NE

[Dale Eastman]

NE
Government is perfectly allowed in a voluntaryist society. After all, it's voluntary!

You have a clue...
So this is not aimed at you.

Interesting that the one calling the other an amoeba is also the one who can't come up with an intelligent response beyond memes and talking points from others...

NE
That meme is because Fecesbook censors dot info TLD's.
Have you bothered to read that rant?
While you were on the Synaptic Sparks website, did you read any other of my unintelligent words?
I apologize for inferring that you were an Amoeba, because of other comments of yours under this Chew
Post. Those comments indicate to me that you have a little more of a clue than you first appeared to have to my eyes. But those posts also indicate a possible bias.

Interesting that you begin by insulting people you've barely taken the effort to get to know.
Your rants appear to show a great deal of anger with an underlying current of helplessness and longing for others to join you in your anger.
It seems your perspective is so black and white. Thre whole thing appears designed to say "if you don't agree with what I say, then you must be a brainwashed simpleton that cannot fathom the deep knowledge and understanding I am presenting."
Personally, I dislike discourses of that nature. They assume that only one side has truth and there can be no other. It indicates a closed-minded individual cut off from the ability to connect with people beyond their small circle of like-minded individuals. So closed, in fact, that you consider those who may disagree with you "sub-species" or not even human.
It must be lonely inside your head. Lonely, angry, and helpless. I couldn't imagine wanting to feel that way.

NE
And that changes the information how?

The content appears to be static unless you plan on editing it.

NE
wrote:
you begin by insulting people you've barely taken the effort to get to know.
Oh but I do know them. You? you're not them and yet you're not, not them.
NE wrote:
It seems your perspective is so black and white.
Correct. Except when it's not.
I notice a lack of challenge to those stated perspectives of mine.
NE wrote:
They assume that only one side has truth and there can be no other.
Maybe you don't understand anarchy as well as you claim?
Who is the RULER denying you a voice to challenge those stated perspectives? Oh wait... Nobody is.
You have presented yourself to my perception as somebody that is more concerned about the "tone" of my words than the concepts the words convey.
You refer to me as "close-minded". Well that's an accurate description of the Amoebas I have interacted with.
Here is but one example:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/illuminate-the-delusions/the-statism-is-strong-in-this-one/2583531445061659/

NE
wrote:
The content appears to be static unless you plan on editing it.
And...?

1108 22Aug

NE
wrote:
The content appears to be static unless you plan on editing it.
And...?

Check chronos of posts.

NE
you may want to get out your dictionary and look up those two words

I know what they are. Voluntaryism is a moral philosophy about what one ought to do.
Anarchy is a political philosophy which purports a type of system under which we should live.
Whoever equated the 2 to begin with made a grievous error. They are not the same. That is the problem with "movements." If there is an error in the fundamentals of what the movement is, then it will likely be denied.
Such is the power of tribal loyalty.

1025 22aug

Speaking of errors, I didn't stay on top of this discussion yesterday. Oh well...
Anarchy literally means no rulers. It has been co-opted to mean chaos, throwing rocks, & criminal acts.
A Malum prohibitum act is not a crime.

Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

Who creates those statutes? I'm sure you've already read my comment on voting.

Voluntaryism as described is in error. Correction follows.
NE: *Voluntaryism is a moral philosophy about what one ought [NOT] to do*

This is a work in progress, thus not complete.
A Voluntary Society is a society where all interactions are "voluntary".
Panhandlers asking for handouts on the side of the road are asking you to voluntarily interact with them. They are asking you to voluntarily surrender some property of yours to them. Typically money. Even if they are putting on a fraudulent act to tug your heartstrings to get you to give them some money, it's still your choice to give money or not.

Compare that to cops pulling you over to the side of the road, an act that forces your interaction to be non-voluntary. You don't really have a choice, because cops will escalate violence and force against you until you comply, possibly even ramming and damaging the vehicle you are driving to make it inoperative in order to get you to comply.

The moment that a cop lights up his disco lights, he has initiated a non-voluntary interaction that you are required to obey. There you are, going down the road, minding your own business, doing your everyday affairs of life and a threatening bully makes you stop. He has initiated threat, duress, and coercion against you. TDC, in a word: Extortion. Do what you are told to do or they will hurt you.
Not wanting to be extorted sure looks like wanting to be left alone to me. If you know when you want to be left alone, then I submit that you also want to live in a voluntary society. If you know you don't want to be extorted, then again I submit that you also want to live in a voluntary society.

If you were being left alone, as in living in a voluntary society, then nobody would be forcing you to non-voluntarily interact with them; nobody would be forcing you to non-voluntarily give up or surrender your property to them.

Being forced to non-voluntarily pay anything under threat, duress, or coercion is extortion. This is not a hard concept to understand, yet there are those who just can't or won't understand this.

I intend to segue this essay to discuss YDOMism.

Previously writ:
You do not own me. I do not own you.
In the words of a five year old child, Who made you the boss of me?

I don't own you. I am not the boss of you. A politician does not own you. A politician is not the boss of you. Try and keep up Amoeba, I can not make a politician the boss of you. I can not make a politician the boss of anybody. And neither can anybody else.

Therefore, I know that the belief of a politician being the boss of anybody is a bogus belief, not a fact, errantly believed by all the indoctrinated, voting Amoebas.

Compare when two persons point a gun at a motorist and yell, "GET OUT OF THE CAR!". What's the difference if the first is a car-jacker and the second is a cop?

Whether a cop or a car-jacker, neither owns you. Whether a cop or a car-jacker, the same question applies, Who made them the boss of you or anyone? If nobody owns you; If nobody has authority over you; Then nobody can make either the cop or the car-jacker the boss of you. It's that simple.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
-- Mao Zedong --

Both the cop and the car-jacker are growing political power out of the barrels of their guns. Both the cop and the car-jacker are extorting your compliance with their demands.

Political power is not authority, because extortion is not authority.

Do what I tell you to do or I will hurt you is extortion. No amount of indoctrination will ever change threat, duress, and coercion into authority... Unless you're an unthinking Amoeba.
The last nine paragraphs are from the un-intelligent response beyond meme.

NE
Stated:
Every man is a government unto himself at that point.

Now that you have basically stated Locke's natural law...
IMO, It's Quid Pro Quo.
You don't try to end me, I don't try to end you.

The actual unwritten social contract, no criminal syndicate called government needed.
The way most people go about their everyday affairs of life, interacting with family, friends, neighbors, and strangers.
No government threats, duress, or coercion aka extortion needed.
P.S. Another senseless meme I wrote:

NE
wrote:
Changing the definition of anarchy will not change what it actually is.
Mr. Eerenberg, would you be so kind as to articulate what you think anarchy is?

Screen caps

NE
Thank you for those definitions.
However, you did not actually comply with my request. I'll return to that after I address what you presented.
anarchy
a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority, or absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal
an‑, without
autarchy
a system of government by one person with absolute power
autos, self
eparchy
a province of the Orthodox Church
epi, above, so ‘rule from above’
hierarchy
a system of authority in which members are ranked according to status
from hieros, sacred, since the earliest sense was that of a system of orders of angels and heavenly beings
matriarchy
a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women
Latin mater, mother, on a mistaken analogy with patriarchy
monarchy
a state with a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor
monos, alone or single
oligarchy
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution; a place or body so ruled
oligoi, few
patriarchy
government by the father or eldest male
patria, family
squirearchy
landowners collectively, especially when considered as a class having political or social influence
English squire
synarchy
joint rule or government by two or more individuals or parties
sun‑, together
https://affixes.org/alpha/a/-archy.html
Archy means to rule, Anarchy means not to rule.
##################
The definitions provided show the indoctrinated co-opting of the word.
anarchy
— noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of
governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy
3. anarchism (def1).
4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination:
the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5. confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book l was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves.
As shown above, anarchy simple means the absence of a ruling class, which I refer to as a criminal syndicate.
Anarchy is the absence of rulers, not rules. Another euphemism is calling politician's opinions law. Even calling them rules, they are still politician's opinions.
Number 2, conflates the result from the reality of no rulers, i.e. tyrants, from the claimed result of no rulers.
Thus, IMO, a claim born of indoctrination.
Number 4, What specifically is meant by "authority"?
I have specifically examined and addressed this on my static word website.
Number 5, IMO, the confusion is deliberate. Indoctrination to convince sheeple that "authority" is real.
Moving on to the next definition:
anarchism
— noun
1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists , as the use of violence to undermine government.
3. anarchy.
Again with the co-opting conflation... Sigh...
Number 1, IMO, no indoctrinated co-opting of the term there.
Number 2, OBJECTION! Evidence of violence as the only way as implied to undermine government. Or more correctly that violence is the only way to undermine a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
Now here's a brain hurting concept.
As an anarchist, those definitions have exactly ZERO authority as the only meanings allowed to attach to the word anarchy.
I asked YOU what YOU mean with the word. You presented a word salad.
Whether deliberate or not, you did the logical fallacy of Equivocation. Per Wiki:
Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.
Per Voltaire's admonition: If you wish to converse with me, define your terms. That is why I asked: would you be so kind as to articulate what you think anarchy is?
So... It looks to me that we do not agree as to what anarchy is.

As I've said, you can change the definition using whatever jedi mind tricks you are attempting to use, or you can use the same dictionary as everyone else.
If you change the definition though, then you aren't even using the same dictionary or speaking the same language as everyone else. You're speaking a foriegn language defined by magic code imagined by a small group of people that find it convenient to use words that they've changed the definition of.
My definition is the accepted dictionary definition. I thought that would be clear from the screenshots I presented. That is what our language is formally defined by.
You can't use some other definition of a word and then get upset when someone won't accept it. I could say that orange really means banana. I could go on a rant about how the word orange was coopted by natives in Tanzania and given to an orange round fruit instead of the elongated yellow fruit it's really supposed to be. However, that would be a little silly.

I've seen all the memes. I know all the arguments.
Government is not your enemy and railing against government solves nothing.

So you've seen the memes that I haven't even created yet?
How precog of you.

Be so kind and send me a PM with the next big lottery payout date and winning numbers. Thanks pal.

Interesting that the one calling the other an amoeba is also the one who can't come up with an intelligent response beyond memes and talking points from others...

Interesting that you focus on a non-specifically targeted canned rant,
NOT specific insulting name targeted at you,
To wit:
"you are just a disgusting Moral Relativist piece of shit"

[Dale Eastman]

wrote:
If you change the definition [...] you aren't [...] speaking the same language as everyone else.

Something we can agree on.

What I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU about, is you presuming to command me as to what dictionary you think I should use.
You are NOT my ruler.
You are NOT my leader.
That is anarchy.
That is the absence of a ruler.

You wrote:
You can't use some other definition of a word and then get upset when someone won't accept it.
Please explain to me how that is not what you are doing because I don't & won't accept your definition?

Who made you the boss of me to dictate what meanings I'm required to use?
Who made you the boss of me to dictate what meanings I'm allowed to use?
Who made you the boss of which meanings get attached to which words in the dictionary?

You are correct on one point...
You and I can not communicate about anarchy since you and I do not agree on a definition.

Thankfully the Texicans in Laredo and I agreed as to what baño? meant,
Even though I didn't get it correct because I should have asked, ¿Dónde está el baño público?

You state:
 I could say that orange really means banana.

As long as I remember that when you say orange, you really mean politician and I can visualize what you are referring to, then we can communicate.
You don't even need to know that what you call an orange equates in my mind with "politician". The attached meme pix will explain.

BTW, the word "orange" is a symbol, not the item.
Just like the map is not the territory.

I didn't make me anything. I command nothing except myself. I rule nothing except my own behavior. I lead no one, but may occasionally ask a few to stand by my side.
You may certainly use whatever definition of words you would like to use just as I may be compelled to use words in their standard definition which 99.9% of others use. Communication is difficult when the other speaks a dialect of words with secret meanings, though. I would respectfully submit that if you have to completely change the standard definition of a word so that it properly aligns with your philosophy rather allowing the words that naturally align with your philosophy to govern banter about it, that there may have been an issue with the usage of the word to begin with. It's much akin to having a square peg you want to fit in a round hole. It just seems like a great deal of trouble to go through to carve the square peg to fit when you have round ones readily available.
I'll ignore the ad hominem. It's really unbecoming if we're actually trying to communicate ideas.
In reality, morality is relative. Every culture and every religion have their own set of moral standards. Nevermind the complications in perspective... if you ask multiple witnesses about the same event you may find you get drastically different variations of the event. Sorting truth and justice for particularly events is far more complicated than simply saying one person violated another. That's why courts and a system of judgment by precedent exists.

TL:DR NOT!
Knowing what it takes to write things longer than the sound bite equivalent so unfortunately common on this platform, I appreciate and thank you for the time you have spent on our discussion and the above post/comment. Such is good dialog.
I intend to read what you wrote with high focus. It may be awhile before I post a response. Real world issues are demanding my attention for the time being

[Dale Eastman]

First things first.
I agree with you that ad hominem does NOT assist in communication of ideas.
I will explain why I posted what I posted and then I'm done with it unless you want further clarification of my thoughts. After all, communication, IMO, is sharing thoughts.
When I'm involved in good discussions (not sarcastic in referring to you and your interaction with myself, with others, most sarcastic) I go over the dialog to see if anything was missed by myself, or in the case of others, a review of questions ignored or red herrings dragged across the dialog. In doing this review, I observed you take issue with my Amoeba Rant, and to my eye, not like the ad hominem-ness of what I posted. Thus the comparison to the other ad hominem that I must admit, you did ignore. Good? Done?

You state you rule nothing but your own behavior. I like that statement. IMO, that's how things should be. Alas, that's not how it is in the real world.

You admit that I may use whatever definition of words I choose.

But is that really what's going on here?

You state that you are "compelled"...
To be compelled is to be controlled, just as a sheep herding dog "compels" the sheep into a pen.

I am assuming that you will correct me if I err...
I am assuming that what is compelling you is your belief that if you don't use a/the "standard definition(s)" you will not be able to communicate. You do appear to me as a pretty smart guy, so I'll assume that you know what an "equivocation fallacy" is. How does this fallacy begin to exist? Maybe with words that have multiple meanings.

Let us have look at bits of the "standard definition" that you provided with your screencap.

"1. a state of society without government or law."

Right out of the gate, there's a conflation. Which is it, government or law?

Compare:
Society A is in a state of anarchy; Society B is in a state of anarchy.
"Taboo your words." Found on lesswrong.com and elsewhere.
With:
Society A is without government; Society B is without law.
Not quite the same, eh?

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of
governmental control:

I'm not interested in tabooing political disorder nor social disorder, though it would be a good mental exercise to "drill down" on what is meant and what is assumed in and about those meanings.

I will point out that there is NO governmental control controlling the goings into Hunt's Point Market, which according to Wikipedia, is the source for approximately 50 percent of the New York region’s meat. Somehow that anarchic chaotic place feeds a bunch of people.

4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination:

What is meant by this "authority" referred to? I claim that an examination of such a superstitious belief in such an ephemeral thing proves it DOES NOT EXIST as "they" claim.  Link to my 28 points of examination upon request. Hat tip and thanks to Larken Rose for his book TMDS.

5. confusion and disorder:

Another conflation. This attempts to connect confusion and disorder as an implied result of number one, no government or [X]. Redacting reason follows..

Earlier I wrote:
Anarchy literally means no rulers.

You replied:
Changing the definition of anarchy will not change what it actually is.

Going back to point #1, provided by you, "anarchy- a state of society without a government."
What does "government" do? Govern?
Does govern mean control?
Does control mean rule?
Is not government then mere men and women who control, who rule?

Per my linked info to the building blocks of English:

-archy Also ‑arch.
Government; rule of a particular type; a chief or ruler.
an‑, without
an‑ -archy without government.

In repeating myself, I conclude that you did not pay attention to what I provided.

I submit that you erred in claiming I changed the definition of anarchy.
I submit that I drilled down to one meaning to avoid equivocation.

I am saddened by the apparent fact that you don't understand Voltaire's Admonition.
If you wish to converse, define your terms.
Whgbges is not Gtmnsp.
¿Entender? Capire? Tuig? Понять?

I acknowledge your bringing up the topic of morality.
I decline to follow that tangent at this time.

[Dale Eastman]

I would make 2 points here: 1. I disagree with the contention that no government doesn't mean no laws. It is the duty of a governing body to create laws for the region which it services. Without such a centralized body, then how would people know what the laws were? Assuming everyone acts in self interest (as Mises would say is the dominating force of markets), then there is always some section of the population that would push for any advantage they could obtain with no formal rules and no enforcement of said rules. And if these people garner sufficient force, then people would then be helpless to find redress if they were the victim of such people. Apart from government, it would be custom and the most powerful agencies (likely religious) that would carry out the same function.

2. Government arises from natural order. Person A opens a business and employs say half the town. So person A, having half the town dependent on him for their well being, becomes a substantially politically influential figure. Even if 5 other people employed the other half of the town, they would not have as much say in collective decisions of the town as person A. Though they may get together with each other or with person A to gain the influence needed to compete.

This is why, in the absence of a formal government, the government always arises as an oligarchy, and with sufficient fighting among the oligarchs, often becomes a monarchy in order to create peace through final arbitration between the lords.
This is what the evidence of history shows. Yes, there have been some small pockets of anarchism in history, but very few and far between and all dissolved into what are now the current governments of the world.

The world is the way it is for a reason. That reason is the nature of humanity. Government is not necessary, but it is inevitable.
Railing against the inevitable I find to be a fairly useless venture as it simply ends up being another violent bid for control of society. That is why I tend to focus solely on the individual and voluntaryism in personal relationships. That is why I say that voluntaryism and anarchy are truly the epitome of a conflation error.

[Dale Eastman]

Reply Part 1.

Full disclosure, some of the words here in my replies are cherry-picked copies of my words posted elsewhere.

For my own reasons, I will be quoting the words I am responding to.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

➽ I disagree with the contention that no government doesn't mean no laws. It is the duty of a governing body to create laws for the region which it services.

Again, I find myself "compelled" to challenge your choice of words. As I will challenge anybody using, IMO, "euphemisms".

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

What is Law?

According to dictionaries...

    Law
    1) Any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of an organization, community, society, or nation. 2) A statute, ordinance, or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government.
       Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary   

    What is LAW?

    [...] "Law" is a solemn expression of legislative will. It orders and permits and forbids. It announces rewards and punishments. [...]
       The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.   

    A crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it;
    Wilkins v. U. S
      Law Dictionary (Black's Law Dictionary)   

Stated simply as most would understand law:

Law is a command to do or not to do some action.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

All Law is Comply or Die
Yes.
It is.

See Force Continuum.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum

As stated, every law is comply or die. If you don't obey, men with guns will come to capture you and put you in a cage. If you resist this, they will increase the force they use against you until you are forced into submission or you are dead.

They will do it to you for refusing to obey some mala prohibita law as well as for actually victimizing somebody.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

An elected alleged Representative will write, dicker, and then v*te with other alleged Representatives regarding a new law and if 51% of the alleged Representatives voting agree that thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property, then that is the law and thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property.

In legal terms, such laws are known as a malum prohibitum laws.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

Law is a Politician's Opinion

It is clear to this author that Legislators, Senators, and Congresspersons are merely men and women. Such politicians are not gods or demigods. They have no supernatural intellect or knowledge. And most importantly, they were not born with automatic authority over any other humans.
Therefore, I find that Law is only politicians' opinion.

Anybody who thinks that they can refute that statement, please send your attempt to do so to me.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

Tangent: Substitute "Rules" for "Laws". Politician's opinions do not have the force of gravity, Even though Statists and Politicians want people to believe such.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

➽ I disagree with the contention that no government doesn't mean no laws.

This becomes a communication error. We disagree on what certain words mean. Voltaire's admonition, if you wish to communicate with me, define your terms. The dialog forks here.

Translating for the readers what I do in my mind with your statement:
You disagree with my contention that no government doesn't mean no rules.
I'll come back to this momentarily.

➽ It is the duty of a governing body to create laws for the region which it services.

Is that like saying the duty of a dictator or a tyrant is to create decrees for the region he/she/it tyrannizes?

I have a problem with you equating "service" with comply or die rules.

➽ Without such a centralized body, then how would people know what the laws were?

Who is the centralized body that made the rules of etiquette requiring "please", "thank you" and "you're welcome"?
Or are these rules known and understood by usual and customary use? Plus feedback that polite gets better responses and interaction?

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

There have been laws against murder since time immemorial. There have been murders during that same time immemorial. Thus laws against murder have done nothing to stop murder from happening. Why?

Because murderers don't care about anti-murder laws.

And non-murderers don't need anti-murder laws because they aren't going to commit murder anyway.

Now if you don't agree, let me know if you plan on going out and committing murder if laws against murders were rescinded.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

➽ Assuming everyone acts in self interest (as Mises would say is the dominating force of markets), then there is always some section of the population that would push for any advantage they could obtain with no formal rules and no enforcement of said rules.

Oh... You mean like how corporations push for advantage with cronyism and regulatory capture? With Lobbying? How many cable providers are allowed in any given town? Let me ask this a different way: How many places with cable service have more than one provider leasing space on the power and phone poles?

➽ And if these people garner sufficient force, then people would then be helpless to find redress if they were the victim of such people.

You mean like "government" monopoly on force; You mean like"government" monopoly making rules to fleece the public, a.k.a. traffic fines for actions that harm nobody?

Looks like I got ahead of myself.

➽ Apart from government, it would be custom and the most powerful agencies (likely religious) that would carry out the same function.

My solution for that is YDOMism.

Reply Part 2.

I'm still cogitating on how best to present this concept of YDOMism. More cherry picking my own words:

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑
Work in progress:

A Voluntary Society is a society where all interactions are "voluntary".

Panhandlers asking for handouts on the side of the road are asking you to voluntarily interact with them. They are asking you to voluntarily surrender some property of yours to them. Typically money. Even if they are putting on a fraudulent act to tug your heartstrings to get you to give them some money, it's still your choice to give money or not.

Compare that to cops pulling you over to the side of the road, an act that forces your interaction to be non-voluntary. You don't really have a choice, because cops will escalate violence and force against you until you comply, possibly even ramming and damaging the vehicle you are driving to make it inoperative in order to get you to comply.

The moment that a cop lights up his disco lights, he has initiated a non-voluntary interaction that you are required to obey. There you are, going down the road, minding your own business, doing your everyday affairs of life and a threatening bully makes you stop. He has initiated threat, duress, and coercion against you. TDC, in a word: Extortion. Do what you are told to do or they will hurt you.

Not wanting to be extorted sure looks like wanting to be left alone to me. If you know when you want to be left alone, then I submit that you also want to live in a voluntary society. If you know you don't want to be extorted, then again I submit that you also want to live in a voluntary society.

If you were being left alone, as in living in a voluntary society, then nobody would be forcing you to non-voluntarily interact with them;  nobody would be forcing you to non-voluntarily give up or surrender your property to them.

Being forced to non-voluntarily pay anything under threat, duress, or coercion is extortion. This is not a hard concept to understand, yet there are those who just can't or won't understand this.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

You do not own me
I do not own you

Amoebas are too stupid to think about what those ten words mean. I am not referring to our lack of ownership of each other, I am sure you can wrap your limited intellect around that point. I am referring to your stupidity when you fail to apply the two facts just stated to your miserable reactionary existence.

Somehow humanity has figured out that owning slaves is wrong. Somehow people have figured out that people owning other people is wrong. Yet somehow humanity human Amoebas continue to fail to recognize that slavery still exists.

Slave owners had an alleged right to all of a slave's life, all of the compensation of the slave's labor, and a complete cancellation of a slave's free will. You are too blind to see that what has just been described is still happening today. The only difference being that today it is less then 100% of the compensation for labor. If 49% of the results of your compensation for labor get taken from you, then you are still a slave.

If I claim I own 49% of your earnings, I have no doubt that your first thought will be, "No you don't." Yet that is not your response when certain specific others make the exact same claim. Why is that?

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

The why is: The indoctrinated superstitious belief in authority. H/T to Larken Rose for his TMDS book.

I would like to calendar a discussion of authority for later. I want to stay focused on the post I'm replying to for now.

➽ Government arises from natural order.

Voltaire's admonition applies here also.
You have communicated to me that "something" arises from natural order. If I think government = an ice cream cone, then you and I have failed to communicate. Thus I challenge your meaning of government just as I challenged your meaning of anarchy.
I will return to this.

➽ So person A, having half the town dependent on him for their well being, becomes a substantially politically influential figure.

Politically, as used here, is subject to Voltaire's admonition. You put that specific word in the sentence for a reason. I'm presently ignoring it as I parse and interpret what your words say to me: ... person A, as the employer, is a substantial influential figure. Not much different than many people who have employed me in the past. None of my employers presumed to command me regarding telling me that I needed his permission and was required to pay him for a license to drive my car down the road; that I wasn't allowed to drink unpasteurized milk, just to pull two examples from my previous writing on the topic.

So again with Voltaire... What, specifically, do you claim such a person influences?
And very important: How, specifically, does this employer deal with people who reject his influences? How will this employer deal with my refusal to get his permission to drive by refusing to pay him for his permission and license? Does he threaten to have me kidnapped and put in a cage?

➽ Even if 5 other people employed the other half of the town, they would not have as much say in collective decisions of the town as person A.

I challenge your equate of "influence" and "having a say" in "collective decisions". Voltaire again.

What is being collectively decided? At this moment the concept intended is ephemeral.
Are these things decided intended to override individual free will on things that do not harm any other?
Is the things collectively decided to be enforced by threat, duress, and coercion?
In other words is the collective decision to be enforced by extortion?

➽ Though they may get together with each other or with person A to gain the influence needed to compete.

Sorry. Non sequitur in my mind. I don't follow what you are attempting to present.
Compete? Competition? Like drug lords competing over territory?

➽ This is why, in the absence of a formal government, the government always arises as an oligarchy, and with sufficient fighting among the oligarchs, often becomes a monarchy in order to create peace through final arbitration between the lords.
This is what the evidence of history shows. Yes, there have been some small pockets of anarchism in history, but very few and far between and all dissolved into what are now the current governments of the world.

Formal government? Voltaire...
Note to self: You haven't returned to topic of government.

Oligarchy?
n. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
n. Those making up such a government.

Like the present 537 (house of reps, senate, prez and v-prez) presently ruling approximately 320 to 340 million?

I challenge your claim "dissolved" into what are now the current governments of the world.
Conquered is the word I would use.

I would like to calendar a discussion of "We the People" for later. I want to stay focused on the post I'm replying to for now.

Reply Part 3.

➽ The world is the way it is for a reason.

On this specific point, I agree with you.
As to what that reason is, we have some discussing to do.

➽ That reason is the nature of humanity.

I agree, but with caveats to be revealed as we discuss.

➽ Government is not necessary

You anarchist you. /sarcasm

➽ Government is not necessary, but it is inevitable.

I disagree on inevitable. I do agree with highly probable.

➽ Railing against the inevitable I find to be a fairly useless venture as it simply ends up being another violent bid for control of society.

I would be insulted and offended if not for the fact that I know you presently do not know or understand my perspective(s) based upon where I am standing and what vista I am seeing. Because of this perspective, I see you implying that those who think as I want control of society. Stated bluntly, you are wrong. The discussion you and I are having is NOT a railing against the inevitable. My intent is to offer education to others as to a different way of looking at things. An endeavor you are assisting me with by our discussion. When I interact online with someone such as your self, I am very aware that my words could be read by anybody. So thank you for your assist, though it may not seem as such.

Words and reason, not weapons and war.

➽ That is why I tend to focus solely on the individual and voluntaryism in personal relationships. That is why I say that voluntaryism and anarchy are truly the epitome of a conflation error.

Getting back to the term "government".

While your observation was about how the world got to where it is as to being "governed", I am focused on and concerned about what the present reality is.

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

What, Factually, is Government?
Is not 'government' merely men and women who are called 'government'. Are these men and women demigods with supernatural powers to protect us from chaos, terrorists, dictators, tyrants, criminals, and things that go thump in the night? Or are they merely nothing more than men and women?

The Truth of Government
What our 'government' "IS",  will be shown and proven by its actions.

If you want to learn what a person "IS", you only need to observe certain actions by the person in question.  You know what the person in question "IS" if you observe this person murder, rape, rob, steal, lie, enslave or terrorize.

Likewise, to learn what a 'government' in question "IS", you only need to observe certain actions by the 'government' in question.  If a 'government' murders, rapes, robs, steals, lies, enslaves, or terrorizes, then you know what that 'government' "IS".

For brevity I'll only list section heads:
The Truth of Government On Protecting Real Estate
The Truth of Government On Protecting Personal Property
The Truth of Government On Protecting Liberty
The Truth of Government On Protecting Life
The Truth of Government On Police Protection

⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑ ⚐ ⚑

I see you presenting government here as some overarching terrorist threat to our lives. And to some degree that is true.

I see you have said "words and reason, not weapons and war", but I would say this is an unreasonable tenet. Words and reason have very little power against weapons and war.

The reality is that whether or not you believe in "authority" it will not stop those with guns coming for you for violating their "rules" and "politician's opinions."

Reason is quite a late comer to the human condition. And it is quite weak in its weight because you first have to have someone capable of understanding the reason. Most people can't understand either intellectually or emotionally because of a lack of interest or conflict of interest.

My philosophy leans toward the use of nepotism and tribalism for liberation. No matter what reason you have, if you show that you care about the family and friends of someone, then they are far more likely to tolerate and even like you. Arguing incessantly about opposing viewpoints is more likely to create distrust and discord which only increases the likelihood of weapons and war.

Political powers and corporate powers will do what they do. There is nothing you can do to stop them.

What is of paramount importance is that you sow seeds of trust and brotherhood among all those you interact with. Trust is the foundation of relationships. Trusting relationships are the foundation of the effectiveness of words and reason.

I understand the reasoning behind the way you present government and authority. I'm not even disagreeing with it really. What I disagree with is your lack of personal tailoring to the individual.

You rail against my words as if you're attempting to convince me of something that I don't already agree with. The truth is, though that I simply think that such arguments are ineffective and do more damage to trusting relationships than good. That's speaking from personal experience, of course. I used to make the same sort of arguments (nearly verbatim) to others. I found it did more to create a bubble of isolation rather than a coming together of people.

After all, it is the convergence of the hearts and minds of people that is required to combat such evils as do exist. And such evils as do exist don't exist in nebulous concepts such as "government" and "authority." We might as well be fighting a war on "terror" or "drugs" or "poverty."

The things that are truly important are family and friends and brotherhood. That those closest to you understand on a basic level the way that you want to be treated in a voluntary way while underlining how you will only treat them in a voluntary way with your behavior in your personal relationships is the pinnacle of allowing them to see for themselves the corruption of their other relationships for themselves without you every having to make the first argument.

Trustworthiness before all: the first and most noble endeavor of the human individual. When you desire all your relationships to be as rich and fulfilling as those who respect each other's free will, who will fail to see the evil in the world? And when those who been bonded in such a way come under attack, who will fail to defend that way of life?

Reply part 1.
My first order of business is to express my appreciation to you. I know what it takes to write posts that deal with substantial topics in other than the written equivalent of sound bites. So again, Thank you for your time and attention to our discussion.

➽ I see you presenting government here as some overarching terrorist threat to our lives. And to some degree that is true.

I parse your statement as saying there is "some" agreement and as saying there is "some" disagreement.

Voltaire's admonition: Define terms in order to communicate.

So what do each of us mean when we use the words: government, terrorist, and threat to our lives?

First pass: In my book, Government is merely a collection of men and women employed as officers, agents, and employees of the "legal fiction"; the "fictional entity"; the "fictional person"; the "corporate person" called government. Much like General Motors or Walmart employ officers, agents, and employees.

(Side note: A "corporate person" is not the same as a "human" person. Much confusion follows from the equivocation caused by this.)

In my book, a Terrorist is somebody who uses Extortion to scare people into obeying.
In my book, a threat to one's life is the Extortion promised for non-compliance, as is the threat to cage somebody or take their property for non-compliance.

As I wrote: First pass. I will refine my terms more as we go.

➽ I see you have said "words and reason, not weapons and war", but I would say this is an unreasonable tenet. Words and reason have very little power against weapons and war.

You have omitted the context. By oversight or by intent, it matters not. I'll just put the omitted context back on the table.

You previously wrote:
Railing against the inevitable I find to be a fairly useless venture as it simply ends up being another violent bid for control of society.

In response I previously wrote:
I see you implying that those who think as I want control of society. Stated bluntly, you are wrong.

I'll submit that those already in control of society use violence to control society. They are not using words and reason. They are threatening violence. They also omit full disclosure of the reality that they will and do escalate force until you comply, are caged, or submit. These violent criminals ruling society have managed to condition those ruled to not see that every law is "COMPLY OR DIE".

Attempting to use violence against these existing violent rulers gives these violent rulers the excuse they are looking for to justify THEIR use of violence. Those violent rulers will present the bold faced lie to the public: "We are protecting you from those violent criminals that want to take your way of life from you."

Words and reason will show everybody that a criminal syndicate is violently in control of society.

Mahatma Gandhi. Martin Luther King Jr. Nelson Mandela.
Non-violent civil disobedience!

➽ The reality is that whether or not you believe in "authority" it will not stop those with guns coming for you for violating their "rules" and "politician's opinions."

Since authority has not been examined in discussion, I'm presently ignoring that part of your sentence to parse the remaining as you admitting that those called police will be coming for me with their guns to extort me for money or control, no different than any other street gang showing their gang colors.

"Authority" is what those claiming their opinions are rules are claiming they have. Without everybody believing in that bogus "authority" it becomes clear that the criminal syndicate errantly called the government is no different than any armed robber.

Now since you specifically mention police, I'm assuming you mean government police and not gangsta enforcers, They claim "authority" for their actions. What happens when that "authority" is proven non-existent? Can anybody rule if nobody obeys?

"No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free.  No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
- Robert A. Heinlein

I am aware of the "War Lords will take over in the power vacuum' argument. I don't see any difference between the War Lords ruling a third world territory and the War Lords currently ruling the Middle North American territory called the U.S. of A.

"Authority..." Another term to be defined per Volltare's communication admonition, which is why I stated that "I would like to calendar a discussion of authority for later." I still do.

➽ Reason is quite a late comer to the human condition. And it is quite weak in its weight because you first have to have someone capable of understanding the reason. Most people can't understand either intellectually or emotionally because of a lack of interest or conflict of interest.

I actually agree with most of that statement.
Reason, a.k.a. Critical Thinking, is a skill. This skill can be learned; this skill can be taught.
I submit that this skill can not be taught, learned, or practiced when the narrative is controlled so that no ideas contradicting the government narrative are presented.

I can not imagine any government school ever putting Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON on any required reading list. Nor can I imagine any government school ever putting Frederic Bastiat's THE LAW on any required reading list. Those two writings can cause people to not think in a "government" approved manner.

➽ My philosophy leans toward the use of nepotism and tribalism for liberation.

Liberation from what? Voltaire's Admonition.

Nepotism: Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business.
Nepotism: Favoritism shown to nephews and other relatives; patronage bestowed in consideration of family relationship and not of merit.
Nepotism: Undue attachment to relations; favoritism shown to members of one's family; bestowal of patronage in consideration of relationship, rather than of merit or of legal claim.

Nepotism = Liberation from what?
Sorry. Not following; not understanding what you are attempting to communicate.

Tribalism: The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
Tribalism: A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
Tribalism: The state of existing in separate tribes; tribal relation or feeling.

Tribalism = Liberation from what?
Sorry. Not following; not understanding what you are attempting to communicate.

➽ No matter what reason you have, if you show that you care about the family and friends of someone, then they are far more likely to tolerate and even like you. Arguing incessantly about opposing viewpoints is more likely to create distrust and discord which only increases the likelihood of weapons and war.

I don't even know where to start with this comment. It looks like a red herring to me. It also looks like some of your emotionalism leaking out. It also seems a non sequitur to me.

➽ Political powers and corporate powers will do what they do. There is nothing you can do to stop them.

Car-jackers and armed robber will do what they do. There is nothing you can do to stop them.

'Nuff said?

➽ What is of paramount importance is that you sow seeds of trust and brotherhood among all those you interact with. Trust is the foundation of relationships. Trusting relationships are the foundation of the effectiveness of words and reason.

You be preachin' at me, preacher.

I counter that truth is the foundation of the effectiveness of words and reason; Lies are not.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
Patrick Henry

Reply part 2
➽ I understand the reasoning behind the way you present government and authority. I'm not even disagreeing with it really. What I disagree with is your lack of personal tailoring to the individual.

Perhaps you are correct about my process showing the truth: Larken Rose: Candles in the Dark.
Perhaps you're not: There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See.

I take your statement of "tailoring" to be a continuation of your complaint of my Amoeba Rant.

As I wrote in that rant, If you think I am writing about you, I probably am. Which means you will react to what I am writing about you... Just like the Amoebidae Homo Sapiens that you are... reacting without thinking. You may even be so full of bad feelz, your reaction to the stimuli of my writing, that you discontinue reading what I've written. Thus proving my point of Amoebas being cowards.

If I wasn't writing about you (any you), then you have the option of reading the rest of my website.

➽ You rail against my words as if you're attempting to convince me of something that I don't already agree with. The truth is, though that I simply think that such arguments are ineffective and do more damage to trusting relationships than good. That's speaking from personal experience, of course. I used to make the same sort of arguments (nearly verbatim) to others. I found it did more to create a bubble of isolation rather than a coming together of people.

You claim you used to make the same sort of arguments nearly verbatim... Sorry, I don't perceive that in your words.

The words I rail against are your words that appear to present arguments for government. Words such as: "It is the duty of a governing body to create laws for the region which it services." And: "Without such a centralized body, then how would people know what the laws were?"; "Government arises from natural order."

➽ After all, it is the convergence of the hearts and minds of people that is required to combat such evils as do exist. And such evils as do exist don't exist in nebulous concepts such as "government" and "authority." We might as well be fighting a war on "terror" or "drugs" or "poverty."

I directly and vehemently deny your claim!

I direct your attention to what I previously wrote regarding: "The Truth of Government". It is the existence of nebulous concepts such as "government" and "authority that allow and cause evil to be done. The "war on "terror" or "drugs" or "poverty"" is doing evil by government.

I'm not even going to attempt to address your last two paragraphs.