right to defend oneself from any depredations by any aggressor regardless if the predatory attacker is a common criminal or any government actor (officer, employee, agent), defending against the attack is justified using what ever means will end the attack.
There are States in the Union where (politician's opinions called) laws demand you have a duty to retreat. Other States have politician's opinions that say you can stand your ground. Other politician's opinions are called Castle Doctrine and they presume to tell you you are only allowed to stand your ground in your home. Any such politician's opinions (government laws) are attempts to invalidate Natural Law. Any such politician's opinions violate Natural Law. Such politician's opinions are themselves attacks on your right of self-defense and seeks to undermine your self-determination.
Consider this: If government actors don't want you to have use of responsive, defensive, retaliatory, and deterring harms, could it be because they are planning to do harm to you? Wouldn't it be wonderful to make a law telling people they are not allowed to defend yourself from their attacks?
Look at the amount of the money stolen from your paycheck.
The United States was founded on killing the government's (King's) actors for a mere 3 pence per pound tax on tea. That's presently about $0.04 per pound USD. I ask, How much more of this harm are you going to tolerate?
I forgive your fear and cowardice is because I know it is the result of your government schooling. I do not forgive your cowardice and refusal to accept these self-evident truths. I do not forgive your fear of discussing these self-evident truths.
(1) YDOM! You don't own me!
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
(4) My body; my life; my labor; the results of my labor; property received in exchange for my labor, are all my property.
(5) My rights are my property.
(6) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(7) You do not have a "right to control" my property.
(8 ) I have the highest "right to control" in regard to any of my property.
(9) Concurrent with my "right to control" my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(10) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(11) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(12) This highest "right to control" is the same for every human.
(13) These are the equal rights addressed in the United States' Declaration of Independence.
(14) No human can delegate a "right to control" that they do not have.
(15) Voting can not delegate a "right to control" that the voter does not have.
(16) Governments are always comprised of humans.
(17) Humans that comprise "government" do not own me; do not have a "right to control" me; do not have a right to make rules I must allegedly obey; do not have a right to violate another human's rights.
(18) Humans that comprise "government" do not have a "right to control" me just because they occupy a government office.
(19) Humans that comprise "government" can not delegate a "right to control" (that they do not have) to the reified entity called "government".
(20) YDOM means there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human.
The facts are undeniable. Government's alleged "right to control" is false. Government does not have a "right to control."
The reason you don't believe me is because you were brainwashed (indoctrinated, inculcated) in your government (public) school to NOT think logically; to NOT question the truth of what you were being trained to thoughtlessly regurgitate. You also have been trained to believe you are owned by Officers, Agents, and Employees of government. This started with conditioning you to only use a toilet on the school's schedule, or to get special permission from an instructor to use the toilet during unapproved times.
And after your incarceration in a Government Indoctrination Center (public school), You were and are surrounded by multitudes of thoughtless, superstitious zealots regurgitating and spewing the cacophony of their religious belief of government dogma, continuously stirring into acceptance as a truth, that which is provably false. You might even be one of the deceived repeating and spreading government lies.
It's hard to see the logic imbued in the counter claim that eviscerates the government's lies regarding its alleged right to rule if you never look at the counter claim.
Before you can examine such a counter claim for truth, you must be presented with that counter claim. If that counter claim contradicts the lies you have been taught as truth, and you are not allowed to see that contradicting counter claim, How will you be able to compare and analyze the contradicting claim? How will you learn that the government's claims are actually lies?
You have been presented with a contradicting counter claim in the 20 Points of YDOM.
With these points of YDOM logic in front of you, your choices of what to do with these points are limited:
(A) Deny the points, never examining any of the points to assess their logic, then go away ignoring the points as if you never read them.
(B) Examine and assess the logic of each point, Show the error of the logic at any point to nullify the conclusion, then justly reject the conclusion.
(C) Examine and assess the logic of each point, Find no error of the logic, Accept the truth of the logic, Then consider what you should personally do about the truth presented.
Only non-cowards would dare examine and assess the logic of each point. Only non-cowards would dare consider what to do about those who habitually violate another's rights of self-ownership.
The cowards are cowards because they have been gaslit by their governments to be cowards.
Merriam-Webster defines gaslighting as "psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator."
Governments have gaslit and lied; teaching (indoctrinating; inculcating) people that they do NOT have a right to protect and defend themselves; teaching (indoctrinating; inculcating) people that only "government" can protect them. The evidence of this gaslighting can be found in the excuses the indoctrinated use to continue to support the concept of government even after government's provable lack of a right to control is laid out irrefutably in front of their eyes.
You don't own me is a self-evident truth. ... YDOM means there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human. Ergo: there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human is also a self-evident truth.
A self-admitted Statist, addressing the concept of YDOM, provided these words: "But the acceptance by most isn't likely to occur, largely in my case is you can't offer any alternatives, be it no government or what to replace public schools with." I accept these written thoughts as indicative of how other Statists think.
The criticism is that I (and other liberty minded folks) "can't" offer an alternative to "government".
That is, the criticism is "You can't offer any alternatives to a group of people using extortion and coercion to get their way and to get your money."
The self-admitted statist quoted above has given me words that give me clues as to what he fears. "Is US government perfect no, do you/anybody have a real life workable idea, I know for fact you do not, just an unrealistic dream."
Quoting my Statist friend again: "People thorough time have made bad, if not criminal choices." "It would be nice if people didn’t do evil, but have throughout time."
People through out time have done evil. Correct. So Statists want a government made up of people. I am very befuddled by such Statist thinking.
I, and others who think as I do, have been challenged by the statists to provide 'a workable idea' to replace government. What they seem need as a 'workable idea' is something to protect them from what they fear. I find that what these cowards fear is mostly what other people might do. I find that what these cowards fear is mostly that other people might do an act that causes them harm. These Statists have been fooled into thinking government is the only method available to protect them from what harms other people might do.
I personally think that what Statists 'fear' is merely a minor 'concern'. Something to be dealt with proactively and unemotionally.
What other people might do needs to be categorized by the harm and the causative factors of the harm in order to determine how to best prevent, mitigate, or eliminate the harm.
These potential harms and could be initiatory and offensive; responsive and defensive; or negligent and inattentive.
Any intentional act that causes harm is an immoral wrong regardless how the harm is arrived at. Initiatory and offensive harms are done intentionally and deliberately with intent by threatening or actually using violence to achieve the goal.
Murder, the harm of being killed by another human's actions.
Injury, the harm of being hurt by another human's actions.
Rape, the harm of deliberately disregarding the harms of STD's and pregnancy.
Rape, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Enslavement, the harm of robbing a human of their body.
Enslavement, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Coercion, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Extortion, the harm of robbing a human of their free will.
Robbery, the use of coercion and extortion to deprive a human of their property.
Obviously, any of the deliberate harms listed above are from immoral humans doing immoral actions against other humans.
Theft, the surreptitious depriving a human of their property, does not use violence or threat of violence. Yet this action as also an immoral intentional action.
Negligent and inattentive harms are not done inadvertently. These harms are done by failure to do due diligence to protect others from the harm of your actions. For example, failure to recognize a hazard caused by your action. That is, a failure to eliminate the hazard, a failure to communicate the hazard, and/or a failure to mitigate the hazard.
Negligent and inattentive harms are not done with intent to do harm. The moral thing to do is attempt to redress the harm once you discover you have caused this harm.
The third category of harms is responsive, defensive, and conditional. Such harms are never initiatory and are always justifiable. An example of such a harm is if somebody is trying to kill you and you kill them instead. In such a situation, you are justified to stand your ground; you are justified to kill your attacker if that is what is required to stop the attack.
Consider this: If you are intent on doing initiatory and offensive harm to another human, and you know they are justified in killing you while you are attempting to harm them, would you still want to attempt to harm them if you know it could cost you your life? This is called deterrence. Attempt to harm another and die. In my opinion, pretty good reason to not attempt to harm another. Do you agree?
I must now address the entities that might do the harms listed above.
Until autonomous machines become self aware, they do not count as an entity. Their actions and choices of actions, unlike humans, are based on their programming. Therefore, the humans that designed the autonomous machines and adjusted their settings are the humans culpable for the harms done by these machines.
Corporations are non-human, legally recognized, artificial, fictitious persons. These fictions can not act because they don't have a will, nor do they have hands and legs. These fictions all, always, require humans to do the act that is errantly attributed to the non-human fiction. Because such a fiction needs humans to act for it, the fiction itself can not be culpable for initiatory and offensive harm and aggression against humans. Only humans acting in the name of the fiction can cause harm to other humans. Only humans actually causing the harm with their actions are culpable for the harms scapegoated onto the fiction.
Regardless of what these fictions are called, be it "Walmart", "General Motors", any "State in and of the Union", the "Federal United States" or even Santa Claus, no fiction ever has ever done could harm a human. No fiction ever can harm a human. Only humans can harm humans.
Natural Law is the right to defend against depredations using whatever level of defensive or responsive harm or violence as is required to halt the initiatory and offensive harm. Natural Law was the justification for the United State's Declaration of Independence. Natural Law was also the justification for the Magna Carta. Per both these documents, any human being harmed by an alleged ruler has a Natural Law, Natural Right to halt such an alleged ruler's depredations and attacks.
Humans acting for government, that is, government actors, always claim ignorance of the law is no excuse. NEWS FLASH! Contrary to the gaslighting, indoctrination, and inculcation by government actors, ignorance of Natural Law is no excuse either. The right to defend oneself is inherent in the right to life. This right to defend oneself from any depredations by any aggressor regardless if the predatory attacker is a common criminal or any government actor (officer, employee, agent), defending against the attack is justified using what ever means will end the attack.
There are States in the Union where (politician's opinions called) laws demand you have a duty to retreat. Other States have politician's opinions that say you can stand your ground. Other politician's opinions are called Castle Doctrine and they presume to tell you you are only allowed to stand your ground in your home. Any such politician's opinions (government laws) are attempts to invalidate Natural Law. Any such politician's opinions violate Natural Law. Such politician's opinions are themselves attacks on your right of self-defense and seeks to undermine your self-determination.
Consider this: If government actors don't want you to have use of responsive, defensive, retaliatory, and deterring harms, could it be because they are planning to do harm to you? Wouldn't it be wonderful to make a law telling people they are not allowed to defend yourself from their attacks?
Look at the amount of the money stolen from your paycheck.
The United States was founded on killing the government's (King's) actors for a mere 3 pence per pound tax on tea. That's presently about $0.04 per pound USD. I ask, How much more of this harm are you going to tolerate?
I forgive your fear and cowardice is because I know it is the result of your government schooling. I do not forgive your cowardice and refusal to accept these self-evident truths. I do not forgive your fear of discussing these self-evident truths.