Private Social Media Platform

I don't have a right to rule you. And our government does not rule anybody. You're saying things that have no basis in reality. In some countries (like North Korea), you would be right. But not in the US. Also, in the US, none of the rule is forced. You are completely free to renounce your citizenship and leave. As for the social contract, it is the Constitution, the laws that are subject to it, and court rulings that provide clarity on these matters.

It is my right to do anything I am capable of doing that I want to do unless I sacrifice that right in exchange for something else (like safety and public services) by participating as a member of society.

What you're describing about being shot is an extremely rare event. And when something inappropriate does happen like that, the police are held accountable for their actions.

Government will take your home and lock you up as it should if you violate the laws. It's entitled to that. Maybe you have reading comprehension problems, but I said I do not have the right to tell you how to live. I don't rule you. As for leaving the land, I am all for making passports free. But if you want one, I will cover the cost so long as you renounce your citizenship and leave for at least the next three years. It must be scary living in your warped little mind.

I don't get to choose a ruler. The premise of your entire problem is simply wrong. I have not ever had a ruler over me. As for these 'natural rights', where are they written? What are they specifically and who determined what they are? To me, natural rights can only be the ability to do anything that I am capable of doing. That includes killing, stealing, etc... But because I'm a member of society, I willfully (every day I wake up here) choose to sacrifice those rights for safety and services.

So then you would agree that it's my right to do whatever I want, right? That includes to kill and steal and enslave, right?

Well where does it say that those things aren't my right? Who is determining these things? Are you saying that it's not a lion's right to kill the gazelle? So they either have to act outside of their rights or die off as a species?

And who determines that your definition of right applies? For instance, it's my right to enslave someone in a world without government because that might be something I want to do. It might be your right to resist, but only one of us will win. It's my right to violate your self-professed right because maybe I don't agree that your right offsets mine. Maybe I don't even believe you have the same natural rights as I do. Morality is also subjective. Maybe to me, it is immoral for you to deny me my right to enslave you. Natural rights are whatever a person wants to do that they can do. To think that everybody will just agree with your narrow definition of what is right is folly. As for the lion and the gazelle, I don't see any evidence why they wouldn't own themselves. I would argue that they do because they seem to be sentient and they seem to have individualized personalities.

Sadly, will be politely declining any further conversation, and will just use the scroll bar as was suggested.

Have been trying my best, but it has just been an awful experience so far.
Not saying this to be mean to you in any way either, just sharing what's being felt on this side of things.

None of the conversations you've had here ever gets anywhere or feels like it was worth the time. The responses being given to others seem overly tinged with frustration, unfair argumentative nastiness, and the sheer combativeness never seems to materialize into anything meaningful.

Unfortunately, don't really want to engage in discussing things with you anymore; So I'd like to kindly ask you to not @ me in the future if its not too much of a bother.

And please, I do request you to have the last word about this if you wish, if any part here doesn't seem right or fair.

➽ Sadly, will be politely declining any further conversation

Before continuing a conversation can be declined there must be actual conversation. Your interactions with me were NOT "conversation".  Conversation is usually about sharing and discussing information.You chose to ignore points I presented to the other poster when you attempted to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail focus away from my presented topics with your bullshit about "taunting". You claimed that my questions were "manipulation through a taunt"<Shrug.>

You must of missed where I wrote and posted: "The purpose of a question is to request clarification."
In view of your comments about questions I posed to another poster, I chose to plop those questions on the table right in front of you. YOU chose to not see those three questions and attempted to hijack the thread with your next post.

<Sarcastic Rhetoric> Tell me all about what a good conversationalist you are.</Sarc-Rhet> By the way, that was a very specific "taunt" aimed at you.

This is now the THIRD time I'm putting these questions in front of you:
What is YOUR purpose in posting on Larken's channel?
What do you hope to accomplish with your words?
What is your intent?

In other words, I am attempting to discern YOUR motivation for even posting on Larken's channel

➽ Have been trying my best, but it has just been an awful experience so far.
Not saying this to be mean to you in any way either, just sharing what's being felt on this side of things.

None of the conversations you've had here ever gets anywhere or feels like it was worth the time. The responses being given to others seem overly tinged with frustration, unfair argumentative nastiness, and the sheer combativeness never seems to materialize into anything meaningful.

𝟙. I'm about information, facts, and which are and are not true.
𝟚. I don't give a shit about your feelz if they are not grounded in information, facts, and truth.
𝟛. Your attempt to psycho-analyze me opens the door for me to also psycho-analyze you.

➽ Unfortunately, don't really want to engage in discussing things with you anymore;

You are not the first coward I've ever had ghost me because I question their written and posted emotional spew.

I posted a quote from Larken's event yesterday that I found funny and helpful.
⁠anarcho-memers⁠

You responded asking me to quote some written language from some moron.
⁠anarcho-memers⁠

I refused politely by pointing out the absurdity of asking an anarchist to quote laws.

I have no desire to look up the statute of these magic spells and copy and paste them here from any government institution in my free time.

If every time someone said to post a reference to laws applicable to a given situation I jumped I would do nothing but be a law copying robot. As even in the US. the specific laws you are searching for aren't just Internal Revenue Code (IRC)

They are US Codes (USC)
State Tax Codes
Counties with taxes assessed on income
Municipalities with the same claim to own a portion of another's product.
Smaller units like Special Economic Zones or Tax Increment Financing districts... and more that I'm probably unaware of...

It's a very large convo to start via low throughput text comms.

Ooof, yeah TIF is so aids. Small town out here was doing that to give special tax breaks to a multimillion dollar 9 story tall building, when all the other buildings in the area were 4 stories max.

Its just a special tax break they hand out to their criminal buddies. Spoke out against it at a city council meeting and made the tv news and paper. The local news when playing video of my complaint at the meeting, muted what I was saying and spoke over me, telling the viewer something else entirely. The newspaper referred to what was said as "there was a complaint" or something like that, but otherwise said only positive things about the special financing plan.