PS #3

[Dale Eastman]

Wow! Bunch of statist idjits arguing about which shit flavor of tyrants they want to be ruled by.

The Declaration of Liberty

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created with an equal lack of authority over any other humans; 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, it is the right of each individual to proclaim and enforce the You Don't Own Me standard against any and all who would attempt to enslave any human.

A long train of abuses and usurpations by governments, pursuing invariably the same Object to reduce the humans to owned slaves has been observed.

Uh, the guys who wrote that set up the government we have now, so if you think that declaration isn’t “statist”, you may want to think again.

I have attempted to get you, and several other statist cowards that infest this group, to have substantial discussions with me about "government". So far all I get is ignored, or get called names.

➽ Uh, the guys who wrote that set up the government we have now, so if you think that declaration isn’t “statist”, you may want to think again.

Statist emotional reactionism.

Try actually reading what is posted.

I WROTE what is actually posted. Ya wanna try addressing the words actually posted?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, how can you have a serious discussion about whether you need a government or not?

Tell you what - name a country that’s thriving with no government, then we can talk seriously about it.

➽ Dale, how can you have a serious discussion about whether you need a government or not?

Per what has been presented to me as Voltaire's Admonition, If you wish to communicate with me, define your terms.

What, specifically, is "government"?

For my purposes, I define what government is, by the actions I observe government doing. Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

So doing a substitution equate, your question parses as "Dale, how can you have a serious discussion about whether you need a extorting criminal syndicate or not?"

I WROTE what is actually posted. Ya wanna try addressing the words actually posted?

The Declaration of Liberty
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created with an equal lack of authority over any other humans; 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, it is the right of each individual to proclaim and enforce the You Don't Own Me standard against any and all who would attempt to enslave any human.
A long train of abuses and usurpations by governments, pursuing invariably the same Object to reduce the humans to owned slaves has been observed.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, that’s not valid substitution.

It’s called a fallacy of equivocation, where you just redefine a word, then motor on as if you were using a real definition.

Since I keep archives of certain discussions, I'll just note that I am reposting a post that seems to be missing:
I have attempted to get you, and several other statist cowards that infest this group, to have substantial discussions with me about "government". So far all I get is ignored, or get called names.

➽ Uh, the guys who wrote that set up the government we have now, so if you think that declaration isn’t “statist”, you may want to think again.
Statist emotional reactionism.
Try actually reading what is posted.
I WROTE what is actually posted. Ya wanna try addressing the words actually posted?

Then Phil Simon wrote:
Dale, how can you have a serious discussion about whether you need a government or not?
Tell you what - name a country that’s thriving with no government, then we can talk seriously about it.

Then I wrote:
➽ Dale, how can you have a serious discussion about whether you need a government or not?
Per what has been presented to me as Voltaire's Admonition, If you wish to communicate with me, define your terms.
What, specifically, is "government"?
For my purposes, I define what government is, by the actions I observe government doing. Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
So doing a substitution equate, your question parses as "Dale, how can you have a serious discussion about whether you need a extorting criminal syndicate or not?"

Then I repeated the posting of the Declaration of Liberty. I'm skipping it this time.

The Phil Simon wrote:
Dale, that’s not valid substitution.
It’s called a fallacy of equivocation, where you just redefine a word, then motor on as if you were using a real definition.

And as of right now, I replied:

➽ Dale, that’s not valid substitution.

That's your opinion. How's that saying go, opinions are like assholes?

If my definition is unrefutable, then my substitution is valid. Your opinion is NOT valid unless you can prove my definition wrong.

➽ It’s called a fallacy of equivocation

You seem to be confused as to what an equivocation fallacy is.

⚠The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.⚠

⚠Equivocation is a fallacy by which a specific word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning.⚠

⚠Considered a logical fallacy, equivocation fallacies arise from ambiguity. Words or phrases in these fallacies can be used ambiguously or have double meanings.⚠

My definition is specific, exact, and provable.

➽ It’s called a fallacy of equivocation, where you just redefine a word, then motor on as if you were using a real definition.

I defined the term government so that there is no mis-understanding of exactly what I mean.

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

If you are as smart as you think you are, you would have challenged me regarding the logic of my claim: my burden of proof. I'll wait until you do, then I'll paste my proof.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, when you start by calling people statist cowards, then shriek about how emotional they are, nobody takes you seriously.

That’s what you led with, and that’s as far as I read.

If you ever decide it’s time to act like an adult, I’m happy to discuss things.

But I’m not wading into your emotional weeds, nor humoring your outbursts and tantrums.

If that's the excuse you wish to use to justify ignoring my points... Hey if it helps you sleep at night.

➽ That’s what you led with, and that’s as far as I read.

With that statement, I can now call you a liar. The record, which somebody erased, says you not only read farther, you also made comments.

➽ If you ever decide it’s time to act like an adult, I’m happy to discuss things.

Do you need help moving those goal posts? Be happy to help.

"Act like an adult." That knife cuts both ways.

My claim is that: "Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control." Do you really think that you can prove me wrong?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, sure, “the record was erased” by the derp state.

My claim is that: "Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control." Do you really think that you can prove me wrong?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, I don’t have to prove your assertion wrong, you have to prove it right.

That’s how it works.
So go - prove all government is criminal.

➽ That’s how it works.

What, specifically, does "it" refer to?
This is where equivocation errors get into discussions.

➽ Dale, I don’t have to prove your assertion wrong, you have to prove it right.

I shouldn't have had to clue you in on that point. Kudos for taking the hint.

My claim, my burden of proof:

How does the government deity you worship get funds to do what it does?

⚠⚠⚠
Extortion Is...

Any rational and moral person would understand that extortion is when some person or persons say to another, "Do what I or We tell you to do or else I or We will hurt you."

This is an act of offensive aggression; This is an act of initiating harm to another; This is a malum in se criminal act (Legal Definition of malum in se : an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature irrespective of statute).

This is not to be confused with a defensive act such as "Do what I tell you to do and stop aggressing against me, or I will hurt you by using escalating defensive force and violence against you until you stop trying to harm me."

I presently know of no person that would argue against what I have written above.

That is, until I specify who the criminals actually are and what things they attempt to get by extortion.

Their morality, logic, and bravery evaporates when I state:

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control

Focusing only on the money extortion:

By Law: U.S. Federal Taxation is Extortion

Give us the money we demand.

26 USC §5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax
(a) Rate of tax
(1) General
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of [...]

26 USC §5005. Persons liable for tax
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

Or we'll hurt you.

26 USC §5684. Penalties relating to the payment and collection of liquor taxes
(a) Failure to pay tax
Whoever fails to pay any tax imposed by part I of subchapter A at the time prescribed shall, in addition to any other penalty provided in this title, be liable to a penalty of 5 percent of the tax due but unpaid.

26 USC §5687. Penalty for offenses not specifically covered

Whoever violates any provision of this chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto, for which a specific criminal penalty is not prescribed by this chapter, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, for each such offense.

26 USC §7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
⚠⚠⚠

➽ Dale, I don’t have to prove your assertion wrong, you have to prove it right.

I'm giving you the benefit of doubt. I'm deliberately assuming you just missed my reply proving my assertion. It's been up for three days. Are you going to cede the point?

➽ Dale, I don’t have to prove your assertion wrong, you have to prove it right.

I'm giving you the benefit of doubt. I'm deliberately assuming you just missed my reply proving my assertion. It's been up for six days. Are you going to cede the point?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, I think you missed what I told you.

I’m not going to wade through emotional rhetoric like “government deity” to try to see if there’s any actual logic in there.

I only debate adults.

I think YOU missed what YOU told me. For your convenience, here it is:
➽ Dale, I don’t have to prove your assertion wrong, you have to prove it right.
So since you missed the evidence, here it is again:
My claim, my burden of proof:
How does the government deity you worship get funds to do what it does?
⚠⚠⚠
Extortion Is...
Any rational and moral person would understand that extortion is when some person or persons say to another, "Do what I or We tell you to do or else I or We will hurt you."
This is an act of offensive aggression; This is an act of initiating harm to another; This is a malum in se criminal act (Legal Definition of malum in se : an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature irrespective of statute).
This is not to be confused with a defensive act such as "Do what I tell you to do and stop aggressing against me, or I will hurt you by using escalating defensive force and violence against you until you stop trying to harm me."
I presently know of no person that would argue against what I have written above.
That is, until I specify who the criminals actually are and what things they attempt to get by extortion.
Their morality, logic, and bravery evaporates when I state:
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control
Focusing only on the money extortion:
By Law: U.S. Federal Taxation is Extortion
Give us the money we demand.
26 USC §5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax
(a) Rate of tax
(1) General
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of [...]
26 USC §5005. Persons liable for tax
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).
Or we'll hurt you.
26 USC §5684. Penalties relating to the payment and collection of liquor taxes
(a) Failure to pay tax
Whoever fails to pay any tax imposed by part I of subchapter A at the time prescribed shall, in addition to any other penalty provided in this title, be liable to a penalty of 5 percent of the tax due but unpaid.
26 USC §5687. Penalty for offenses not specifically covered
Whoever violates any provision of this chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto, for which a specific criminal penalty is not prescribed by this chapter, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, for each such offense.
26 USC §7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
⚠⚠⚠

➽ I only debate adults.

Lucky for you. There is no debate because "Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control" has now had evidence provided to prove the statement is a fact.

If you weren't such a coward, you'd just admit it.