DG

[Dale Eastman]

DG on her own FB timeline.

Wow, those two old, delusional, demented, power-happy, narcissistic, predatory perverts are actually going to have a "debate"? Oh well, this ought to do wonders for people's faith in the glory and legitimacy of our benevolent ruling class.

He can be all those things. He's still the greatest president we ever had.

Who is this "we"?

You can hate him all you want. Your ignorance in all things politics doesn't change the fact that he's still the greatest president ever

You confuse my indifference with hate.

If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death.

If you vote for a politician to become a Mayor, Governor, or President,
You vote for a person to enforce the rules made by Legislators.
You vote for somebody to make people obey or kill people if they resist.

Thus, If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.

Your ignorance of your enslavement and indoctrination doesn't change the fact that you are NOT living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

For that reason, I hope you will continue to learn about Larken Rose and his attempt to deprogram statist thinking.

That's why we're taking it back so that it is no longer corrupt. #Trump2020

To put a coarse point on my position.

Larken Rose is a tool. A low-IQ individual who thought he could boycott taxes and ended up in jail and many years later broke up a marriage sleeping with a married woman. I saw his "dot" video. Great if you're a three year old. He can't debate for sh**.
I am well aware that there is corruption and we aren't 100% free. Still the most free country on Earth. Still the greatest country to have ever existed. You can abandon it and moan and whine all you want. The rest of us will be attempting to make our country better than it has ever been.

➽ That's why we're taking it back so that it is no longer corrupt. #Trump2020

Reading challenged?

Repeat:
➽ If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.

Don't worry, facebook won't censor you. They love your types. They only censor people who speak truth.

"If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system." That's why you vote for people who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals". Jesus you sound like your avg low-IQ Larken bot. Can't you come up with an original thought on your own?

Sorry for taking so long to get back to your posts. I was saving our discussion on my website. I do that. I keep records of conversations for review to make sure questions I ask are answered. I also anonymize those I converse with by using just the initials. Plus it takes time to compose thoughtful posts.

That's done, so back to the discussion.

➽ Larken Rose is a tool. A low-IQ individual who thought he could boycott taxes and ended up in jail [...]

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

➽ He can't debate for sh**.

Pot-Kettle-Black.

What, specifically, do YOU know about the tax law? Let's see if you even have enough knowledge to discuss the ins and outs of Larken's entire interaction with "The Dragon."

➽ Larken Rose is a tool. A low-IQ individual who [...] many years later broke up a marriage sleeping with a married woman.

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

➽ He can't debate for sh**.

Pot-Kettle-Black.

Also, Since you and I do not know shit about Amanda's previous relationship with her ex, neither you nor I have any information to discuss on the topic with anybody. And in case you're still a virgin, It takes two to fuck.

And I did see that vid by Amanda's ex. The man was hurting. I am empathetic to that hurt because of my own failed marriage from other incompatibility issues. Yet I as a divorced man have a shit-load of questions that are none of my business to ask.

➽ I am well aware that there is corruption and we aren't 100% free.

That is, IMO, a good starting point. I emphasize STARTING point.

➽ Still the most free country on Earth. Still the greatest country to have ever existed.

I acknowledge that you have stated your "opinion". I challenge you for stating your mere opinion as if it is a provable fact.
What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?

➽ You can abandon it and moan and whine all you want.

You mean like you whine and moan about the "other" candidate in the popularity contest?

See, For me, the issue is Liberty and Freedom, not "country".
IMO, you do not understand Liberty and Freedom. You do not understand what Larken thinks about Liberty and Freedom. You do not understand what I think about Liberty and Freedom. You do not understand what other who think like Larken and I I think about Liberty and Freedom.

➽ The rest of us will be attempting to make our country better than it has ever been.

Before any of the rest of you can "attempt" to make something better, you need to understand what is wrong, what is broken. You need to fully "Grok" the problem. IMO, you do not. And that is what this discussion will bring to light. Not just for you and I, but for any silent reader.

⚠ It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope and pride. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.⛔
≈ Patrick Henry ≈

I do not think you are "willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst". How long you choose to continue our discussion will prove the point one way or the other.

➽ Jesus you sound like your avg low-IQ Larken bot. Can't you come up with an original thought on your own?

Beside the fact that you just did a second ad hominem (fallacy), I have a website filled with my "thoughts".

But I interpret your fluttering fingers as claiming the thoughts about Liberty, Freedom, what they are, and how to introduce the concepts to voting statist bots is not something original.

Me ➽ "If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system."
You ➽ That's why you vote for people who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals".

Translation "That's why you vote for a different gang of criminals who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals"."

➽ Can't you come up with an original thought on your own?

Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the Wittenburg church door,
Larken Rose mailed his thesis to Spaulding, the IRS whore,
Pope Leo X with Exsurge Domine answered with logic and fact,
The IRS having none chose to attack.

Larken, oh Larken, how dare you believe,
To ignore the IRS and their attempt to deceive,
We told you, we told you, we told you they chant,
But answers to questions they refuse to grant.

At your insistence twelve hundred did ask,
Six simple questions, that was our task,
Should I use this section and what does it say,
About how much taxes I really must pay.

We all must have mistakenly used invisible ink,
Or else the IRS chose not to think,
The answer they sent was only a threat,
If you ask these questions you will soon regret.

The IRS again and again chose to be truthless,
You didn't back down, so they got ruthless,
You are the one they put in a cage,
But I sit at the keyboard livid with rage.

Eventually we hope the truth will leak out,
So people will learn what eight sixty one's about,
It's actually no longer about payment of taxes,
It's about the Fed's choice to whack us with axes.

NeoCons are nazis with classier attire,
But still want to put Larken's book in a fire,
The story of Larken, this he has written,
Buy it and read it before it is smitten.

https://larkenrose.com/blog/861-blog/1625--sp-77951783.html

"Ad hominem bla bla bla" --- Ad hominem attacks are 100% acceptable when it matches up with what is being said.

"What, specifically, do YOU know about the tax law?" I'm not a tax lawyer and neither are you. And neither is Larken. I know what I need to know. A society needs taxes to function. He broke the law and went to jail for it.

"You attempted to manipulate an emotional response bla bla bla"
No. I'm clearly stating the reasons as to why I think he is a scumbag.

"I acknowledge that you have stated your "opinion". I challenge you for stating your mere opinion as if it is a provable fact.
What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?"

I'm not entertaining your ridiculous rhetorical question if it's gonna be based on semantics.

"IMO, you do not understand Liberty and Freedom"

I bathe in liberty and freedom. I know the Larken bots all too well. A bunch of communists in denial. Anarchism is a joke. If you clowns got your way we'd be speaking Chinese or Arabic within a week and then you can pretend to know all about liberty and freedom and what it takes to preserve/expand it.

You've got a lot of "IMO" and assumptions here. Says a lot about you.

"Translation "That's why you vote for a different gang of criminals who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals"."

No. The translation is you vote for people who aren't criminals, so they themselves can s hut the criminals down. That's right, people who are NOT criminals are allowed to run and they often do. Not everyone who runs by default is a criminal. Some of them aren't running to simply secure more power for themselves. Anarchist Larken bots seem to have a problem with distinguishing between these two things.

Larken and his team of mindless bots to me, are the flat Earthers of politics.

I can't believe you're comparing that pudgy commie little ginger wife-stealing midg** to any historical figures. Hilarious. And the poem is lame.

➽ "Ad hominem bla bla bla" --- Ad hominem attacks are 100% acceptable when it matches up with what is being said.

Wait! Didn't you claim LR "can't debate for sh**".

Scrolls up... Reads... Scrolls down.

Yep. that's what you wrote:
➽ He can't debate for sh**.

Didn't I post what an ad hominem is?

Scrolls up... Reads... Scrolls down.

Yep. That's what I posted:

➽ Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Didn't I call you on your Pot-Kettle-Black?

Scrolls up... Reads... Scrolls down.

Yep. That's what I posted. Perhaps you didn't comprehend what I meant and intended. Lemme help you increase your lexicon.

⚠ "The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that may be of Spanish origin, of which English versions began to appear in the first half of the 17th century. The idiom is glossed in the original sources as being used by a person who is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another and is thus an example of psychological projection, or hypocrisy.⛔ Wikipedia

Why are you refusing to engage on what YOU posted, which sure looks to me that you "can't debate for sh**."

Looking forward to Larken coming on and refusing to debate. He'll go about it as your avg leftist does... Avoid giving any sort of rebuttal and resort to insults. And he is a leftist. Being in denial about it doesn't change anything.

➽ Looking forward to Larken coming on and refusing to debate.

You mean like you, already refusing to debate?

➽ I'm not entertaining your ridiculous rhetorical question if it's gonna be based on semantics.

⚠ semantics n. The study or science of meaning in language.⛔

Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.

The questions are only rhetorical to those who refuse to debate concepts.

Refusing to debate? Just because you don't like the answers I'm giving doesn't mean I'm not debating.
Larken isn't going to "debate" me. I was 100% civil years ago when I attempted to debate him. Got him to say a few things but he would never answer my questions. I asked him the same exact 1 or 2 questions about half a dozen times over a span of a few weeks and he always avoided them. I finally asked the same questions but I included an insult in attempt to goad him into giving me an answer. The coward instead blocked me. This was on my main account of which fb permabanned a year and a half ago.
Larken is a coward. He doesn't have the brains to debate me.

He's old news. He's never gonna put out new, relevant info. He's too incompetent. He couldn't even if he wanted because his philosophy is too simplistic. It doesn't leave room for expansion. He can't see outside the box.

I would imagine that the real world confuses him which would explain why he could never answer my questions. He couldn't even give a wrong answer to my questions he would just ignore them entirely. Perhaps because I completely destroyed his ideology and therefore it was best for him to just ignore me altogether. Best to keep his scam going. Last thing he wants to do is adapt to reality. Best to ignore anything that might contradict that. He has his entire life invested in anarchism. His entire career. Your avg "anarchist" who has nothing to lose is usually too stubborn to concede. I don't expect some loser who scammed thousands of people for years to do the right thing and be a man... A man doesn't sleep with another man's wife so there's that.

Your "leader" is sitting on the sidelines picking his nose, convincing people not to vote because he's dumb enough to believe Trump and Biden are the same. At this point in time you have to be dumber than a rock to not see the difference. This bozo is keeping his zealots in line, making sure they step aside, continuing to boycott the vote.
You think fb wants to censor you? FB loves you. They want as many liberty-oriented people as possible not voting. I suspect there is some big money behind the anarchist movement. It wouldn't surprise me if even the LP has some shady backers. The Chinese gov loves "anarchists". As long as you keep promoting the abolition of our gov while continuing to brainwash people to boycott the system, you'll continue to be their best friends.

Larken should have made CHAZ his home while he had the chance. Perhaps he thinks he could have saved it or made it function better. I would have paid to see that.

You're welcome to put all of that on your "website". Can use my real name if you wish and link to my profile.

➽ Refusing to debate? Just because you don't like the answers I'm giving doesn't mean I'm not debating.

➽ I'm not entertaining your ridiculous rhetorical question if it's gonna be based on semantics.

⚠ semantics n. The study or science of meaning in language.⛔

Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.

➽ The rest of us will be attempting to make our country better than it has ever been.

What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?

Sotto voce: I hope I don't have to limit myself to monosyllable words.

You asked me what the word country means. That's what I was responding to with my "semantics" comment. I have no interest in giving you the satisfaction of your low-IQ "anarchist" Red Amendment nonsensical made-up talking point.

While you're at it could you upload this vid to your website as well? It explains the failure of your philosophy. It was made about 20 years ago so it doesn't include exactly how we'd lose our country in today's terms if you and your buddies get what they want. In today's world, the Chinese or whoever the central banking oligarch decides will have all the fun, will come straight into our country the second you and your buddies destabilize it. You and Larken will have your own CHAZ communities for a few days. Maybe a week or two and then you'll be forced into a Chinese-American concentration camp having a cattle prod shoved up your ***. The Chinese owns the democrats by the way. They don't own Trump or his loyalists... But yea, Biden and Trump are totally the same thing. Way to adapt to reality. Keep preaching your philosophy though. I'm sure you can convince a majority of the population to have the logic of a 3 year old. It's totally a marketing problem on your end and in no way a logic problem. In no way is your "philosophy" flawed...

➽ You asked me what the word country means. That's what I was responding to with my "semantics" comment. I have no interest in giving you the satisfaction of your low-IQ "anarchist" Red Amendment nonsensical made-up talking point.

Translation: I don't wanna explain what I mean because then that nasty man will challenge me when I attempt to obfuscate with deliberate equivocation. If that nasty man knows what I'm trying to say, he might actually address what I'm attempting to present.

Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.

Refuses to define terms used:
Refuses to communicate using defined terms:
so yes - Refuses to debate.

Third inquiry: What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?
 

You seem to be stuck on this whole country thing. Perhaps it's some sort of disability of yours. A handicap. You also seem to be getting more and more pretentious every time you repeat yourself. Here. I'll entertain your ridiculousness while you avoid literally every other thing I've said. I don't expect you to give me anything that resembles a rebuttal when it comes to everything else I've said. You'll ignore it and stick to the game plan which is continue to indirectly promote communism (anarchism). And if that confuses you, read my last comment very slowly and watch the video.

By the way. When you ask someone a rhetorical question and they refuse to answer, it's your job to answer the question for them and then get to the point, so you can move on and actually continue to participate in the debate. THat's how it's done.

I love how Larkin is hiding behind you right now. Letting his cultists do the talking for him. Makes him feel big which is important since he's very tiny. He's probably gorging down on milkshakes right now fantasizing about how he could use you as a general in the next CHAZ.

NB Be a pal and wait for awhile. Don't give DG any more distractions. That's why I have limited the number of words I'm using with her.

➽ You seem to be stuck on this whole country thing. Perhaps it's some sort of disability of yours. A handicap.

And you seem to be stuck on avoiding what YOU mean. Perhaps it's some sort of disability of yours. A handicap.

➽ I'll entertain your ridiculousness while you avoid literally every other thing I've said.

And I'll entertain yours while you ignore that you are hypocritically calling me by your maiden name.

⚠ "The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that may be of Spanish origin, of which English versions began to appear in the first half of the 17th century. The idiom is glossed in the original sources as being used by A PERSON WHO IS GUILTY FO THE VERY THING OF WHICH THEY ACCUSE ANOTHER and is thus an example of psychological projection, or HYPOCRISY.⛔ Wikipedia

➽ I don't expect you to give me anything that resembles a rebuttal when it comes to everything else I've said.

Go look up "Gish gallop".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

You don't know me, so for you to know what to expect from me... You must be a clairvoyant. And not a very good one.
Remember, I told you a keep copies of my dialogs. Just so I don't forget anything I might want to address. Once you settle down and focus, we can go through all your claims one by one.

➽ You'll ignore it and stick to the game plan which is continue to indirectly promote communism (anarchism).

Once you settle down and focus, we can go through all your claims one by one.

➽ By the way. When you ask someone a rhetorical question and they refuse to answer, it's your job to answer the question for them and then get to the point, so you can move on and actually continue to participate in the debate. THat's how it's done.

Really? Who made you the boss of me? Who says your edict has any authority over me?

Just because you dictate that my questions are rhetorical, does NOT make them rhetorical.

[My] questions are only rhetorical to those who refuse to debate concepts. I do this to nip equivocation in the bud before continuing with any discussion(s).

Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended. Wikipedia.

I've even OCR'd the definition of country you posted... For later discussion.

I'm not reading all of that nonsense right now. I'll check it out maybe later tonight. I personally don't like to repeat myself. I find it offensive. You seem to love it though. I can only tolerate so much stupid at one time so I will therefore continue this sometime in the next 24 hours. Gotta run, take care of some things and then watch the "debate" tonight.

If I don't respond you can assume Larken blocked me. If I do not respond, you are welcome to friend me or private msg me and it will be continued.

I appreciate your offer to continue. Thank you.

Like I wrote, I keep copies of dialogs I'm involved in so I can review the discussion. In doing so I see I have been unable to get you focused in a manner so that I can work with you to help you understand what I am driving at. That error is mine. Since I have been a PITA in regard to the meaning, and I still intend to present my point, I've brought your comments using the word "country" out of that record. Another word for PITA is pedantic.

➽ Still the most free country on Earth. Still the greatest country to have ever existed.
➽ It was made about 20 years ago so it doesn't include exactly how we'd lose our country[...]
➽ [...]will come straight into our country[...]
➽ You seem to be stuck on this whole country thing.

You made a claim that something is the most free on Earth. And then you claimed that the something is the greatest to have ever existed. You then made a claim about loosing that thing. And last, you correctly observed that I seem to be stuck on the something thing.

For context and to attempt to understand your thinking, I ask: Tell me about someone who is 50% a slave.

Alright I just read the last 3 things you said. You didn't say anything of relevance as far as politics goes. This is a political debate.
Your final paragraph is the only thing that is on topic so I'll answer that. A slave is someone who has zero freedoms and doesn't get paid money. We are 0% slaves. Nobody owns me. Participating in a civil society means you have to follow rules. If you break those rules, you lose your freedoms. Having rules doesn't make us slaves.

And I didn't delete the screen shot for the definition of country.

I didn't say you did. I deleted the OCR of the screenshot via editing of that post. I'll see what I can edit into the post so it makes a more easily understandable message. Sorry.

I gave a description of how Anarchism leads to communism and how China will take us right over during the confusion if anarchists get what they want and they take down our government. I have yet to see you say one thing in response to any of that. Kinda a major claim I made I would think you'd wanna address it... I also posted this video and you didn't say a word about it. I'm only interested in staying on topic not debating about the definition of the word country or all that other non-related gibberish.

I'll put the link to your vid here when I have one that I can click, not on fecesbook.

And I'd like a link to your website please.

^^ That right there is also specifically what Larken Rose refused to respond to. Tried to get him to talk about it about half a dozen times. Not a peep. He only acknowledges low-hanging fruit, never anything that contradicts and actually destroys his commie-philosophy. (I gave a description of how Anarchism leads to communism and how China will take us right over during the confusion if anarchists get what they want and they take down our government. I have yet to see you say one thing in response to any of that. Kinda a major claim I made I would think you'd wanna address it... I also posted this video and you didn't say a word about it. I'm only interested in staying on topic not debating about the definition of the word country or all that other non-related gibberish.)

Per your request:
http://wwwDOTsynapticsparksDOTinfo/dialog/index.php?topic=737.0

FecesBook censors dot info TLD's so you will need to edit the link to make it usable.

This link takes you to where our discussion is saved. No reason you can't use it as I do--- To remind of what I don't want to forget and thus ignore.

I will assume you know how to work your way up the directory tree to get to the rest.

Please note that I may spend as much as an hour or five composing my posts. I do take most discussions of substance seriously. IMO, our discussion is about serious substance.

Now back to the not so easy (meaning you make me have to think) posts of yours.

You may note that I update the page with my replies before you see them on FecesBook. I find it easier to compose where a mistaken [enter] key in place of [shift]+[enter] for a line feed posts a message before it's complete.

I might have to transcribe the video you posted. So I can grok the message. I will give you THAT consideration since you have agreed to continue the convo. Might take some time. Of course, on a discussion of substance, I don't care how many days it takes to complete.

It's always funny watching some self-important random online boot-licking, statist twit declaring how I don't dare to debate them, and that I "refused to respond" to some bullshit I hadn't even noticed. It's even funnier when such twits ON MY PAGE accuse me of blocking them. Deborah, you don't matter. You are making precisely no difference. You are one more duped dumbshit bickering over WHICH politician should own your stupid ass. You think your whiny noise matters. It doesn't.

Larken Rose
1. I own a group with 200k people, pages with about 500k people. Made a few documentaries back in the day. Am no doubt more skilled in After Effects, computer programming. Am more knowledgeable about virtually any topic, probably even your favorite topics. I can guarantee you that I've talked to people far more interesting than anyone you've spoken to before. I can guarantee you that I've witnessed far more interesting things than you. Even my uncle, my mentor is exponentially more accomplished than you. One of the first 50 libertarians in this country. Private 1 on 1 lectures with Mises. Best friends with Murray Rothbard (both he and my aunt were). He was one of the lawyers for Abbie Hoffman. He participated in the "raising of the pyramid" protest and has been fighting the FDA in court for over 30 years.
2. You are nothing dude. You are completely full of yourself. I was at Porcfest about 10 years ago and I remember you standing there all by yourself expecting people to praise you as they ALL walked by and ignored you. I kinda felt sorry for you at that moment but I sure as hell don't now after the scumbag things you've done and said.
3. You're lying. I know for fact you saw my comments back in the day because we went back and forth at least half a dozen times. I'd tag you and you'd tag me just like you are right now. And then I'd bring up that one talking point (how anarchism will let China takeover our gov - #5 below) and I'd tag you and I'd ask you very politely every time what you think about that scenario. And that's when you bailed, like clockwork. Not a word. Played that scenario out over a few weeks at least half a dozen times. You're a coward dude. You're not a man. You don't intimidate me one bit.
4. You made one shtty video that went viral of which was so simplistic in thought, that every simple-minded person out there flocked to it like flies on sht. If you were actually legitimate, you would have been banned off of social media like I was long ago. But you're not. You're not a threat to the Silicon Valley oligarch or their masters. You're either delusional or a willing shill for serious big money. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're just delusional. The globalists/communists love you. They need people like you shut people down, convincing them to stay out of their way. You are their favorite type of person. You encourage thousands of people to stay out of their way so that they can accomplish their most sinister plans.
5. I can't copy/paste verbatim exactly what I wanted you to answer years ago because my fb account was permanently removed off of fb's servers, but it was something like what I mentioned up above. This ---> "In today's world, the Chinese or whoever the central banking oligarch decides will have all the fun, will come straight into our country the second you and your buddies destabilize it. You and Larken will have your own CHAZ communities for a few days. Maybe a week or two and then you'll be forced into a Chinese-American concentration camp having a cattle prod shoved up your ***. The Chinese owns the democrats by the way. They don't own Trump or his loyalists... But yea, Biden and Trump are totally the same thing. Way to adapt to reality. Keep preaching your philosophy of "Anarchism" though. I'm sure you can convince a majority of the population to have the logic of a 3 year old and embrace anarchism. It's totally a marketing problem on your end you just have to try harder. In no way a logic problem. In no way is your "philosophy" flawed... Keep preaching "anarchism" so you can have more "freedom and liberty" I'm sure China will bring you and your buddies all sorts of new freedoms."
6. I have zero expectations when it comes to you giving me a straight answer. When I think Larken Rose, integrity isn't what comes to mind. Pudgy ginger flying on a unicorn at the edge of the flat Earth's ice wall shouting at the top of his lungs that everyone should move down there and live with with you, with you as their guru, is what comes to mind. I don't take you very seriously if you have't noticed.

1) none of your boasting--whether accurate or not--has anything to do with whether you are making ANY lasting impact on the world, or anyone's viewpoint.
2) The fact that you mindless believe and repeat idiotic online gossip, as if that is a super-reliable source of info, shows exactly how worthwhile your opinion is. Also, that WILL get you blocked. As demonstrated.
3) Do you have any idea how many stupid comments from stupid statists I see? If you think that me not responding to one means I don't dare to debate someone, then you're kind of an imbecile.
4) You claim to be a threat to the establishment ... while advocating a ruling class. That's cute.
5) Thanks for the example of why you are too stupid to be worth talking to. "IF WE AREN'T CONTROLLED BY A RULING CLASS, SOME RULING CLASS MIGHT COME AND CONTROL US!" Dumbass.
6) Have fun kissing that orange fascist ass. Bye.

Edit: Correct typo.

Larken Rose I dunno if you blocked her or not. It's nine hours after your post. If you would leave her unblocked, I'd be happy to continue my discussion with her.

The participants are her, I, the lurkers and the passers-by. Educational fun for everyone.

With your notoriety and all the people you've meet, dunno if you remember me. Scrambled eggs and a place to park in Michigan.

I'm interested in taking her points and examining them one by one. I'll spend the time... You only have to correct me if I incorrectly speak for you.

Oh, and protect your keyboard or UI device before reading.

Jump Scroll to next discussion comment





10471244_757346444306369_4104544600856 42694_n.jpg

[Dale Eastman]

posted: What is a Country?

A country is a self-governing political entity that has its own territory. There are close to 200 (196 to be precise)
independent countries in the world with South Sudan gaining independence from Sudan on July 9, 2011. It was
Kosovo before that to come into existence as a separate independent country when it gained independence
from Serbia in 2008. But can we say the same about the number of nations in the world? Certainly not, with a
Kurd nation within Iraq; and with Germany becoming a country as late as 1871 with a federal government
getting elected. Soviet Union, which was accepted as a country world over; was really a myth as it was made
up of around 15 nationalities that all got independence when USSR broke up in 1989. The two Germanys, the
East and the West; finally ceased to exist as two different countries as people living across the Great wall in
Berlin were the same. The culture; the language, and the people were same, which is why the two countries
came together with Berlin wall falling and a single country with German nationality came into existence.
It is clear then that a country may be comprised of more than a single nation. There is another possibility that
there may be a nation without an independent land of its own like Palestine nation in the Middle East. There
have been umpteen examples when a new country has come into existence from a country as there was a
group of people with a single culture that felt alienated within a larger country, and nationalistic feelings made
them revolt against the government. Let us see what the requirements to make up an independent country are.
It should have land and borders that are recognized internationally (there are exceptions as Taiwan is not
recognized by all countries of the world with China claiming the entire country).
It has a population that is more or less permanent.
It has control over its territory and no other country has any power over that territory.

[Dale Eastman]

364/1231 words.

At the other end we find Anarchy which means without government. Some people have looked over history and found that many of its worst crimes were committed by governments, so they decided having no government might be a good  idea. But this is a mistake because as the ancient Greeks stated, Without law there can be no freedom. Our founding fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized orderly society.

In a state of anarchy however every one has to guard Life, Liberty, and Property and the lives of family members. Everyone must be armed and movement is severely restricted because one's property has to protected at all times. Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding. A sheriff, a police force, or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place, the people were freer, they could leave their property, work in the fields and so on. In short the proper amount of government makes everyone freer.

There are some who advocate anarchy however, not because they want no government, but because they don't like what they have. They use anarchy as a tool for revolutionary change. The condition of anarchy is very much like a vacuum where something rushes in to fill it. These calculating anarchists work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism. Tragically the people living in such chaos often go to those best able to put an end to it. And beg them to take over and restore order. And who is best able to put an end to the chaos? The very people who started it.

The anarchists who created the problem then create a government run by them, an oligarchy... where they have total power. This is exactly what happened in Russia that led to Lenin taking total power and in Germany where Hitler's brown shirts created the chaos that brought him to power.

But anarchy isn't a stable form of government, it's a quick transition from something that exists to something desired by the power hungry. It's a temporary condition. And because it isn't permanent we eliminate it as well.

The word Democracy comes from two Greek words Demos meaning People and Kratein meaning to Rule. Democracy therefore means the rule of the people; Majority Rule. This of course sounds good but suppose the majority decides to take away one's home or business or children. Obviously there has to be a limit. The flaw in Democracy is that the majority isn't restrained. If more than half the people can be persuaded to want something in a Democracy, they rule.

What about Republic? Well that comes from the Latin Res meaning Thing and Publica meaning Public. It means the public thing, the law. A true Republic is one where the government is limited by law leaving the people alone.

America's founders had a clean slate to write on. The could have set up an oligarchy. In fact there were some who wanted George Washington to be their king. But the founding fathers knew history and they chose to give us the rule of law and a Republic, not the rule of a majority in a Democracy.

Why? Let's demonstrate the difference in the setting of the old west. Consider a lynch mob in a Democracy. Thirty five horseback riders chase one lone gunman. They catch him. And they vote thirty five to one to hang him. Democracy has triumphed. And there's one less gunman to contend with.

Now consider the same scenario with a Republic. The thirty five riders catch the gunman and vote thirty five to one to hang him. But the Sheriff arrives. He says, you can't kill him. He's got his right to a fare trial. So they take the gunman back to town. A jury of his peers is selected and they hear the evidence and the defense. And they decide if he shall hang. Does the jury even decide by majority rule? No. It has to be unanimous or he goes free. The rights of the gunman are not subject to majority rule, but to the law. This is the essence of a Republic. Many Americans would be surprised to learn the word Democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. Nor does it appear in any of the Constitutions of the Fifty States.

The founders did everything they could to keep us from having a Democracy. James Madison, rightly known as the father of the Constitution wrote in Essay number ten of the Federalist Papers, Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Alexander Hamilton agreed and he stated, We are a Republic Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.

Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence stated, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.

The founders had good reason to look upon Democracy with contempt because they knew that the democracies in the early Greek city states produced some of the wildest excesses of government ever imaginable. In every case they ended up with mob rule, then anarchy, and finally tyranny under an oligarchy

During that period in Greece there was a man named Solon who urged creation of a fixed body of law not subject to majority whims. But where the Greeks never adopted Solon's wise council the Romans did. Based on what they knew of Solon's laws they created the twelve tables of the Roman Law and in affect built a Republic that limited government power and left the people alone.

Since government was limited the people were free to produce with the understanding that they could keep the fruits of their labor. In time Rome became wealthy and the envy of the world. In the midst of plenty however the Roman people forgot what freedom entailed. They forgot that The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government.

When government power grows, people freedom recedes. Once the Romans dropped their guard power seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted them in the Roman Constitution. Some learned that they could elect politicians that would take property from some and give it to others. Agriculture subsidies were introduced, followed by housing and welfare programs. Inevitably taxes rose and controls over the private sector were imposed. Soon a number of Rome's producers could no longer make ends meet and they went on the dole. Productivity declined, shortages developed and mobs began roaming the street demanding bread and circuses from the government. Many were induced to trade freedom for security.

Eventually the whole system came crashing down. The went from a Republic to a Democracy and ended up with an oligarchy through a progression of the Caesars. Thus Democracy itself is not a stable a stable form of government. Instead it is the gradual transition from limited government to the unlimited rule of an oligarchy.

Knowing this we as American's are ultimately left with only two choices we can keep our Republic as Franklin put it or we will inevitably end up with an oligarchy. A tyranny of the elite.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=Solon+greek+body+of+law&ia=web

[Dale Eastman]

Quickest way to allow you to post is for you to comment to this post.
I will be editing this post later, as a Title explaining this series of posts.

Got curious about an hour ago and ended up watching his video from 2019 Anarchopulcho. Never really watched him speak before. I know that I said that I believe he's either not that smart or a shill... But after about 8 minutes of this video I'm thinking he's not a shill and he's far from stupid... But I still believe him to be wrong on his complete abandonment of government. I can respect that he used to be a "minarchist" even though he's "embarrassed" to admit it as he says. I suppose I myself am a minarchist. Glad to see that he's married. I have to know one thing though and it's gonna impact my attitude towards him and under normal circumstance this would be none of my business, but back in the day it was shoved in my face (as always happens when you're in the public eye). I didn't want to know but I was told anyway so now I have to ask this. His wife. Is she the same woman who I was referring to before when I said he broke up a marriage? If yes, then I take back what I said about regarding the marriage topic... If he ended up marrying the same woman who left her husband for him, then I can respect that 100%. And yes, if that is the case then I can promise I will be civil at all times. If not... I can promise to try my hardest but I'm never gonna be able to fully respect him in that case and every time I see a post of his in my feed it's gonna be in the back of my mind... So in that case I would probably not follow his posts and only get involved in debate if I'm ever tagged, which I would enjoy occasionally especially if you ever see an incredibly smart anarchist who is willing to debate. And if I am tagged, I will only debate whoever debates me and not bring Larken into it. That's the best I can do. I will leave him alone, yes. I won't have any expectations that he will join in on the debate. I won't goad him into joining in on the debate. .

I've had a chance to think on what has transpired in this discussion so far.

I think it is important to note that though we are very likely to have one hell of a war of words, neither of us want to live under tyranny. That is my impression of you from what you have posted so far. Now, how to prevent that... That's gonna be one heck of a discussion.

As a technical guy who is good a fixing things, I know that one absolutely MUST understand the problem before one can know what the best action to resolve the problem is. It is on this point that I have no doubt that you and I do not see the issues the same. I'm having an internal dilemma because I'm pretty sure you don't fully understand what Larken is about. And I don't want to put myself in a situation of defending the man, nor being an apologist for the man. Now his thoughts, that's another story. How many of his books are you aware of? (Not that important, thus a 95% rhetorical question.) I ask because I have read TMDS, and IMO that book is a both a bellwether and a Litmus test for Liberty.

Now, On to your video and the words thereof.

Now, On to your video and the words thereof.

364 of the 1231 words in that video actually address "anarchy".

➽ At the other end we find Anarchy which means without government. Some people have looked over history and found that many of its worst crimes were committed by governments, so they decided having no government might be a good  idea.

Anarchy means without government. Correct. That is ALL anarchy means. And by looking back over the history of the United States government only since 1975, I can see the crime and tyranny that has been done by the U.S. government during my lifetime. "Government" is one of those terms I get pedantic about even more so than with "Country". What, specifically, is meant by "Government"? Set that question aside. I'm not digging at what is government at this moment. I will be later. I will also expand and expound about the crimes still being done.

➽ But this is a mistake because as the ancient Greeks stated, Without law there can be no freedom. Our founding fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized orderly society.

This is an opinion stated as fact. That opinion is disputable and I do dispute it.

➽ In a state of anarchy however every one has to guard Life, Liberty, and Property and the lives of family members. Everyone must be armed and movement is severely restricted because one's property has to protected at all times.

Evidence? Personal first hand knowledge that meets Federal Rule of Evidence 602? I will admit that such a situation COULD be the case, however, the opposite could be the case as well. Another opinion is again stated as fact; "one's property has to protected at all times". I have had property stolen from me. The value stolen from me by criminals is infinitesimal compared to what "government" has stolen from me.

I present what Lysander Spooner wrote circa 1867-1870:
⚠ But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.The  government  does  not,  indeed,  waylay  a  man  in  a  lonely  place,  spring  upon  him  from  the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your  own  benefit.  He  does  not  pretend  to  be  anything  but  a  robber.  He  has  not  acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect  themselves,  or  do  not  appreciate  his  peculiar  system  of  protection.  He  is  too  sensible  a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you  wish  him  to  do.  He  does  not  persist  in  following  you  on  the  road,  against  your  will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country,  and  shooting  you  down  without  mercy,  if  you  dispute  his  authority,  or  resist  his demands.  He  is  too  much  of  a  gentleman  to  be  guilty  of  such  impostures,  and  insults,  and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.⛔

"In a state of anarchy"... That is: In a state of no government, bad things happen. Which slyly implies in a state of having government, bad things won't happen. As I just pointed out from personal first hand experience, and Spooner observed 150 years ago, that's bullshit. More on that in a moment.

➽ Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding. A sheriff, a police force, or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place, the people were freer, they could leave their property, work in the fields and so on.

I'm calling bullshit on this. The opinion writer just attempted to equate two things that are not the same. A guard is protection. Like a seat belt is protection. A government is a control. Like a throttle is a speed control. See the problem? A seat belt and a throttle are not the same.

Then there is the actual facts, the observable attributes of this thing called government. How does it protect one's property? Police? Yes?

Actually NO! Cops have NO DUTY TO PROTECT. The earliest SCOTUS case I am aware of is from 1855. There is a whole sequence of cases repeating that point.

➽ In short the proper amount of government makes everyone freer.

Still more opinion stated as fact.

➽ There are some who advocate anarchy however, not because they want no government, but because they don't like what they have.

That statement, by itself... I'll 'fess to exactly that. With the proviso that what is "had" is examined for what it actually is in fact and in reality. Absent that, you can not know what I don't like.

➽ They use anarchy as a tool for revolutionary change.

If this person was speaking only of Larken or myself, he's making shit up and spewing it as if it's a truth. Again, I object to being painted with a broad brush by an ignoramus. And to be fair, I have not yet presented what I want. That's on my agenda for later.

➽ The condition of anarchy is very much like a vacuum where something rushes in to fill it.

That COULD be the case, but I don't think so. His anti anarchy blinds him to other potentialities. You also.

➽ These calculating anarchists work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism.

Couldn't get a bigger brush to use? My calculating as an anarchist has NOTHING to do with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism. My calculating is to show WHY government is a shit indoctrinated belief.

These calculating insurgents work to succeed in a coup d'état to become the next tyrants.
coup d'état: The sudden overthrow of a government, differing from a revolution by being carried out by a small group of people who replace only the leading figures.

➽ Tragically the people living in such chaos often go to those best able to put an end to it. And beg them to take over and restore order. And who is best able to put an end to the chaos? The very people who started it.

Objection! Deliberate conflation. Chaos is not violence. I don't care to go into chaos theory as a math thing where order spontaneously springs into being.

➽ The anarchists who created the problem then create a government run by them, an oligarchy... where they have total power. This is exactly what happened in Russia that led to Lenin taking total power and in Germany where Hitler's brown shirts created the chaos that brought him to power.

Objection! The insurgents who created the problem... The violence prone megalomaniacs who created the problem... Argh!

➽ But anarchy isn't a stable form of government, it's a quick transition from something that exists to something desired by the power hungry. It's a temporary condition.

Anarchy is NOT a form of government. That is stupidity at its peak.

➽ And because it isn't permanent we eliminate it as well.

Who is this we Kemosabe? And how do you intend to eliminate it?

[Dale Eastman]

To be honest dude, I only debate politics because I enjoy debating. After this last few days, I'm kinda ticked off with the left and want nothing to do with them. Their vile, evil behavior made me give up on them. I have no interest in red pilling them. I much rather prefer an echo chamber at this moment in time, for me to be with my own kind. People who who I consider to be my human family. Americans. People who love everything about this country and understand that everything they were taught about the USA in school was a lie. I still have a few anarchist friends on my friends list but I just avoid their posts for the most part. I may get bored and read what you said up above if I'm feeling up to it but right now I'm taking a break. This country and our lives and futures can burn as far as I'm concerned. We don't deserve to have freedom/liberty. We deserve what's coming if Trump fails. We don't deserve America or any of its founding principles (liberty, freedom). We truly don't. I don't believe we do... Perhaps God knows better than me and believes otherwise. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I'm not wrong about me wanting nothing to do with the left (or the leftists-in-denial).

You have the link to where I've archived what we've discussed.

You've left me with a Tango rich environment.

When you've read enough of my disassembly of your logic, you know how to get my attention.

I'll re-read the above post later.

I will presently challenge your use of the "leftist" label on me. In retaliation, I'm gonna label you a "Statist". Lefties and Righties are Statists, as are members of the Libertarian Party.

Just because you share the properties of xxxxxx with xxxxxx...
I'll keep that insult/joke to myself for now.

As far as Larken goes, I said I would no longer troll him and tried to find common ground, he has yet to unban me and you did not ansewr my question about his wife. Takes two to tango.

Lijke I said the other day after waking up to Trump having covid and seeing millions of people online praying for his death, we don't deserve Trump. I think once he gets better he should resign and just let the leftists and anarchists have what's coming. Once most of us are in concentration camps thanks to Biden and we're all genocided off, I'm sure even then most of you will say Biden and Trump are the same. That's the scenario I want right now. So yea the whole "dark night of the soul" thing is lasting longer than I thought it would for me...

A week ago I wanted to red pill you and anarchists, now I just don't care. Now I would rather just Biden become president so you and the rest of the people can experience hell on Earth. I don't fear death. Most people are vile and unworthy of freedom/liberty and I know that now. I want off this planet.

It's a game to anarchists. The election is a joke and isn't real to them. I'd much rather them just experience the hell that they are participating in manifesting. The coming months will be your manifestation it was never mine until now. So you can be glad that i"m joining in on your manifestation now.

Of course I'm a statist. I don't find that offensive. I'm proud to be a statist. As far as you being a leftist goes, doesn't matter if you deny it or not. A leftist, a closet-leftist and a leftist-in-denial are all the same to me. Makes no difference. In fact I probably have more respect for people who admit to being a leftist at least they know who they are. I don't mean that to be an insult. It is my belief that evil wins by default if good men do nothing to fight it and the left to me, represents evil. So by boycotting the process, you by default allow the left to win, therefore you're a leftist. That's my logic. You indirectly support the left via your philosophy. That's how I look at it. I don't mean "leftist" to be considered an insult but I suppose I understand why it could be taken as an insult especially from someone who thinks "statist" is a bad thing. Ron Paul was a statist and most anarchists supported him. Minarchists are still statists even if their version of what they want is less statist than a big gov statist. Although anarchists probably don't distinguish between the two or at least their religious belief (anarchism is most definitely treated as a religion when it comes to their beliefs) doesn't allow them to admit it. Because it's a game for them.

➽ but right now I'm taking a break

And yet, here you are interacting with me.

I prefer the labels I identify with. I'm a "Voluntaryist". A label that is coming into use by those who use to identify as "anarchist" in the pure sense of the term before it was co-opted and corrupted. "Double plus un-good" per the indoctrinated.

⚠ Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate that is the setting of dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell. To meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism in Oceania, the ruling English Socialist Party (Ingsoc) created Newspeak, a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will. Such concepts are criminalized as thoughtcrime since they contradict the prevailing Ingsoc orthodoxy. ⛔

Now since "Voluntaryist" is only in the actual Liberty minded's lexicons and not in the general Lexicon, it needs to be explained. Part of my explaining, shown in the next comment, is my identifying as a "YDOMist".

Societies and The Interactions of Their Individuals

Society, as used in the title, means masses of individual humans. For without at least two individuals interacting, a Society does not exist. Society comes from Latin societatem (nominative societas) "fellowship, association, alliance, union, community," from socius "companion, ally,"

I submit that if somebody is using Threat, Duress, or Coercion, also known as Extortion, to force another human to obey their will, then this is NOT a social interaction. Even the interaction itself is initiated by force. The person being extorted is not voluntarily interacting.

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 government officers, agents, and employees. They do not ask you to voluntarily surrender your money. Sure, they may say things like, "Would you please pay the taxes you owe?" or "Would you please pay the fines you owe?", but do not be mislead. If you refuse to give them your money, people with guns will come and take your property (money or other property), cage you, or even kill you. Their interaction with you is non-voluntary on your part. If you forget those facts because they said "please", you are ignoring the guns under the paperwork.

And then there's this "taxes you owe" BS. Who says I owe? By what authority? That's a discussion for another essay.

Cops pulling you over to the side of the road is another 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 (allegedly) required to obey.

There you are: Going down the road; Going about your everyday affairs of life and minding your own business; Harming no one; and a bully threatens to use escalating force and violence against you to make you stop.

That bully has initiated threat, duress, coercion, that is: Extortion against you the moment he lights you up. Mostly to extort fines from you. Just another form of taxation in my book.

Do what you are told to do or they will hurt you. This is how EVERY government works. Past, present, or future.

Not wanting to be extorted sure looks like wanting to be left alone to me. Not wanting to be threatened with death to force obedience sure looks like wanting to be left alone to me. If you know you want to be left alone and not threatened nor extorted, then I submit that you want to live in a Voluntary Society.

If you were being left alone, as would be the case if you were 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.

The members of a Voluntary Society would understand YDOMism and honor its precepts. YDOM means You Don't Own Me. Any five to eight year old child, who exclaims to another child, "Who made you the boss of me?" inherently understands YDOMism's basic "Don't tell me what to do!" Why have adults lost, forgot, or ignored this point?

The members of a Voluntary Society would not be involuntarily subjected to the government's indoctrination apparatus such as I was when I was incarcerated for ≅12 years in a Government Indoctrination Center. The GIC a.k.a. The Public School system, is where I was forced to learn about "government" according to that very same government's one sided criteria. All of us formerly detained in these United States GIC's were forced to learn of this organic document called "The Declaration of Independence" wherein these words were contained:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I can personally attest to the failure, deliberate in my opinion, to teach Critical Thinking Skills which would include being able to see and thus focus on contradictions.

If all "men" are created equal, wouldn't that include men such as those owned by other men and generically called Slaves? And what of women? They weren't created with rights equal to men?

The term "Rights" is problematic and a topic for a different essay. I translate "Rights" as the equal lack of authority over anybody else. Which could be defined as a right to not be ruled by your equals. If we are all equals, then "Who made you the boss of me?" is the purpose of YDOMism.

In a voluntary society, there would be an understanding that nobody was born with authority over anybody else, thus attempts to act as owners of other people would be easily observable.

Alas, that is not the case I observe on this planet. Most do not understand that we live in a society that lets a select few act and rule others as if they own those others. In online discussions and observations, I've seen people strenuously, emphatically, and emotionally defending being owned. These people do not understand that they are arguing for their own treatment as slaves. These people do not have a clear view nor a clear understanding that nobody owns them.

Government Indoctrination Centers, anyone?

Your 1984 comment was irrelevant to this conversation and if anything, the anarchist community is victim to the very thing you are accusing me of being victim of. Ron Paul may have claimed to be a voluntaryist, but he wasn't regardless of what he may have said during one or two interviews. He was a statist.

As far as that other stuff, I'm not reading it now. I told you exactly why I'm not debating it. I could care a less. Go do your communism, I'll let you be.

[Dale Eastman]

As I wrote, you have left me with a Tango rich environment.

The first targets I'm going to snipe at are your contradictions and inconsistencies. I will be quoting your own words back at you.

➽ It's a game to anarchists.
➽ To be honest dude, I only debate politics because I enjoy debating.

Thank you for your admission that this entire interaction 'tween you and I has been a game on your part.

➽ While you're at it could you upload this vid to your website as well?

Give me a non-FecesBook link and it will be posted as a quote of you.

➽ It explains the failure of your philosophy.

Quod non apparet non est: The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.

Claiming your opinion is fact does not make your opinion fact.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat: The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim).

I will inform the silent audience that I spent 2.25 hours transcribing the video that you just opined to be the explanation of the failure of (according you and the vid's writer) the failed philosophy of "anarchy" for the express purpose of discussing that... that... um... video and thus support your (and the vid's) claim.

➽ I gave a description of how Anarchism leads to communism and how China will take us right over during the confusion if anarchists get what they want and they take down our government.

No. You did not.

You presented a video that you agree with. I do not agree with it. And I transcribed it for you and I to discuss.

➽ That right there is also specifically what Larken Rose refused to respond to.

And now that I have given you my attention on that video... Now that I have specifically challenged the claims made in that video, you refuse to continue our discussion.
POT-KETTLE-BLACK.
You been calling Larken by your maiden name... Hypocrite.

➽ As far as Larken goes, I said I would no longer troll him and tried to find common ground, he has yet to unban me and you did not ansewr my question about his wife. Takes two to tango.
➽ I'm only interested in staying on topic [...]

POT-KETTLE-BLACK. Hypocrite.

Topic:
➽ Anarchism is a joke
➽ I suspect there is some big money behind the anarchist movement.
➽ The Chinese gov loves "anarchists".
➽ You'll ignore it and stick to the game plan which is continue to indirectly promote communism (anarchism).
➽ I gave a description of how Anarchism leads to communism [...]
➽ [...] will take us right over during the confusion if anarchists get what they want [...]

⚠ Conflation is the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, opinions, etc., into one, often in error.
In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.
wiki/Conflation⛔

Vid narrator stated: "anarchists work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism"

⚠ Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". wiki/Straw_man⛔

The video rails against criminal action, criminal actors, and megalomaniacs insisting that these are "anarchists".

➽ I would probably [...] only get involved in debate if I'm ever tagged, which I would enjoy occasionally especially if you ever see an incredibly smart anarchist who is willing to debate. And if I am tagged, I will only debate whoever debates me [...]

You have been tagged.

Sum it down to a few sentences if you want a response and let's debate how vile the democrats are. Not interested in debating the "merits" of anarcho-communism.

And I'm not interested in debating the difference between one dog's shit and another dog's shit.

Nice attempt at changing the topic from pure "absence of rulers" anarchy to "more statist rulers" anarcho-communism.

If you were as dishonest with Larken Rose as you are starting to act toward me, It's no wonder he booted you.

Just trying to be accurate. All anarchism is communism. I told you I'm not interested in debating nonsense right now. Maybe in a few days. I just got done debating a flat Earther. That's enough low-IQ anti-American hell-on-Earth scenarios today.

➽ Just trying to be accurate.  All anarchism is communism.

Then please, accurately, explain how and why you conflate a term that literally means "no rulers" with a term that is a label for a style of ruling?

I no longer debate with flat Earthers. I made this meme and it has all the words required. You're welcome.

Sum up your nonsense into a few sentences and I might answer it. Not trying to read a book on why communism is better than America.

[Dale Eastman]

If I were ever to get a phone call asking who I'm voting for, I wouldn't answer. No idea who is on the other end of those phone calls. Could be Antifa or a crazy neighbor. I can only imagine how many people feel the same way. This is probably why the democrat nominee is 5 points or so ahead of where Hillary was in the 2016 polls. It's not the same world. The election might not be the landslide that we think it will be. And then you have countless young people who are now voting for the first time, fresh out of communist indoctrination centers (public schools).

You wrote:➽ If I don't respond you can assume Larken blocked me. If I do not respond, you are welcome to friend me or private msg me and it will be continued.

I wrote: ➽ I appreciate your offer to continue. Thank you.
Like I wrote, I keep copies of dialogs I'm involved in so I can review the discussion.

You requested:➽ And I'd like a link to your website please.

I complied: ➽ http://wwwDOTsynapticsparksDOTinfo/dialog/index.php?topic=737.0
FecesBook censors dot info TLD's so you will need to edit the link to make it usable.
This link takes you to where our discussion is saved.

Per your request, I friended you for the purpose of continuing our discussion.

A discussion you bailed from, as I expected from you since that's what happens when I attempt to engage in discussions with statists. That you are a statist you admitted when you posted:
➽ Of course I'm a statist. I don't find that offensive. I'm proud to be a statist.

Since we friended and I can see your timeline posts easily, I can see that you are a pro-trump statist. That makes you a voter. I became aware of your "lean" when you posted to a Liberty minded individual's timeline.

Since I am limited to replying to your posts on your timeline, I will start with the post I am replying to, using it as a segue to attempt to get you to continue the discussion you promised... Unless you want to be shown and known as a LIAR.

On to the OP:
➽ And then you have countless young people who are now voting for the first time, fresh out of communist indoctrination centers (public schools).

Now what you call a "communist indoctrination centers (public schools)" I call "government indoctrination centers (public schools)".

The snarky context suggests to me that you are anti "communist", whatever "communist" means to you. Per Voltaire's Admonition, to communicate, terms must be understood. To eliminate equivocation logic errors, terms must be agreed to as to what is meant. Therefore:

What, specifically, do you mean by communism? What are communism's properties; its attributes; what it is.

This Content Isn't Available Right Now
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.

Fucking statist statist coward.
https://www.facebook.com/deborah.giles.1485/posts/972658093237981?comment_id=973274703176320