AM

[Dale Eastman]

➽ coming to think its the prior.

The prior being "an atheist site."

Since belief in government is a religion, I'll have to agree.

Dale Eastman ? K….

Agreeing with you. And 'splainin' why.

Dale Eastman You were not agreeing with me since I did not infer anything about belief in government. Also I disagree that “belief in government is a religion”. That would be more like asking, “is this an anarchist page or is it just you?”

What we have he'ah, is a failya ta communicate.

➽ You were not agreeing with me since I did not infer anything about belief in government.

No, you didn't infer anything about a belief in government. I did.

➽ I disagree that “belief in government is a religion”.

⍺ Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities. Ω

Statists believe in government as a supreme being, as a deity. And just like believers in other deities, Statists have their dogma to obey and proselytize.

You said, and I quote: ➽ ... coming to think its the prior.

Now parsing that statement for context and clarity: ... [I'm] coming to think [this is an atheist site]

Since A-theism is opposite of theism and this site is (possibly) about anarchism, then this site would be a government deity atheist site.

Dale Eastman lol are you trying to resort to mocking the way Im speaking? Thats twice now. You can be pro limited government without being a statist 😂. No one is parsing any statement, you are putting all kinds of words into my mouth that I never said.

Apparently you're a whelp, not to be confused with a Boomer like myself. I was mimicking Captain in Cool Hand Luke.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/characters/nm0001510

➽ You can be pro limited government without being a statist

I could almost agree with you.
But you and I do not agree as to what government actually is.

I believe that if we stuck with the bare constitution of the united states, nothing more nothing less, would be a great balance of government and freedom. Im 33 so whatever that makes me i guess a “millennial” . Too many prior generations have aloud the Government to grow to the point it is now, with no accountability.

➽ I believe that if we stuck with the bare constitution of the united states,

Lysander Spooner NO TREASON The constitution of no authority.

I'd be happy providing a link to it if you haven't read it.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman I am of the belief that true anarchy could never work just because of the way humans are. No matter where you are in the world there are always individuals who seek power, greed, and influence over others. I feel the form of government laid out in the US constitution had a great balance if we the people had held the government to it. I mean the constitution if read completely is not even visible in whatever kind of fucked up system we have today. I dont understand how former generations of Americans didnt see the growing power of government and knock them down a few notches before it got to the point where its nearly impossible now.

➽ Dale Eastman I am of the belief that true anarchy could never work just because of the way humans are.

And with that comment I am transcribing the discussion to follow to my public archive of discussions on my website. Unless you don't want to be anonymized, you can find it there under AM.

➽ I mean the constitution if read completely is not even visible in whatever kind of fucked up system we have today. I dont understand...

That's because you have been government indoctrinated... Er, government schooled. I asked you if you knew about Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON. I've not seen a reply from you whether you want the link to it or not. No matter, here's the last sentence in the book: ⍺ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Ω Written in 1870.

It is my opinion that no government indoctrination center, you've heard of these as public schools, would ever put NO TREASON on the required reading list.

➽ I am of the belief that true anarchy could never work

❶ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word anarchy?

[Dale Eastman]

I also believe that nationalism with mutual respect is the only way. This globalist bullshit has to stop. Going back to the beginning of civilization powers come and go. But its part of being a human that you take care of you and yours first then worry about others. Nations need to take care of their own interests and seek trade and military goals that support their own interests

If there were no laws or government to enforce them, Civilization itself would break down. Then in our despair we would seek out a form of order which would turn into some form of government lol.

➽ If there were no laws or government to enforce them, Civilization itself would break down.

Thank you for your opinion. I do not agree.

➽ Then in our despair we would seek out a form of order which would turn into some form of government

You and I are not we. UNI-NOTWE is a logic error. Speak for yourself... You would despair and seek to become a slave again.

[Dale Eastman]

I love the idea of a true representative republic where when the representatives don’t do their jobs they are held accountable!!!

➽ I love the idea of a true representative republic where when the representatives don’t do their jobs they are held accountable!!!

There can never be a 'true representative republic". Canned text quote:
⍺ Any person who represents another is called an agent. The person being represented is called the principal.
In a true principal - agent relationship, the agent can not command the principal. The agent is required to obey the principal's wishes and protect the principal's interests. Also, if the agent fails to represent the principal and the principal's interests, the principal can terminate the agent's employment immediately.

Calling Congressional Legislators "Representatives" is a lie, regardless of the dictionary definitions doing just that. Newspeak anyone?

Legislators can not be immediately terminated for failing to protect any voter's interests. True representative agents can not command their principals, which is exactly what Legislators do with their laws. Laws that Legislators enact are commands.

So why call them Representatives?
They're not and they don't.
So why vote for them?

The record of alleged Representatives sure looks to me like they just do what they want anyway.Ω

[Dale Eastman]

You can not live in a society where every single decision that is made benefits you. Its not humanly possible. If you choose to live outside of society then you should not be able to benefit from the perks it offers.

yes with the principle of society and laws engraved in our minds. Have you driven in an inner city lately. Even when the lights ARE working, some people with chips on their shoulders feel like those rules dont apply to them. Even at a green you better look!

lol not everyone has those morals. In fact those morals are based off the Judea christian morals that the US founded their laws on. Especially since everyone has removed any type of moral structure from their lives it would be worse. Like I said it sounds great, dont get me wrong. It would just never work

➽ In fact those morals are based off the Judea christian morals that the US founded their laws on.

Thank you for your opinion. I do not agree.

[Dale Eastman]

I 100% am paying attention lol. Whatever you call the system we have in the US it is most certainly NOT what it was set up to be. Its ripe with corruption and greed. Thats why I added the part where “if the representatives don’t do their jobs, they are held accountable”

➽ Whatever you call the system we have in the US it is most certainly NOT what it was set up to be.

Thank you for your opinion. You are in error. The system works exactly as it was designed to work.

⍺ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Ω Written in 1870.

[Dale Eastman]

its a hell of a lot more efficient than a free for all. I love how you have such high expectations that others would be so courteous. I wish my life experiences brought me to that conclusion

➽ its a hell of a lot more efficient than a free for all.

Thank you for your opinion. I do not agree.

[Dale Eastman]

what would be a your solution to this hypothetical situation, which I could go on for days with these. You are at a free for all intersection, you are courteous, when it is your turn you proceed. Someone else is in a hurry to be somewhere and thinks they can squeeze through before you but miss judged the distance. Since there are no laws neither of you have insurance. Your means of transportation and your property are no longer functional because of someone else’s negligence. You need to fix your car. The bill is $1000’s do you just ask the guy to cover it? What if he says no? What if he disagrees that it was your turn to go through the intersection? See how without laws things can break down very quickly?

➽ Since there are no laws neither of you have insurance.

OBJECTION! Relies on facts not in evidence. Assumes the crystal ball being used to project the future is accurate. Tell you what AM. Tell me what the winning numbers are for the next big lottery, and the date those numbers are going to win and I'll split it 50/50 with you.

Are you going to claim there would be no insurance services without government?

➽ See how without laws things can break down very quickly?

There have been laws against murder since time immemorial. There have also been murders since time immemorial. You seem to be implying without laws, you won't know how to act as a moral person.

[Dale Eastman]

That is just 1 of millions of situations that law and order provide a very simple explanation to. 🤷‍♂️

➽ That is just 1 of millions of situations that law and order provide a very simple explanation to. 🤷‍♂️

Thank you for your opinion. I do not agree.

[Dale Eastman]

create straw men all you want. Im not advocating for the system we have today, but at the same time I AM a firm believer in limited government and law and order

➽ I AM a firm believer in limited government and law and order

❷ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word 'government'?
❸ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the term 'limited government'?
❹ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word 'order'?

[Dale Eastman]

its not me Im worried about its the fuckers who have no morals. Without personal consequences to their actions, they could care less about anyone else

➽ Without personal consequences to their actions,

Can't imagine how miscreants can have personal consequences absent government, Huh, Statist?

[Dale Eastman]

I started a new thread just for AM and I to have a one on one discussion.

This is as good of a meme image as any other to start a discussion. Since you and I definitely do not agree on things, I'm challenging you as the statist you are, to have a discussion about your statist beliefs.
Everyone else, please hold your comments for awhile.
➽ I am of the belief that true anarchy could never work
❶ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word anarchy?
➽ I AM a firm believer in limited government and law and order
❷ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word 'government'?
❸ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the term 'limited government'?
❹ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word 'order'?

I dont believe anarchists all agree on what anarchy is, so why dont you ALL come to a consensus on that first.

Limited government as it was laid out in the original text of the US constitution.

When I use the term law and order, I mean that I believe there must be a predetermined set of rules or laws that are based on the majority’s morals and a way to enforce said laws from a non bias third party.

I say the majority because I do not believe it is humanly possible to create a set of predetermined laws that every single person will agree to every single law.

I think that from what MY understanding of an anarchy is “without a ruler” that there is no humanly possible way for a society to prosper. This has been key to human civilization down to tribes having chiefs, or family having elders.

If I can be proven wrong that an anarchy on a mass scale, such as a country can be prosperous and have unity and peace I would love to be proven wrong. I love the principles of, again what I believe to be anarchy is, I just do not think it is possible on a large scale given the natural human tendencies that we are predisposed to and than MANY act out.

Oh and yes, just about anyone can quote literally anything in latin, it doesnt make you special 🤷‍♂️… I would love to see if you actually know how to pronounce it lol…. Video or it didn’t happen!!!

would you like me to teach you how to pronounce it or you just guess it out of your english accent ? 🤷😂

➽ Oh and yes, just about anyone can quote literally anything in latin, it doesnt make you special 🤷‍♂️… I would love to see if you actually know how to pronounce it lol…. Video or it didn’t happen!!!

I opt to not follow that particular red herring.

➽ I dont believe anarchists all agree on what anarchy is, so why dont you ALL come to a consensus on that first.

I don't believe you've been paying attention. Others in this group have told you, no rulers.

➽ Limited government as it was laid out in the original text of the US constitution.

I didn't ask you what was in the original text of the CONstitution did I? I asked you: "❷ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word 'government'?"

➽ When I use the term law and order, I mean that I believe there must be a predetermined set of rules or laws that are based on the majority’s morals and a way to enforce said laws from a non bias third party.

I didn't ask you about 'law and order' did I? I asked you: "❹ What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word 'order'?"

➽ I mean that I believe there must be a predetermined set of rules or laws...

There must? Who says so, by what authority. By authority, I mean by what right to rule; by what right to control?

➽ a predetermined set of rules or laws that are based on the majority’s morals

You mean like the moral laws that meant runaway slaves must be returned to their alleged owners?

➽ I think that from what MY understanding of an anarchy is “without a ruler” that there is no humanly possible way for a society to prosper.

Thank you for your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Now to dispense with your foolish belief in your religion of government.

20 points of YDOM, one at a time.

(1) YDOM! You don't own me!

Admit or deny.

Lol Im a Catholic and practice traditional mass, I do not need your condescending “latin lesson”

lol you crack me up. You have no presented one argument, you take bit and pieces of mine and then go ask loaded questions about it. Then act like your intelligence is some how superior because you use latin quotes. I do not owe you any explanation, you call me out on a group on Facebook asking my opinion, When you already knew it. If you think you were being clever trying to out me to the group as some big bad statist it was not very well disguised lol. The fact is that if you can not hear other points of view without trying to insult and “out the infidel” you are not so different from the far left Marxists

My intent is to give you my opinion, 20 points at a time.

I called you out because as a boomer, I've been around long enough to get a sense of how humans, especially emotionally reactive humans operate. Also, because the other thread is so cluttered and fragmented that following and having discussions became near impossible.

And with such discussions being near impossible, you are correct that one can not hear other points of view. Which, in you case, I fully intend to do... So I can examine them logically. This is why I requested others to hold off on posting their comments on this thread.

You are a 'big bad statist.' Those are your words, not mine. My words: You are a statist, like I used to be.; you have not thought this through as much as you imagine.

Please address the point:
(1) YDOM! You don't own me!
Admit or deny.

IR Please don't distract this fellow. I would like to have a one on one with him to drill down on his thinking.

Please address the point:
(1) YDOM! You don't own me!
Admit or deny.

You are not my ruler no need for me to.

Oh the delicious irony that I like and agree with your statement.

Can you articulate why I am not your 'ruler'?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman no, you stated you are a “boomer” Im sure there was a long period in yourlife where you were too busy to have pointless debates every day with complete strangers too.

And yet, here you are replying to my comments, not just in this thread but in another one also.

Got news for you Mr. Michael... Your wish for minarchism is still statism; you are still a statist.

In view of your observation of the time demands of life, I'll make it easy for you... Even though I'm a boomer near the end of my life, I'm perfectly okay with once a week interactions. Just make sure you tag me when you do reply: @ dale.eastman.75 without a space 'tween @ & d. You'll know you tagged the right person for obvious reasons. (YDOM)

Also, Instead of twenty points one at a time, I'll post all twenty at once. I'm only interested in which points you deny, and why. They are numbered. Any point not denied is accepted as admitted.

(1) YDOM! You don't own me!
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
(4) My body; my life; my labor; the results of my labor; property received in exchange for my labor, are all my property.
(5) My rights are my property.
(6) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(7) You do not have a "right to control" my property.
(8 ) I have the highest "right to control" in regard to any of my property.
(9) Concurrent with my "right to control" my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(10) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(11) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.

(12) This highest "right to control" is the same for every human.
(13) These are the equal rights addressed in the United States' Declaration of Independence.

(14) No human can delegate a "right to control" that they do not have.
(15) Voting can not delegate a "right to control" that the voter does not have.

(16) Governments are always comprised of humans.
(17) Humans that comprise "government" do not own me; do not have a "right to control" me; do not have a right to make rules I must allegedly obey; do not have a right to violate another human's rights.
(18) Humans that comprise "government" do not have a "right to control" me just because they occupy a government office.
(19) Humans that comprise "government" can not delegate a "right to control" (that they do not have) to the reified entity called "government".
(20) YDOM means there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human.