SH

[Dale Eastman]

➽ because I've paid taxes and into social security my whole life

No. You have NOT paid one dime into social security.

In this specific instance, you don't know what you don't know.

Be sure you tag me if you want to know what you don't know.

dale.eastman.75

Sara Hiller ➽ after all the money I've given them

Gave them?

Are you happy you "gave them" your money? How much did you "give them"? Did you give them what they demanded, or did you give them more than they demanded?

➽ never seen a cow pay taxes.

You have now...

➽ I suppose it would take a cow understanding that they are trading milk for health care to make that a valid comparison.

Or anybody smart enough to figure out that taxation is extortion.

➽ Now, all that being said, human slavery has existed and still exists in other parts of the world.

Human slavery exists ANYWHERE governments extort taxes.

The best slaves are the ones that think they are free.

➽ if I don't like the terms of my employment, I can quit.

When, specifically, did you consent to be governed? Do you have verifiable proof of your consent? Does the criminal syndicate called government? Is your consent form signature notarized? Where does government keep all the notarized consent forms giving them consent to tell you what do?

➽ Taxation is how we as a society ensure those things, which we vote into law, will be carried out.

Who, specifically, is this "we"?

➽ No taxation without representation, right?

You really believe you are being represented? Congratulation, you have proven that the government indoctrination center has inculcated a superstitious, non-factual belief into your brain. Just ignore Toto pulling on the curtain.

➽ It is also how we ensure that all members of our society

Again, specifically, who is this "we"?

➽ I personally believe in taxing the rich massively,

You personally believe those called government have a right to steal and extort money from those who own it... But only if they steal more from your fellow humans than from you.

In a word, you believe people don't have property rights.

➽ I believe in striving towards a more equitable and peaceful society.

Liar liar, dress on fire.

What you actually believe, as proven by what I just quoted, is the exact opposite of what you wrote...

People who have more money than you don't have an equal right to keep what they own compared to you... And since taxation is contingent upon the threat of violence... Why don't you just steal what you want and then open free clinics and homeless shelters.

➽ Those kinds of memes, that just state a belief or philosophy as if it is fact, don't do anything for me.

You "believe". I research, study, examine, and then "conclude".

I hope you surprise me and actually engage in discussion with me. You don't know what you don't know.

I am dale.eastman.75 so you can tag the correct person when you reply.

➽ People who don't want to pay their taxes are ignorant and entitled.

People who want government to extort taxes from other people are ignorant and entitled.

Dale Eastman lol

SB Not only that... What is collected under the so called "income tax" does not pay for any services provided by Vinny the knee breaker. Grace Commission Report under Ronald Reagan.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/.../high.../IP0281G.pdf...

Dale Eastman I've never felt a bigger need for an eye roll button.

I'm not going to waste time addressing each and every one of your claims. My first suggestion would be to stop looking at YouTube videos and regurgitating everybody else's uneducated opinions. My second suggestion is that you should take a poly Sci course or two.

There are a few kinds of citizens in this world. For succinctness, let's stick with the USA.

One kind recognizes the incredible fortune they have, being born into this nation, understand that it takes active participants to build a society, and that taxes are a part of building a society.

The other kind bitches about having to contribute/ pay taxes, but is more than happy to enjoy the fruits of other people's labors/ taxes.

You are one of these two. I'll let you figure out which one you are.

Now, I'm sure you'll go on some uneducated pedantic rant such as the one you just displayed. I have no interest in hearing what you have to say, quite frankly. I was having a conversation with my sister, and some guy I don't know decides to share his schizophrenic rant with me.

But that's fine, because something else I understand, which you probably don't, is that existing in a free society, by default, means you don't get your way all the time. Take your time with that one, it's pretty complex and has layers.

Enjoy your day, and may I suggest taking a class in something which you have obvious interest? Yale, Harvard, and MIT all provide online classes to the general public. They provide classes on poly sci, cultural anthropology, and history. All three of those can help you understand where we've been, how far we've come, and why we shouldn't be trying to go back.

I created this just for people like you:

Dale Eastman neither. I would like to know what credentials you have to be making such claims, then I will decide if I want to hear it.

I don't have the time or energy, let alone desire, to listen to every narcissist who thinks they have discovered some great secret that the rest of society doesn't know.

Seriously, that shit is getting old. Find a hobby. Take a vacation. Something.

You don't know what you don't know.

I'll bet you've signed a W-4 for every job you've ever had.

I'll bet you have no clue that signing a W-4 form if you work solely in any of the 50 states united is not legally required.

But then I'd bet you have NEVER read the USC (United States Code) Title 26, aka the IRC (Internal Revenue Code).

And speaking of narcissists, May I suggest you take a good long look in a mirror at that snob thinks she's too good to learn what she doesn't know.

By the way, what's the link to YOUR website? I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

➽ I would like to know what credentials you have to be making such claims, then I will decide if I want to hear it.

How 'bout, I've actually read the tax law. That's my credentials and on this issue. Mine trump yours.

Note to self: Be nice. She don't know what she don't know.

Dale Eastman 🙄 good grief. Here we go. 🙄

"I'm not a narcissist, you're a narcissist! And I have a website, why don't you?!" See the problem there?

Pretty much sums it up.

A narcissist believes they have all they answers and they know all the truths. They believe they know better than the experts. They believe they are infallible. They might, for example, think that their knowledge is so important and vital for everyone else to know that they might, I don't know, make a website full of their own self-proclaimed facts.

Deferring to the experts is definitely not something a narcissist would enjoy.

ep. Here we go.

➽ They believe they know better than the experts.

I know better than you.

➽ I don't know, make a website full of their own self-proclaimed facts.

What's that saying about assumptions?

I made a very clear claim/ statement:

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

You won't attempt to refute it... Because you can't.

And since logic dictates the claimant has the burden of proof, you won't challenge me to present evidence proving my claim... Because your feelings would be hurt by proving I am correct.

I challenge statist boot lickers like yourself whenever their delusional beliefs are presented in my feed.

So just stick your fingers in your ears and sing La-la-la-la.

Dale Eastman not gonna take the bait man. I sincerely hope you find whatever it is you're looking for out of life. Peace.

➽ I sincerely hope you find whatever it is you're looking for...

You're a liar. What I'm looking for is people to look at what evidence exists.

You support governments harming people. You support the U.S. government defrauding its own people. You are a coward. You don't even want the tiniest peek at the truth.

[Dale Eastman]

For the boot licking, clueless statist...

I suppose that someone who has found the key to freedom may look a bit "looney" to the ones who live in Plato's allegorical cave, but the wonders and startling beauty beyond the cave is worth the fight to bring others we care about out of the cave.

... And Mr Eastman pretty much covered all the points I would have made if I had the time, pretty close anyways.
Plus he has the research and materials that I don't. I am more "intuitive" when it comes to this, not having the research or materials that many have discovered or developed.

A pshaw... Now you're just trying to embarrass me.

SH claimed [to be your sibling]. That actually tempered my responses to [your sibling]. Good practice for me... More in line with Larken Rose's Candles in the Dark.

I'm guessing that sibling has at least a two year post high school degree. Likely higher... But not a PHD because the memes going around show the PHD's are the largest group of va⊆⊆1ⁿe resistant.

The point being that PHD's have learned to access the information as presented, unlike the lower degrees that are so focused on "check your sources". Something you have done with the information I provide; something sibling has NOT done.

Must really stick in sibling's craw that somebody that useta drive a truck knows more, and can prove more, than sibling ever will... Until sibling changes her attitude.

There's a difference between ignorant and nescient. Nescient means don't know. Ignorant means chooses to not know.

Yes, [sibling] is my [sibling]. Yes, [sibling] has a nursing degree. And yes, sibling is ignorant of the available information.

Yes, please practice temperance, not just with [sibling], but would be good with all. Everyone works against themselves with ad hominem arguments. It doesn't help bring forth any enlightenment if the person feels attacked.

But you did take each point and responded, more or less, the way I would have. I just don't have time and so just stay focused on one point at a time, lol.

And thank you for taking the time to help, I appreciate it 😊

[sibling] you neglected to tell Dale that this way of thinking is nothing new to either of us. Dale, we were indoctrinated into your skewed way of thinking as children. [sibling] has toed the line set forth by our parents. I was fortunate enough to escape that cult culture, get an education, and my eyes were opened.

I've heard it ALL before. From birth. I am quite confident in saying that you are the one with the wool over your eyes. Yet I know you'll never realize. I have no time or patience for your ilk these days, I only speak to [sibling] out of worry and love, since [sibling] is my [sibling].

And [sibling], you know you are simply regurgitating everything our mom taught us. It's not original thought by any stretch of the imagination. I hope you escape from your own personal prison some day.

SH No, the way I think is very new to the way our parents brought us up. You have just been assuming that I am still "stuck" in that because of some similarities.

I also find the same teachings in all religions, even "Satanism," so similarities can be deceiving.

[sibling] whatever you say. We each have to find our own way.

The only universal truth I believe in is that most of life exists in the gray area. If you're living in an extreme, you're probably skating around reality.

It's ok to recognize that a system is flawed, and not then decide to throw away the entire system. Imagine a world where that is our response to everything?

But we in the USA have it so good, we invent things to complain about.

My theory? Humans love adversity. Not too much, just a little, just enough to feel like we are on the "right" side of something. Sometimes, we love that feeling more than our own safety, our own lives. I think that when we have it "too good", we look for things to be angry about. So what if we are not actually slaves? We'll find a way to claim we are slaves, to at least feel a little valorous and courageous. That's one example, of many.

We all direct our energy at worthless or even nonexistent issues at times. I know I have. I think that those of us who are able to summon vehement moral outrage serve a very important purpose in society. But imagine the good we could do if we directed that energy at something worthwhile?

I've actually been thinking a lot about that lately. I care about the people in my community, how can I help those who are underprivileged? I can't do it by being a keyboard warrior, that's for sure. So I'm looking into starting a [redacted] youth group for the underprivileged children in our city. There are so many latch key children around here. I figure, setting up something to help them will create actual, tangible change. Something that won't happen from posting clever memes on Facebook.

SH Yup, memes can't change people's minds, or affect meaningful change on the world. They are useless and a total waste of time.

I guess that's why FB hires factcheckers to censor them and ban people who post clever, but ineffective memes :3

I just don't post my personal life on FB, but I know some of these FB anarchist friends personally. And I will just leave it at that.

And mom and dad were statists. I was too, and, like you, rejected anarchist notions for some of the very same reasons you state to me. That is why I am so patient with you and others who reject the idea, because I also did so for so long. It wasn't until I found the notion hidden in various religious texts, skewed by doctrine and dogma and twisted into something totally alien to the original teachings to control the people. Then I started researching it much more closely.

➽ Yes, please practice temperance, not just with her,

I try to do just that... With everybody. Larken Rose's Candles in the Dark comes to mind.

My ad hominems are generally intended to shame my debate partners into actually entering the discussion.

My own morality is that every human is owed respect for being a human... Until they prove themselves not worthy of respect. Respect MUST go both ways.

I'm not sure your sister has given me, and my words, the respect they deserve... Because of the personal, actually the familial connection, she got some of your respect applied.

I've a single board on my PSMP devoted to discussions with people that I disagree with. Those discussions are public, showing my attempts to be respectful as well as those I engage with NOT being respectful. What trips my trigger the most, is when somebody makes a claim and I ask specific clarifying questions about that claim, and the question is pointedly ignored.

So this leaves me with the question of do I want to archive the "discussion" as it is going on right here?

Editorial addition: I had already started archiving this discussion. CRS ALERT: Boomer with a website. (CRS= Can't Remember Shit.)

➽ I have no time or patience for your ilk these days,

That, right there, is a fine example of your lack of respect.

➽ Dale, we were indoctrinated into your skewed way of thinking as children.

And that right there, is a fine example of claims being made to which I ask clarifying questions.

I'll start with something simple: What, exactly, are you claiming is my "skewed way of thinking"?

What, specifically, is the "cult culture" that you escaped?

➽ I am quite confident in saying that you are the one with the wool over your eyes.

What, specifically, are you implying that I don't know, that you are implying that you do know?

➽ And Kym, you know you are simply regurgitating everything our mom taught us.

As you are aware, this discussion is NOT private. Anybody who has access to [your sibling's] timeline could now have a question as to Mom's "teachings".

➽ I also find the same teachings in all religions, even "Satanism," so similarities can be deceiving.

Which implies to me, correctly or not, that some sort of fundamentalist religion was taught... The exact opposite of scientific inquiry.

Dale Eastman as I've said before, I have no time or patience for you. I do not owe you my time or energy, nor does anyone else. I owe you the same respect I grant to other strangers, but that is a thin line and I feel no need to extend you too many graces. I assure you that you have nothing you could share with me that I have not heard before. Period. This is a conversation with my sister, which I am happy to take to PM. Or stay here, whatever she prefers. But get it out of your head that I want or need to communicate with you. I am quite sure there are many much more gullible people out there for you to present your argument to, and I'm sure you'll get much further with them. This is the last time I will address you.

Re-reading SH's words as I paste and anonymize this... <sigh...> Note to self... Again: SH doesn't know what SH doesn't know.

SH I think he was responding to me, [sibling].

This is public media 😉

And he is my friend, and doing just like anyone else overhearing a conversation and joining in.

Dale Eastman Yes, I agree. I was just using different religions as an example. It is kind of a hobby I like to do, read religious texts and try and glean either history or what the true "moral to the story" is without some doctrine telling me what it is. Actually, it's what lead me to giving anarchy a second look all the way back in 2018, lol. I realized that was what the common theme was amongst all these religious figures.

She's your sibling... I feel sorry for you.

She doesn't know what she doesn't know, and she's proud of that.

My current assessment of your sibling is that your sibling would have been one of the soldiers loading rail cars to Auschwitz and Birkenau.

I'm also quite used to cowards refusing to answer my questions about their claims.

I've a circuit breaker panel / box to finish installing. Then I've an automotive emissions evap leak to find and repair. Plus address ignorant comments by Dunning - Krugerites arguing for slavery.

Oh... And assist getting this following piece plastered all over the net so that others can specifically give it to the Medical Nazis:

Actor of Medical Procedure
Apprisal of International Law, Natural Law, & Repercussions

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

Your continued violations of your fellow humans' Natural Rights will have Natural Law repercussions regardless of ANY inferior so-called "legal qualified immunities".

This document is presented to you to APPRISE you of the International Law, Nuremberg Code & Principles.

This document is presented to you to APPRISE you of Natural Law.

1. Coercing a potentially injurious medical procedure on me is an attempt to injure me.
2. Withholding of information of side-effects of the injection, including death, is injury to me.
3. Actually injecting me is injury to me.
4. Denying me gainful property exchange (employment) to support my life and family on refusal of a potentially injurious medical procedure is an injury to me.

The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamentally rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. It has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and further codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.

In addition to the U.S. regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects of medical research.

It is unlawful to conduct medical research even in the case of an emergency unless steps are taken to secure informed consent of all participants.

Article 6, section 3 of the Nuremberg code states: “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

Clearly, mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations fail the Nuremberg Code on multiple fronts.

In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003) a federal court held that the United States military could not mandate Emergency Use vaccines for soldiers:
“The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs”

Furthermore, on November 21, 1947, one year after the end of the first Nuremberg trial (International Military Tribunal), the United Nations passed General Assembly Resolution 177 in order to codify the “Nuremberg Principles.”

You are hereby APPRISED of Nuremberg Principle; number 4.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Orders of a superior includes orders of a non-government superior. For example, your workplace boss, his boss, all the way up the chain to the top officer controlling the company. Incorporation or licensure by Government makes your employer a party to the Nuremberg Code by proxy. This means you are not immune from violating the higher Moral Natural Law or its repercussions.

This Nuremberg Principle is quite clear. You have a duty to disobey orders, commands, and laws you know are morally wrong. Remember, many at the Nuremberg trials who claimed they were “just following orders,” were executed as well as the order givers.

You have a moral choice available. You can choose to refuse to inject/injure people against their will.

I am being coerced, I do not volunteer, I do not agree to this procedure!

I invoke my Natural Law RIGHTS to remedy, repair, & rectification for ANY injury to life, liberty, & property of mine, and of those of my kith & kin. This means IF repair, remedy, & rectification is NOT presented upon request for remedy, repair, & rectification to obtain satisfaction; then, I or my assigns, by ANY means of Nature's Law will be used to redeem satisfaction directly, and personally from you the injurer(s) - REGARDLESS of ANY man-made usurpation of Nature's Law!

You are hereby APPRISED of the Natural Law repercussions for violating My Natural Rights.

You have hereby been APPRISED of Natural Law.

[Dale Eastman]

SH There's half a nation that lives that belief. We are not special in that regard, not in the slightest. Heck I was living with a whole lot of them in North Idaho, it was like they had almost been raised by the same family, lol. But they are every bit as statist as you are, and as I was. It's just two wings of the same ugly vulture.

The only thing that was on the uncommon side was that we were not raised in the public school system. We were unschooled before that was even a term. Now it's more common and even acceptable now...at least in several states in the US.
Anarchy was introduced to me about 15 years ago and I rejected it outright. I had, as you do and everyone, misconceptions about what anarchy is based on the ages old propaganda surrounding the word. I also had, like you and most everyone else, misconception about the role government plays in the world. Anarchy was reintroduced to me several times, but always rejected it based on my preconceived misconceptions. I started looking more closely at it about 5 years ago, but still believed government was a "necessary evil."
I only came to the realization about three years ago, after reading the parables attributed to Jesus (funny, I also just met a Canadian down here that also came to understand anarchy through Hinduism, lol). And then I started researching anarchy more closely, which also led to etymology in a round about way. True anarchy is based in natural law (which is discoverable), and is basically just knowledge. Hidden knowledge (even Tesla said there was seen and unseen natural laws), kept hidden by the richest families in the world for an ulterior motive. But once you learn it, it sets you free 🙂

That's awesome, Dale!

Never really been into the scanning of QR codes, but I might just have to get used to it, lol. Times change and you have to keep up 😉

My take on things is I have compassion for those on the wrong side for the very reason that they are on the wrong side of natural law. I, nor anyone else, needs to give them grief, they are sealing their own karma. All I can do is try and help them open their eyes. If you know a lot of religious teachings, the major religious figures try to do the same (there's also some table flipping, chasing with a whip, calling people hypocrites, selling your shirt off your back for as many swords as you can get, etc in my favorite text as well, but in the end, he was forgiving them for what they did). You don't need to condemn them, they have done it to themselves already. It's really quite sad, but that's the reality of it.

[Sibling] I have read your reasoning over and over again, and I know that you believe it with all your heart and soul. But I just don't, and can't pretend to. The entire belief system depends on certain things, which are not provable, to be true (such as natural law). All logic and reason and human history tells us that humans act in ways which defy this belief. And then it's basically a house of cards, the entire anarchy ideal collapses if natural law doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist, not outside of the human brain/ your imagination.

If we must use an imaginary "law" to make the entire idea work, we must also force everyone to believe in this law. Which is basically thought control. Which is, again, a dictatorship. No matter which way you turn, there is no way to create the society you envision, unless you go against the very spirit of your ideals of freedom, since you would need to force these ideals instead of allow free thought.

If there ever was a way to exist without government, humans have never figured it out. What humans are VERY good at, is bringing destruction and death to any society deemed weaker than theirs. That includes any society with a weak or nonexistent government.

I belive in striving for a more peaceful and equitable world, because we CAN. Not because it is natural for us, but because we (as a species) understand inequality, and have the ability to empathize with and lift each other up. I am interested in the idea that BECAUSE we understand suffering, that we have a moral/ethical responsibility to alleviate it. Kind of like the Spiderman saying: with great power comes great responsibility. Lol. But really, I do believe that we have the ability to do great good. And we should keep moving forward, not chop up what generations have would so hard for, and bled and died to build.

➽ Never really been into the scanning of QR codes, but I might just have to get used to it, lol. Times change and you have to keep up 😉

That QR code has two functions. First, it is meant as a method of bypassing Zuckerfuckerturd's censorship of my website. Second, because of the scary Nazi-like BS Fuhrer Biden's demands to marginalize the va⊆⊆1ⁿe resistant with commands to load them onto the trains to Auschwitz and Birkenau to be ordered next, This document needs to go viral.

The QR code technology needs to catch up. A separate QR Code app is needed to scan an image stored in a phone.

The workaround until then, is to scan the QR code displayed on another device.

[Dale Eastman]

Sara Hiller You mentioned It's ok to recognize that a system is flawed, and not then decide to throw away the entire system.

What are the flaws in the system that you see?
How do you propose to fix those flaws in the system?

You claim that you have read my reasoning over and over again.
Do you think you can articulate what you think are the errors in my reasoning?
I'm not convinced you actually have taken any time to understand what my reasoning has shown me.

You say natural law is not provable. Do you not own yourself?

Dale Eastman I never thought about the QR codes being able to get around the censorship. Duh! Why didn't I think of that, LOL. I'm going to have to learn to get use to using them 😉

[Sibling] I could go on all night about what I think should be done, but I'm certainly not an expert and I am sure there are those with much better ideas than I have. And there are probably those who would see an immediate issue with those things I propose. I have only a little time to share those thoughts, since I have to get kiddos in bed, but I'll share a few items.

To start, controlling the money (dissolving super PACs, cracking down on special interest campaign contributions, legally enforceable transparency, etc) is important. Electable term limits for all members of government, even SCJs. Oh and we need to eliminate the two party system. I feel like it creates and reinforces extremes, while solidifying division. An "us vs them" mentality, when I believe that most people's beliefs systems live somewhere in the middle. I think that one plausible way to bring in viable candidates from other parties is to introduce ranked choice voting. This is the only way I feel like the majority of people in a democracy can feel at least satisfied about their elected officials. And a lot of the rest is reliant on civics education and getting Americans engaged in politics and exercising their voting rights. Without engaged constituents, we are not truly representing The People.

I think I've already shared what I see as flaws in your reasoning, many times over. I want YOU to think about what would happen if the US government disappeared tomorrow. What do you think would happen? Really think about it. And let's not even consider a hostile foreign takeover situation or anything like that, let's just think about boring things like a day in the life of some random American. Someone who is already barely surviving on what they make right now. A widow, for example, trying to survive off the Social Security (boom, no more social security payments) from their deceased spouse, combined with minimum wage, (boom, no more minimum wage since there is no one to tell employers they have to pay a certain amount), while also trying to home school their kiddo because BOOM there are no free schools anymore. And there's no government subsidized child care anymore either. But mom has to leave and go to work anyway, she can't school her kids, because otherwise she can't pay the rent, which is higher now because BOOM there are no government mandated rent caps, no government subsidized low cost housing, and no legal avenues with which to prosecute a slum lord.

That's all the time I have for now but I'll answer the rest of your question tomorrow. My main point is, eliminating government would very likely result in a break down in our society in ways you may have never even considered. And, most likely, the eventual deaths of the less fortunate through starvation or exposure or violence after being forced into unsafe conditions. Even if by some miracle another government didn't swoop in and violently take over, which would almost certainly happen, there would be mass casualties. Do you think those deaths would be acceptable so that we can change society so drastically?
Humans organize their societies with systems of government. Always have, always will.

[Dale Eastman]

[sibling] ok, now, natural law. Natural law is, to my observations, a great working template with which to create many ethical and moral customs and laws. That's about it. At least, in the westernized world. However, it is not how we all "naturally" believe or behave. Humans will not just suddenly, with no government, no laws, accept natural law as the way everyone should conduct themselves. I mean, have you even met a human? 🤣 It's simply ludicrous to expect that, when we know that human nature is self serving, bigoted, and violent even in the best of times.

I think we need to let go of the idea that there is some way to create a perfect, "moral" ("moral" being a variable concept depending on where you live) society impervious to corruption and all the other base behaviors of man, because that will never happen. We are incredibly different and imperfect compared to the ideals of pretty much any culture. And we are all far too different to ever accept one "perfect" way of doing things. To expect everyone to change their way of belief and life in order to move into a new type of society...well, that sounds very cult-like and authoritarian to me.

As we've already established, rights are 100% dreamt up and created by man. 100%. That doesn't mean that it isn't much better to be born into a Society with more human rights. Of course it is. But rights do not just exist out of nowhere. We created the concept. And we created the laws which defend our rights. Nature has no obligation to be good to us. Nature doesn't care if we exist.

I do feel that, with time, and with the ability to look at effective free society government models around the world, more of the world will move towards westernized governments and cultural beliefs. Why? Because people are willing to revolt and die for a cause if they can see what is possible, and there is a chance their children can have a better life. I do hope that, within my lifetime, more of the world will be at peace. We are, right now, living in the most peaceful time in human history. I do hope that that trend bodes well for the future of our species. Maybe we can teach old hominids new tricks after all.

You keep saying natural law is not provable. But you ignored my question, So now... Do you have a right to life?
What is a "system of government"? Isn't it some group of people who claim to have a right to tell people what to do?
You said without engaged constituents, we are not truly representing the people. Who is the 'we' that are not representing the people?
And you, *personally*, have not addressed any "flaws" in my argument, you only defer to a book you've read about how we have no rights.

Your statement above, "I want YOU to think about what would happen if the US government disappeared tomorrow," is a logical fallacy.
You also used an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

You mentioned: A widow, living off Social Security, free government schools, government subsidized child care, government subsidized low cost housing.

Where does government get the money to pay for these things?

And you think eliminating government may result in a break down in our society in ways I never considered (I "considered" all sorts of ways and dismissed it for years, remember?). My question to you is, what do you mean by "society" and how do you believe it will break down?

[Dale Eastman]

I keep saying it, because it simply isn't. Natural law isn't provable. If it is, please prove it to me and show me how I'm wrong. But we've been talking about it for weeks and I haven't seen anything resembling "proof". Philosophy can be useful and good, but it isn't a hard science which can be proven. Now, if you wanted to prove a specific fact about natural law, such as "societies which exist under the philosophy of natural law guidelines provide a better quality of life to its citizens" then you could set up an experiment to see if that's true. But that still wouldn't prove that natural law is universal and ubiquitous.

Do I have a right to life? No, I don't. No one has an inherent "right" to be alive. In the USA, I have a societal and legal right to life. In Afghanistan, I would have absolutely no right to life. In fact, I would probably be executed immediately.

You know what a system of government is. It's, of course, much more complex than "some group of people". And your description ignores the fact that in some more lucky societies, like ours, The People also tell the government what to do. That's the entire point of why we have our representatives set up in the complex way we have in the USA. The founding fathers were quite clever in their design.

The "we" is us, our society, our community. Our members of government are ALSO members of our society, our community, and they have to deal with the consequences of their decisions, too.

No, I have repeatedly personally addressed the flaws in your argument. You just seem to ignore those responses, for some reason. The book I mentioned is a history book, and has a fascinating way of explaining the development of society. In particular, it has a fascinating way of explaining all those things which humans have created, which actually don't exist, but which are now essential to sustaining human life (money, corporations, laws, rights, etc). I think you'd find the book to be interesting.

How is my asking you to think about what would happen if the government disappeared a "logical fallacy"? It wasn't a claim, it was a request for you to think about it. If you want to eliminate an entire governing body, shouldn't you A) have a good reason why, and 😎 understand the consequences?

An appeal to emotion isn't a fallacy if it is a true statement, or put another way, it is a fallacy if in the absence of a logical argument, one appeals to your emotions instead. That wasn't an appeal to emotion, that was a factual exploration of what would happen to a real individual if government disappeared. If it made you feel emotional, that's probably a good thing. It is a reasonable conclusion that government assistance would disappear in the absence of government, is it not? It is a reasonable conclusion that employers, who have been complaining about the increase in minimum wage, would lower wages again. It is a reasonable conclusion that government funded jobs, such as teachers, would disappear, and schools would shut down. None of what I said was far-fetched. And you know where government gets the money to pay for these things, it's through taxes. I don't think that the rich are going to, out of the goodness of their hearts, come swooping in like batman and save all the poor people once they are not taxed anymore. We only have to look at history to see how that situation has worked out in the past.

Yes, absolutely removing government would result in a breakdown of society. Of course it will. How could it not? It would be complete chaos. So much of our day-to-day living is caught up in government services. Millions of government employees would be suddenly without a job, and not providing that service to others who need it.

John Locke was pretty clear on why he felt a government was necessary. He was afraid that the stronger and smarter people might try to take away other people's lives, liberty, or property. Conversely, weaker people might band together and take away the rights of the stronger and smarter people. People in general would be unprotected and insecure. These were Locke's fears, and he was right to be afraid. As history has shown us, time and time again.

Are you saying humans should conduct themselves as if they don't have a right to life? What would you do if you were attacked? How about your kids?

Rights ARE the social contract, i.e., you don't hurt me, I don't hurt you. This is observable in nature, even.

"Humans will not just suddenly, with no government, no laws, accept natural law as the way everyone should conduct themselves."

Curious, what is government made of? Humans?

"...when we know that human nature is self serving, bigoted, and violent even in the best of times."

You do know these are the very same humans that are the government, right?

"...people are willing to revolt and die for a cause if they can see what is possible, and there is a chance their children can have a better life."

Do you mean like not living in tyranny? (tyranny definition - oppressive power; especially: oppressive power exerted by government)
I could get behind you on that one 😉

"...impervious to corruption and all the other base behaviors of man, because that will never happen"

If this can never happen, then it is NOT happening right now. Which means corrupt officials (humans) in government are the ones with the alleged "right" to rule.

"...effective free society government"

Non sensical. Those four words contradict themselves. To govern is to rule. The ruled are not free.
Overwhelmingly, your point for government is because of the horrible side of humans; humans are violent, humans are corrupt, humans are self serving.
Humans, and all their base behaviors, are what's government. Ruled by the very thing you despise. If humans are so corrupt, why are you giving authority to them to dictate what everyone can do?

[Dale Eastman]

saying we don't have an inherent right to life isn't the same as saying we shouldn't try to stay alive. Two totally separate issues. Don't try to link them, that's a straw man fight. The gazelle doesn't live or die based on the cheetah's perceived rights. It's literally just whichever one has the ability to outsmart or out- maneuver the other. This is one of those points we have discussed over and over again, and yet you still revert back to using the same faulty logic. It didn't work on me the first 10 times, pretty sure it never will.

Nature observes no rights. All of nature is a power play. Nothing more. The fittest survive, the rest die. Period, end of.

And again, your belief that humans in government will somehow conduct themselves in some shady evil way, while the rest of humanity is good, is viewing general people through rose colored glasses, and our elected official through, what, charcoal ones? At least we ELECT government in the USA. They are not just appointed by a king.. The entire reason the USA government exists is to protect the interests of YOU. The citizen. If someone hurts you, you have legal recourse. The thing about government, or at least the government as was dreamt up for the USA, is that we get to elect them and then kick them out if we don't like them. Can't do that with your neighbors, can you?

We are not living in tyranny. You're incredibly privileged and naive to belive that the USA is living in tyranny. The USA is an effective free society government. I think you should go live in India or Nigeria for a while, so you can understand what real oppression and real struggle looks like, feels like. Or, less expensive, read the history of those countries and then compare to the history of the USA. Or read some books by Khaled Hosseini, if you want to understand true tyrannical horror. You need to stop pretending that "government" and "king" are the same. You use the words "government" and "ruler" interchangeably, when I know you understand that they are not the same. The division of power in the USA is how our founding fathers ensured that no one person would have too much power. And like I said before, the people within government are not above their own laws, like a king. Really, if you want to be mad at someone for having too much power, stop looking at US politicians. Be mad at the billionaires of the world, because those are the people who really are above the law and can do pretty much whatever they want. In this world we have created, money is the real power. But I'm getting off topic.

Corrupt humans are everywhere. I would posit that every single human, including you, is corrupted in some way. Each and every one of us, to at least some degree, is motivated by selfish desires. It sounds to me that you would risk the lives of millions of people in order to have the kind of country that you want. To have the dog-eat-dog, natural law, anarchy world you for some crazy reason desire. Who cares if literally only 5% of the population wants it? You want it, and that's all that matters to you, right? One of your own sisters (if you haven't figured out that is the random, "imaginary" widow I referenced above) would be immediately destitute and probably succumb, along with her daughter, to the world, if we were to enter anarchy. But you would like it better, so let's do that. To hell with majority rule. They don't know what's good for them. But you do, right? You know what's best for everyone, right? Do I have that about figured out? That sounds like hell on earth to me, but sure, let's go ahead and do that.

You forget that it's not about you, and what only you want. Most Americans bitch about our country, but most Americans would never want to live anywhere else in the world. Think about why.

Oh and btw, I don't give anyone authority to dictate what I do. Know why? Because I live in the USA! I have never been told what to do, outside laws that I shouldn't hurt other people. Which doesn't affect me, because I don't want to hurt other people, accidentally or otherwise. I am free to say whatever I want, go wherever I want, have whatever career I want, and can even (gasp) outrank men in my career. I can choose not to have children. I can choose not to circumcise my son. And my daughter, for that matter. I can choose not to vaccinate my kids. Or, conversely, I have access and the right to vaccinate my children free of charge (if I'm low income), a right that much of the rest of the world wishes they had for their babies. The level of freedom we have in the USA is, I feel, completely lost on you.

you know, people who are passionate about human rights have a place in government. Maybe you should run for mayor? 😘

And you know where government gets the money to pay for these things, it's through taxes."

What are taxes? What happens if someone refuses to pay taxes?

"You know what a system of government is"

I know what I think a system of government is. I don't know what you think a system of government is. And I'm sure that we don't actually agree as to what it is. So let us start with the basics. Government is people. Just like Walmart is people.

"in some more lucky societies, like ours, The People also tell the government what to do"

How do the ruled (under penalty of death) tell the rulers what to do?

"The founding fathers were quite clever in their design."

You mean the design based upon the rights of people to life, liberty and property?

The Declaration of Independence used Locke's Natural Law as a reason to kill the king's military men in defense of the lives, liberties, and properties. Without Natural Law and Natural Rights, this nation, the USA would NOT exist. You know that, right?

"The "we" is us, our society, our community."

There is no "we". There is you and I. There is you and I and like, 7 or 8 billion other INDIVIDUALS
You jump on me about using artificial constructs, mental ideas, then you turn around and do the exact same thing. You are referring to an abstract as if it is a single entity. And you are assuming to speak for the abstract. Plus, you assume I am a part of the "we" you are purporting to speak for, speaking things exactly in opposition of my intent and conclusions.

"we have our representatives set up in the complex way"

Are you claiming you and I personally set up our alleged representatives in a complex way?

"Our members of government are ALSO members of our society, our community"

All the members of government are members of the society. The inverse is NOT true. All the members of society are NOT members of government. Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram?

"and they have to deal with the consequences of their decisions, too."

Yeah... 4 to six years later if the individuals remember the decisions. That is subject to the main stream media being honest in their reporting.

"If you want to eliminate an entire governing body, shouldn't you A) have a good reason why, and 😎 understand the consequences?"

If you want to keep a governing body, shouldn't you A) have a good reason why, and 😎 understand the consequences?

"An appeal to emotion isn't a fallacy if it is a true statement,"

But you didn't make a true statement. You made a projection. You made an assumption.

"that was a factual exploration of what would happen to a real individual if government disappeared."

Your "factual exploration" is a projection, an assumption. What's tomorrow's winning lottery numbers. I'll split the pot with you 50-50. :3

"It is a reasonable conclusion that government assistance would disappear in the absence of government, is it not?"

Taxes and victimless "crimes" also disappear.

"Millions of government employees would be suddenly without a job, and not providing that service to others who need it."

If I open a business supplying services at gunpoint, threatening you with harm for not buying my services, would you consider me a criminal? Because that is exactly how government gets clients for its services. I can attest to that personally.

[Dale Eastman]

we don't need to go back to basics, these concepts are not that hard to understand.
You still haven't told me what you think will happen if government is abolished. 100% it would cause anarchy and death. You say you don't have a crystal ball, but you don't need one, because we have history to look at, logic, and reason.

I also don't know HOW you think government will be abolished? It's going to be either by pen or by sword (guns), there is no other way. One way acknowledges the power of the human vote, and it will never happen because nobody wants that. The other way will result in lots and lots of death.

All members of society are able to participate in government by voting. They are also able to participate in government simply by choosing to. They are also free to not participate at all, bitch about everybody else, and still reap the benefits of everyone else participating in their community. Yay freedom.

"Without natural law and natural rights, the USA would not exist" NO SHIT!!! That's my entire point!!! You already have a society based on the ideals you hold dear, and you want to tear it down and replace it with, what, a belief that everyone will just take to your ideals because they just will?

That will never happen, it has never happened, humans cannot survive in complex societies without organized leadership. They simply can't. It's like asking fish to change how they school, bees to change their hive structure, wildebeest to stop migrating. Once your population grows above several hundred people, and you have complex corporations and infrastructure and such to worry about, some type of regulation needs to be in place in order to prevent one group of people from metaphorically, and possibly literally, RAPING the rest of the people.

Most people want to live out their lives and raise their families in peace. This is why the United States exists. This is why it became a beacon of possibility and freedom to the rest of the world. You need to take a trip to New York, go to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, take the tour and hear the stories. The absolute horror those people who fought for freedom would have, if they knew people wanted to tear it all down.

"you know, people who are passionate about human rights have a place in government. Maybe you should run for mayor?"

Government is the top violator of human rights, by a mile.

"we don't need to go back to basics, these concepts are not that hard to understand."

Apparently we do. Because you don't understand my concepts. Unless you just don't want to.

"You still haven't told me what you think will happen if government is abolished. 100% it would cause anarchy and death"

That's your opinion. And what do you mean by the word 'anarchy.' Plus government is the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century. It's called democide.

And I haven't told you because it would be projecting and assuming.

"You say you don't have a crystal ball"

Not what I said, I implied that YOU don't have a crystal ball.

"I also don't know HOW you think government will be abolished? It's going to be either by pen or by sword (guns), there is no other way."

That just shows you have no imagination.

"One way acknowledges the power of the human vote,"

Yeah, voting. That is another topic I need to address... Voting is an act that the voters believe gives them control over some aspect of their lives. This is only true for the voters in the majority. When the voters are in the minority, those voters are being controlled by the majority.
If your locality has a funding referendum to increase funding for the local schools, those with children in that school will likely vote FOR the tax increase. Those who do not want their taxes increased will likely vote AGAINST the tax increase. If, for sake of example, the voting splits along parental and non-parental lines, one of two situations will result...

Either the referendum fails and taxes are not increased with the result that the school does not get increased funding; The parents do not get what they want; More money spent on their children. Or conversely, the referendum passes and taxes are increased with the result that the school gets increased funding; The non-parents do not get what they want; They are then forced to pay more for something they don't need or use.

If the referendum passes and the non-parents refuse to pay the tax, government people with guns come and make them pay or take their homes away from them.

This proves that voters want the criminals called government to rob their neighbors so that they can get the benefits of the robbery. In this case, their neighbor's money spent on the parent's children.

Therefore voting is where a collective of individual humans perform an act that allows the majority of those individuals to control the minority of those individuals. Voters have somehow become convinced that it is their duty to be controlled by what the majority has chosen for them.

This is proven by observing minority voters honoring and obeying the result of the majority vote; whether it is to pay extra taxes or to be represented by an elected alleged Representative who provably does not represent the minority.

Since natural law means none of the majority has any authority over the minority, what the majority wishes and votes for creates no legitimate demand on any of the minority.

Which means that voting will always be the majority controlling the minority until people awake to the fact that none of the majority was born with authority over them or anybody else.

"it will never happen because nobody wants that."

Then you are apparently unaware of the number of people waking up to the fact that if you have government, you have extortionists making up rules that is none of their business.

"All members of society are able to participate in government by voting. They are also able to participate in government simply by choosing to. They are also free to not participate at all, bitch about everybody else, and still reap the benefits of everyone else participating in their community."

You don't own me.

And likewise, I don't own you.
Now if I don't own you, I have no authority to tell you that you what to do or what not to do, provided your free will choices do not harm me or mine.

But then you already know this, no?

Now let us pretend and assume I just won an election and hold the office of Legislator.

Elected Legislators have the job of making rules, called laws, to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to do. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to set how you shall be punished if you get caught not obeying my Legislator rules. The LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) have the job of arresting you if they catch you breaking my Legislator rules. This includes using escalating force, up to and including killing you if you resist being arrested.

In other, and less words, I have just described how "government" works: comply or die.

Now tell me, how did I get authority over you by being elected as a Legislator?

If none of the people that voted for me own you, then they do not have authority over you. How could they delegate an authority to me that they do not have over you?

"Without natural law and natural rights, the USA would not exist" NO SHIT!!! That's my entire point!!! You already have a society based on the ideals you hold dear"

No, I don't. Natural law means, "You Don't Own Me." The government does not refrain from fining, forcing, coercing, caging and escalating it to death if you don't follow their arbitrary demands, legislation or rules that they call "law." On top of that, they lay claim to any earnings I acquire through *my* labor, leading to more fining, forcing, coercing, caging and escalating to death if I want to keep the "store of my labor."
In short, government has layed a claim of ownership on the humans within it's claimed territory.

"and you want to tear it down and replace it with, what, a belief that everyone will just take to your ideals because they just will?"

How about *You Don't Own Me*
Nobody owns me. Government and it's members, don't own me either.

"That will never happen, it has never happened, humans cannot survive in complex societies without organized leadership."

You are confused about the difference between leaders and rulers. Leaders don't need men with guns (cops) to make sure their edicts are being obeyed. I was just pointing out this difference to the kids today watching a movie about a bunch of shipwrecked people on an island. Two individuals are looked up to as leaders because of their wisdom and knowledge. But one gets angry and tries to demand and force people to follow his decisions. The other doesn't mind giving direction, but doesn't force his directions if somebody, or all of them, doesn't want to follow it.
The first is a ruler, the second is a leader.

"some type of regulation needs to be in place in order to prevent one group of people from metaphorically, and possibly literally, RAPING the rest of the people."

You mean like government does with extorting money from people and calling it taxation? You mean like government stealing people's homes for getting behind, or gasp! deliberately not paying on their assessed (demanded) tribute to the criminal gang called government?

"Most people want to live out their lives and raise their families in peace."

How can people " live out their lives and raise their families in peace" when government can just take their homes? Or stop you and cage you for arbitrary reasons?

[Dale Eastman]

and round and round we go...

It's all been said, it's all been done.

I think you need to let go of the idea that there is one perfect way of doing things. One of the disappointments of living in a free society is that pretty much no one agrees with you all of the time. Right? That's the whole idea of freedom, right? Freedom of speech, freedom of thought? So you'll need to get used to people saying IDGAF about your natural law nonsense, and yes I'm going to do whatever I want to do, even if it hurts you.

Other disappointments occur when you realize that life really isn't fair, nature doesn't care about you, rights don't actually exist, and nearly no one will behave the way you think they should, given equal opportunity.

STILL waiting to hear how this revolution is going to occur with no human deaths. I'm all ears.

I never said it was a perfect way of doing things. I seem to be both repeating myself with things I never said and you understanding things I never said.

And yes, natural law will not be merciful and IDGAF (It Doesn't Give AF) if you or anyone else doesn't discover it, know it or align themselves with it.

"STILL waiting to hear how this revolution is going to occur with no human deaths. I'm all ears."

I've already tried to tell you.

You implied we couldn't achieve such a society without violence.

If you had taken the time to understand natural law, you would not need to ask how.

But since you refuse to acknowledge, or even consider the concepts that I have presented, I doubt you could ever imagine, nor understand any societal concept outside of "rule by the sword." Because that is exactly what you have to believe in, in order to believe in and live under government (rulers).

question: how would you achieve a natural law society if the citizens in the society don't "discover, know, or align  themselves with it"?

"I've question: how would you achieve a natural law society if the citizens in the society don't "discover, know, or align themselves with it"?

"I've already tried to tell you". No, you haven't. You simply skated around the question each time it was posed.

If natural law is not merciful, doesn't that mean violence is an option?

I didn't "imply" such a society couldn't be achieved without violence. I flat out stated it. When you force people into a way of life they don't want, that usually causes violence, right? Most Americans don't want to tear down their government. Most Americans are pretty patriotic and love the constitution, even to the point it's annoying. And most of those people have lots of guns. I guarantee it would become violent. tried to tell you". No, you haven't. You simply skated around the question each time it was posed.

If natural law is not merciful, doesn't that mean violence is an option?

I didn't "imply" such a society couldn't be achieved without violence. I flat out stated it. When you force people into a way of life they don't want, that usually causes violence, right? Most Americans don't want to tear down their government. Most Americans are pretty patriotic and love the constitution, even to the point it's annoying. And most of those people have lots of guns. I guarantee it would become violent. 

"question: how would you achieve a natural law society if the citizens in the society don't "discover, know, or align themselves with it"?"

I would think that would be self evident. If a body of individuals doesn’t discover, know and align their selves with gravity, they’re probably not going to have a successful time.

"You simply skated around the question each time it was posed.”

Again, if you had not ignored the basic concepts, the answer to this would be self evident. You ignore all the basic concepts, and so you can not understand the answer.

If natural law is not merciful, doesn't that mean violence is an option?”

Is gravity violent? No. But you probably don’t want your kid to tie a cape around his neck and think he can fly off the edge of a roof, because gravity will not be merciful of his ignorance.

“I didn't "imply" such a society couldn't be achieved without violence. I flat out stated it. When you force people into a way of life they don't want, that usually causes violence, right?”

Government is the one who violates human rights to live the way they want, or those who use government in such a way.

“Most Americans don't want to tear down their government. Most Americans are pretty patriotic and love the constitution, even to the point it's annoying. And most of those people have lots of guns. I guarantee it would become violent.”

Guns are a tool, not an action. “Violence” is an immoral action and is the initiation of force. Root of violence is violate. Violence is only committed by the initiator, not the defender. When anyone, including the government, becomes violent, yes, humans have every right to defend themselves. Guns are only a tool and can be used for different means in the hands that wield them. In Government hands, they are used exclusively to violate human rights.

The basic concepts that you keep missing or denying completely are 1. you don’t own me, and no one owns you, no one has a legitimate claim on anyone or their property 2. moral rights are simply actions that stem from the basic concept of self ownership that do not result in harm to another human or their property, and 3. rights are inherent, immutable and universal.
4. Government is an inversion of all the above basic concepts.

[Dale Eastman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=V1sX1qkngSg&feature=youtu.be

What are taxes?
How does calling it taxation make it NOT extortion?

What happens to your home if you don’t pay or get behind paying that tax?