KC

[Dale Eastman]

Consent of the governed?
Show me the contract.
No contract: No consent.

The Constitution?
Show me my signature.
No signature: No consent.

synapticsparks.info

Law is Standing.

Law is a politician's opinion backed by a goon with a gun...

Neither the politician, nor the goon, have valid authority.

You would know this if you actually spent some time thinking about the words of inculcation the ruling class had your slave ass taught in their schools.

Dale Eastman Lol. I've come together with like minds and we practiced our Universal International Right of Self-Determination and we are working towards functional and personal immunity so we can help better those in a worse condition on this planet.

What are you doing? Claiming I don't know what I'm writing about because it doesn't fit into your mold?

Perhaps if you learned How The World Works you too would be spending your time trying to figure out how to deal with reality on reality's terms, instead of proclaiming a Standing you literally do not have in reality?

Good luck purporting to not be owned when your direct actions prove otherwise

Dale Eastman Protip: You don't consent? Laughable: your nationality gives it away as The Rulers of the World look to Nationality as the proof of being owned.

But, keep on claiming you don't consent even though your actions prove you so.

Peace find you

Kelly Christus I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt.

So a note to myself: Be respectful of Christus, He might not be the enemy.

Nationality is one of those idiot pigeon holes, just like left wing and right wing. Meaningless in my lexicon.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours... Website...

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=899.0

Dale Eastman Your lexicon doesn't account for reality—which is totally fine.

I too remember when I could discount the millennia of human evolution with regard to societies simply because of my subjective and relative viewpoint from a condition of servitude.

I used to be anti-government and anti-state; then I made a choice to start STANDING (another word for State) for something.

Dale Eastman Thanks for sharing your forum post. I think your entire argument falls short when you started resorting to US Case Law because that's showing a dependency on their system. Resort to natural law and international law if you don't have your own society's standards to follow and your argument holds vastly more weight.

https://blog.selfgoverned.net/

I don't post much there

Dale Eastman "Simple logic: No injury; no injured party; no standing to invoke the court's alleged authority; no reason to invoke the court's raison d'être. Thus both court's judgments are void ab initio."

Man, you're ALMOST there!

This is true! BUT ONLY when it comes to having that Legal / Lawful Status of "Foreign Dignitary".

No court will recognize this argument from someone in voluntary servitude

Is that blog all you? I'm intrigued and will be reading for awhile.

Dale Eastman It's for my People but I'm the only one posting so far

Dale Eastman Something to ponder upon:

"(13) These are the equal rights addressed in the United States' Declaration of Independence."

The thing about that Declaration is that it was between a specific group of people (56) who expressly stated, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The Declaration of Independence is littered with duplicitous language.

If Charles Manson was still alive and he told you that for safety you should only drive on the right side of the street, would you discount his words just because...

Taking my cue from, and paraphrasing, the United States Declaration of Independence...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary to defend against encroachments of the rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to be ready and willing to use escalating force and violence to defend against, and stop, such encroachments and violations of our Natural Rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created with an equal lack of ownership 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;

Thus, YOU DON'T OWN ME is the initial natural state of being; YDOM is a self-evident truth; You don't own me, my life, my liberty, or my property; YDOM means you don't have any authority over me to make rules I must obey; YDOM means you can not delegate authority over me to any other person, human or corporate; YDOM applies to every human in "government"; YDOM applies to "government"

Dale Eastman I wouldn't discount his words, because it's the custom of most all American States in the western hemisphere to drive on the right side of the road.

The other part of the US Declaration that people forget is: "in order to secure these rights [unalienable Rights], Governments are instituted among Men"

I ask people: what government have you constituted to secure your perception of unalienable Rights?

Dale Eastman Jefferson stated it to a candid world that unalienable Rights (lol, whatever those are) are secured by men who form a government; if we are going to appeal to Their Declaration, we must also accept that self-evident truth about "rights" and government:

what government have you constituted to prove to Whoever Rules The World that your "unalienable Right" to own yourself is secured by you and that you are living your principle of "You Don't Own Me"?

Simply professing to the universe that another man or woman doesn't own you means nothing when the totality of the world follows customs that dictate: to secure unalienable rights governments are instituted among men

Note above the statist think

Dale Eastman I argued with the system numerous times about how they didn't own or control me; when I created my Status with my People my world did a 180 and my interactions with that system have become minimal.

My point is, if I can go from a literal Sovereign-Citizen claiming thay the system doesn't own me and I am met with massive resistance the entire time, and once I came to peace and formed my own government I am met with no resistance by that very same system. . . there *must* be something to Jefferson's words about securing unalienable rights with government.

➽ once I came to peace and formed my own government I am met with no resistance by that very same system.

That is an unsubstantiated claim.

If I am properly understanding your words, you are implying that I should do what you did. Form my own government.

My problem is that you are not stating clearly what is required to do this procedure that you SEEM to imply is a panacea for the ills of the tyrants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/.../On_the_Internet,_nobody...
By The New Yorker, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13627120

Dale Eastman I'm pointing out that the USA established a specific model of proving Self-Ownership to The Rulers of The World that the Rulers recognize: look at all the Free Peoples in this world—I'm referring to the Peoples that created States and got people to agree to the idea and give it their energy.

You ask for a procedure; there's no "cookie cutter way" for a People to prove a sovereign and independent state, Their free association or integration with another independent State, or Their emergence into any other political status freely determined by that people. . . Although, a model of International Organization has been around since the 18th century:

Unite together as a People for the purpose of promoting mutual safety and advantage through joint efforts of combined strength;

Constitute some order that protects your People's "rights";

Stand upon the State / Status created by your People to prove that you have presumed your separate and equal station among the powers of the earth as nature and nature's god intends for all free Peoples.

Sadly, self-ownership has become a collective thing since the 17th century.

➽ Sadly, self-ownership has become a collective thing since the 17th century.

I gave myself almost 24 hours to attempt to process and make sense of what you are saying. Collective ownership is not self ownership.

I'll stand on YDOM! Thank you.

The original post here anticipates the idiots that think the CONstitution is a contract... Usually spewed after reading the attached comment card.

The CONstitution is NOT a contract in any sense of the word contract and Lysander Spooner addressed that fact in 1870 with NO TREASON, the Constitution of No Authority.

I DEMAND to know where the certified copies of my alleged consent,
with my signature on the consent form is being stored.

I DEMAND to know where the certified copies of the terms
 I allegedly agreed to are being stored.

I DEMAND proof of this alleged consent
to be governed, ruled, or owned
be presented IMMEDIATELY.

Failure to do so immediately is government's testimony,
and my evidence, that this alleged consent does not exist.

synapticsparks.info

Dale Eastman Good luck!

Dale Eastman What I am saying is that individual self-ownership doesn't exist in the current world paradigm because self-ownership is a "right of peoples"

I'm with you on self-ownership; I cannot deny reality's terms that in order for me to prove my self-ownership, I must come together as a People and stand upon our rights, together, in our State / Status we've built in the natural state of humanity.

I was a Sovereign-Citizen from the age of 14-24, and the past 11 years have been me trying to figure out how to prove I own myself; hence, my statement expressing my sorrow that self-ownership can only be proven to Whomever Rules The World through a collective act of a people.

➽ What I am saying is that individual self-ownership doesn't exist in the current world paradigm because <snip>

The war is for the minds of the enslaved.

➽ [...] hence, my statement expressing my sorrow that self-ownership can only be proven to Whomever Rules The World through a collective act of a people.

What, specifically, do you mean by "a collective act of a people"?

I agree with your statement at face value. But what is this collective act to be?

I have started writing at length about the concept of YDOM!

It is my opinion that the collective action must start with folks individually understanding that You don't own me, I don't own you, and "they" don't own any of us. "They" being the ruling class.

The next collective action is to meme the crap out of YDOM; to expose the enslaved to the YDOM mindset; to make the mindset of YDOM go viral.

Imagine if you can, if all of those who believed Hitler had valid authority instead had a YDOM mindset. Hitler, you don't own me, you don't own those folks you told me to load in the cattle cars to Auschwitz, I don't own those folks you want loaded on the trains. Imagine this all the way up the chain of command; the chain of alleged authority; the chain of alleged right to rule.

A quote from Frederick Douglass, an articulate black man, an elegant thinker, and an actual former slave:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

The issue is how to get the order followers to stop following tyrant's orders without having to kill the order followers or the tyrant. This can happen by ignoring the tyrants into oblivion. The order followers are going to be a harder problem to solve. The order followers are the ones with the guns. I fear that some of these are going to have to be killed to inform the rest that YDOM and I won't obey you.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn ―
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if! We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

I don't know how much of my website you have looked at. This link is to my second addressing of the YDOM concept.

https://synapticsparks.info/YDOM/

This is my first addressing of the YDOM concept.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/YDOM/YDOM.html

Dale Eastman I've scanned here and there and from everything I've seen your philosophy behind YDOM is an individualist approach to one's Universal International Right of Self-Determination, excluding the act of voluntarily coming together to form some system of guidance / "rule" (in the sense of straight) / "government" (I try to shy away from the word due to modern negative connotations).

I could be mistaken on the last part of my paragraph, I haven't had much time to scope out the entirety of your forum (nice BTW, we also use SMF)

Dale Eastman I am of the mind that if there are any such things as natural rights they begin with the right to alienate our "perfect" rights in nature, in whatever ways we want to; even if done in nescience or ignorance.

From there, other humans desiring control over others, have established systems of order to create conditions of soft-slavery in the form of voluntary servitude.

I disagree with the idea that nobody can own another: only in the context of using our "perfect" natural rights to voluntarily submit to some system someone else made, instead of using our "perfect" natural rights to create a system of our own.

Physical ownership of anyone is repugnant to nature.

➽ everything I've seen your philosophy behind YDOM is an individualist approach
➽ I am of the mind that if there are any such things as natural rights they begin with <snip>

The "right" to defend one's life can only be an individual right.

I do not care to get bogged down in a discussion of what a "right" is... So from the human animal perspective, this is no different than any prey animal fighting for its life, or any predator animal looking for a meal.

To illustrate the point, just consider two human cannibals shipwrecked on a deserted island.

Each if understanding the other has an equal right to live, then they can agree to hunt and fish the non-human animals, and pick the non-human plants for life sustaining resources.

➽ one's Universal International Right of Self-Determination

International? What does multiple nations have to do with one's right to live their life and be left alone if they are not harming other humans?

➽ excluding the act of voluntarily coming together to form some system of guidance / "rule" (in the sense of straight) / "government" (I try to shy away from the word due to modern negative connotations).

As well you should arrange the best you can to not use "government". The word is an euphemism... An innocuous word or expression used in place of one that is deemed offensive or suggests something unpleasant... Like a reified entity that extorts and coerces humans for money and control.

The only real "government" there is, is self-government, That is, self-control. The individual decides if they are going to act morally or immorally. The rules are few and simple.

Actions have consequences.
When you harm or injure another, they have a right to demand redress from you. If you refuse to repair your harm, they have a right to take a pound of your flesh. Maybe even literally depending on the damage you're not repairing.

If you decide to treat others as you wish to be treated, you can not be successfully accused of deliberately causing harm to another.

There is no "coming together" to force others to behave as a single entity. There is you and I. There is no we. Reification is a logic error when discussing any group, collective, or we. This is followed by the error of presuming to speak for the group... Especially if I am part of that alleged and assumed group and I DO NOT AGREE with the mouthpiece's claim for the group.

I was not, and am not, part of the long dead "We the People" attributed to writing the Constitution as stated in the Preamble. Nor am I a part of the presently living "We the People" that is presumed, without evidence, to have consented to be ruled by a ruling class.

➽ I could be mistaken on the last part of my paragraph, I haven't had much time to scope out the entirety of your forum

My opinion on that last part does not really matter. Free will. You interact with me because you choose to. You read my website with all its concepts because you choose to. You will either choose that you erred in your thoughts, or you will choose that you have not erred.

Most importantly, you have chosen to question your own thoughts. I say, let the process continue.

➽ if there are any such things as natural rights they begin with the right to alienate our "perfect" rights in nature, in whatever ways we want to; even if done in nescience or ignorance.

You might want to think about this point a little more.

✨We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.✨

merriam-webster.com › dictionary › unalienable
May 14, 2022 - The meaning of UNALIENABLE is impossible to take away or give up

➽ even if done in nescience or ignorance

Nescience means unknowing. Where does much (alleged) learning happen? Public (government) School. So who is failing to educate the folks on what unalienable means, and what their rights are? Who is conditioning humans, like Pavlov's dogs, to react properly obeisant to "authority" and authority figureheads?

➽ From there, other humans desiring control over others, have established systems of order to create conditions of soft-slavery in the form of voluntary servitude.

Yes... Megalomaniacs, control freaks, have established systems of CONTROL to create soft-slavery. I strongly reject your choice of the word "order".

This system of control exists because the enslaved have been taught that they are not enslaved.

Frederick Douglass, an articulate black man, an elegant thinker, and an actual former slave, has written:

✨I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right...✨

➽ I disagree with the idea that nobody can own another: only in the context of using our "perfect" natural rights to voluntarily submit to some system someone else made, instead of using our "perfect" natural rights to create a system of our own.

I am not going to unpack that statement. It assumes facts not in evidence.

That statement boils down for me, to: Don't use their system; create your own.

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this system you say to create?

Dale Eastman Some declaration those men made between themselves, isn't it? It'd be a shame if some third parties to that contract came along and tried to claim the provisions of that contract as their own without forming their own contract and professed that they had those same natural abilities and privileges.

Without proving it of course.

Good luck and be well

Dale Eastman P.S. Oh, Frederick Douglas, praised the document that legitimized his past slavery. Poor duped soul.

https://youtu.be/j4kI2h3iotA

➽ Dale Eastman P.S. Oh, Frederick Douglas, praised the document that legitimized his past slavery. Poor duped soul.

I'm processing why that statement triggered me. That excellent vid untriggered me. It's going to get a double share, my account and my collection of shares.

Dale Eastman https://youtu.be/cS1w7Vq_5x0
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLasUBWnpajBYn3-UxGKHMzghNI5HaQALE

As of 1604 24 June I have not watched the playlist. It came back to my attention as I was copy-pasting this discussion to my website.

I was going to ghost you but you tossed some intriguing concepts on the table. In other words, you now have my attention.

You wrote:
➽ instead of using our "perfect" natural rights to create a system of our own.

I do not understand what you mean by ➽ a system of our own.

⚡That statement boils down for me, to: Don't use their system; create your own.⚡
⚡What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this system you say to create?⚡
This answer did not address the original inquiry.
➽ Dale Eastman Some declaration those men made between themselves, isn't it? It'd be a shame if some third parties to that contract came along and tried to claim the provisions of that contract as their own without forming their own contract and professed that they had those same natural abilities and privileges.

A "system" will have specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics...
Rewording my question slightly, I again ask:
What do you envision as the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this "system"?

Dale Eastman What I mean by a system of our own is to create some kind of order, system, infrastructure, society, state, ad nauseum—I will use the term order as I like the word—that establishes some foundation that we can use as a foothold to stand upon and assert our natural abilities. Regardless of our subjective and relative beliefs in YDOM! (I adhere to the idea, just in different ways with different language), the world operates under a specific paradigm and to prove YDOM! under that paradigm requires one specific thing: a State.

There are four characteristics of what constitutes a State under that paradigm:

A permanent population; a defined territory; order; independence;

The modern way to create a State is to unite together and identify as a People / Nation, constitute some kind of order that protects that identity and everything that comes with it (rights, standing, independence, self-ownership, natural existence, etc.), and do so in Peace.

Otherwise, arguing YDOM! to governments and government actors is truly futile until a new paradigm is created, and that won't be happening in our lifetime.

"What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics [...]"

Whatever you determine them to be with whoever you unite together to determine your existence with; I cannot answer those questions for you because you have to determine them for yourself. I determined those things with my People back in 2016. Some of what we have enshrined in our order is:

Natural ability
Natural rights and natural justice
Self-Ownership

This journey hasn't been easy.

Real life demands my attention. Your post demands my focus. So I'll be responding later, Maybe even tomorrow or the day after. I appreciate that you have addressed my inquiry, so you and I will have much to discuss. Thanks.

Dale Eastman You're welcome. Be well out there

This set of words tells me I have failed to communicate the concept of YDOM.

➽ the world operates under a specific paradigm and to prove YDOM! under that paradigm requires one specific thing: a State.

🔍A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something.🔍
🔍a set of theories that explain the way a particular subject is understood at a particular time🔍

YDOM is a paradigm. YDOM is a way of looking at something. YDOM is the necessary paradigm shift to make doing evil harder for the evil-doers. Even when the evil-doers do not see the evil they are doing.

The rest of your post is, IMO, you overthinking the problem. Or you might not be seeing the problem as I see it. <shrug>

YDOM is a mindset. Everybody has a tiny inkling of this mindset.

Now mail me that $1,000 cashier's check I have decided you owe me.

Dale Eastman When your new paradigm is recognized by Whoever Rules The World let me know!

You missed or ignored the point. <shrug>

I'll repeat it, please address it:

Now mail me that $1,000 cashier's check I have decided you owe me.

Dale Eastman I ignored your point because it has no relevance on the subject matter of proving to Whoever Controls The World that we can control ourselves. YDOM! is a subjective and relative approach to existence and it falls short when trying to apply it objectively in ways that Whoever Controls The World recognize (without that recognition ALL ACTIONS OF SELF-OWNERSHIP are worthless) ; how can anyone purport to own themselves when they cannot even control their own destiny because they're too busy arguing that people don't own them *instead of actively and directly proving it*?

Your hatred toward government (let's just call government what it is: order) is precisely why you will forever be arguing YDOM! against "the government" and people acting in the name of that idea, while others in this existence will be too busy determining their destiny and operating with various levels of immunity because they made the choice to adhere to certain fundamentals of the world when it comes to political inventions.

With regard to your cashier's check, I don't waste my time on strawmen.

Have a great day.

Dale Eastman One blatant example of YDOM! in the context I've been discussing it, is when the Aristocratic Elites of the United States of America *brought self-determination to the world stage* by telling the Parliament of Great Britain to kick rocks when they came together as "Americans" and declared their independence from Great Britain, and then constituted two forms of government to enshrine their "rights" and "freedoms" into their order: and then gave their order the energy it needs by convincing 4+ million people that it is legitimate and to subject themselves to its rule.

It's child-like thinking and belief to think that the World Powers or Universal Energies are going to respect anyone that can't even presume their separate and equal station in nature.

What we obviously have here, Is a failure to communicate.

➽ Your hatred toward government (let's just call government what it is: order) <SNIP!>

Yes... Let's just call government what it is: A euphemism for an imaginary entity, no different than Santa Claus, that extorts and coerces humans for money and control.

Dale Eastman Odd that an imaginary entity with no tangible existence can effect physical existence; perhaps you need to place blame where it is deserved: on humans

Although, it's more "intellectual" to blame ideas instead of people.

[Dale Eastman]

I spent 553 minutes on this 3 part reply.
𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙩 1

Again, I observe you and I are having a failure to communicate.

The first internal question I am asking myself is, What is the ideological conflict? What is the contention that is causing you to reject what I am trying to communicate?

In order to attempt to understand this, I must attempt to understand your position, what you are trying to present.

My original post was basically to point out, "Consent of the governed" is a provable lie.

With three words,
➽ Law is Standing.
You essentially stated, "Dale, you are wrong."

You erred in assuming the word "law" means the same to me as it does to you.
I erred in not being clear in pointing out the word "law" does not mean the same thing to each of us.

To discuss the meaning of the word "law" the first examination is the definition of "law". The second examination is how "law" comes into being. The third examination is whence comes the authority, whence comes the right, to make laws others must obey.

❶st examination:
What is Law?
According to dictionaries...

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

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

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

Stated simply as most would understand law:
Law is a command to do or not to do some action.

❷nd examination:
How is law is created:

Elected Legislators have the job of making rules, called laws, to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to do. Legislators have the job of making rules to set how you shall be punished if you get caught not obeying Legislator rules.

An elected Legislator will write, dicker, and then vote with other Legislators regarding a new law and if 51% of the Legislators voting agree that thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property, then that is the law and thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property.

Legislators, Senators, and Congresspersons are merely men and women. Such politicians are not gods or demigods. They have no supernatural intellect or knowledge. And most importantly, they were created in equality to all other humans, meaning they do NOT have a "right to rule" any other human.

❸rd examination:
Whence comes authority to make laws other must obey?

You passed over these words the first time I posted them.
I have adjusted them specifically for you to...

Admit or deny:
These truths are self-evident, that all humans are created with an equal lack of ownership over any other humans...

In other words...

Admit or deny:
Either you, me, and some 8 billion other humans have equal rights and equally none of the 8 billion have a right to rule any other human.

If you claim you have a right to rule me or anyone else, then you have declared war against some 8 billion humans. In doing so, you have identified yourself as my mortal enemy. This is especially true if I have done NO HARM to you or yours.

If no human has a right to rule any other human, no human can delegate that right to any politician by voting for them. Thus government actors do NOT have a right to rule. Government, and its actors can NEVER have valid authority over me.

Law is an Elected Politician's Opinion without valid authority because no politician owns me.

🔍There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one
person using threats or violence to force his will upon another.

The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent.
-- Larken Rose --🔍

This should be the end of the discussion based upon the logic of what is presented. Because I still don't understand the ideology you are trying to present. Thus, this is only part 1 of my examination of the discussion.

[Dale Eastman]

𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙩 2
Again, I observe you and I are having a failure to communicate.

➽ What are you doing? Claiming I don't know what I'm writing about because it doesn't fit into your mold?

Perhaps the inverse is true. Perhaps you are claiming I don't know what I'm writing about because it doesn't fit into your mold.

Mold - mindset, belief, logic, conclusion.

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of the two apparently different molds?

This is why I am reviewing the discussion. To see if I missed something that would clue me in to the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of your mold.

➽ Perhaps if you learned How The World Works...

Apparently, you and I do not see the same thing regarding, "How The World Works". And just as apparently to me, this is because of assumptions causing communication errors causing points to not be conveyed.

A ridiculous example is, You and I can NOT discuss "Gasorminumplaz" because you and I do not have a common understanding of the term.

Lewis Carroll gave a good quote on this issue:

🔍 ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’           
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’🔍

If you wish to communicate with me, define your terms.
Source unconfirmed.

I am going to continue examining our discussion with an eye to attempting to dig out the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "How The World Works" according to your mold.

➽ I too remember when I could discount the millennia of human evolution with regard to societies simply because of my subjective and relative viewpoint <snip>

Your viewpoint assumes facts not in evidence about the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "Millennia of human evolution and societies".

➽ I used to be anti-government and anti-state;

So you are now pro-government and pro-state? That could explain the conflict of our ideologies. The specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "government" and "state" have not been examined at this point in the discussion.

Later in the discussion you addressed "state".

➽ There are four characteristics of what constitutes a State under that paradigm:
A permanent population; a defined territory; order; independence;

The State of Wisconsin IS the "government" of Wisconsin. The State/Government of Wisconsin is an artificial entity; a legal fiction. Creating this legal fiction is what I see you claiming that needs to be done in order to declare YDOM to the world.

➽ then I made a choice to start STANDING (another word for State) for something.

After reviewing "STANDING" in two dictionaries and a thesaurus... I'm ignoring my first reaction and going with my second.

What, specifically, do YOU mean as you have used the word "STANDING"?

➽ The Declaration of Independence is littered with duplicitous language.

🔍 The meaning of duplicitous is marked by duplicity : deceptive in words or action.🔍

And yet you write:

➽ Jefferson stated it to a candid world that unalienable Rights (lol, whatever those are) are secured by men who form a government; if we are going to appeal to Their "duplicitous words of" Declaration, we must also accept that self-evident truth about "rights" and government:

🔍 Contextomy (also known as: fallacy of quoting out of context, quoting out of context):
Removing a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.🔍

🔍 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,🔍

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of consent? Until this is nailed down, you can not prove consent.

➽ Simply professing to the universe that another man or woman doesn't own you means nothing when the totality of the world follows customs that dictate: to secure unalienable rights governments are instituted among men

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Your claim, your opinion, means nothing.

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "government"?
What, exactly, is being instituted among humans?

Here are the traits of government that I have observed:

States and Governments pay for their operational expenses by taxation. Taxation is extortion and coercion.

Don't pay the tribute to your county/state for property tax, government kicks you and your family to the curb. I personally know a family that had this happen.

The word "government" is an euphemism... 🔍An innocuous word or expression used in place of one that is deemed offensive or suggests something unpleasant🔍 Like a reified imaginary entity that extorts and coerces humans for money and control.

➽ customs that dictate: to secure unalienable rights governments are instituted among men

So... Owning a home is NOT an unalienable right?

Admit or deny this contradiction of government purpose exists.

[Dale Eastman]

𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙩 3

➽ there *must* be something to Jefferson's words about securing unalienable rights with government.

*something*?

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this *something*?

➽ a specific model of proving Self-Ownership to The Rulers of The World that the Rulers recognize:

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of various "Rulers"?

Rulers make rules; Rulers issue commands and orders. This is common to the two different classes of "Rulers"; The ones alleged to have authority and the ones that don't have authority. The ones alleged to have a right to rule and the ones that don't have a right to rule.

A simple comparison: Two motorists with men pointing guns at them and yelling, "Get the fuck out of the car!" The only difference, one is a cop and the other is a car-jacker. People believe the cop has valid authority to command the motorist and the jacker does not.

Examining the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this alleged authority; this alleged right to rule MUST examine whence comes this alleged authority; whence comes this alleged right to rule.

To me it looks like you still have your government (public) brainwashing (education). You still believe the rulers have valid authority; a valid right to rule. I used to believe that same BS until I started examining the written words of the organic documents that purport to have created the American nation of 50 states united <sic>.

➽ look at all the Free Peoples in this world—

The people of the 50 states united are NOT free because they are not free to spend their money on things they choose. Taxation - Give us money or we hurt you.

➽ Sadly, self-ownership has become a collective thing since the 17th century.
➽ What I am saying is that individual self-ownership doesn't exist in the current world paradigm because self-ownership is a "right of peoples"

🔍A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something.🔍
🔍a set of theories that explain the way a particular subject is understood at a particular time🔍

Self-ownership is a right of "Self".

I do not understand your brain glitch(s), your failure to understand, nor your your perspective(s), idea(s), and theory(ies) on this point.

➽ I'm with you on self-ownership;

No. You are not.

You are confusing "self" and "individual" with "collective". The "right" to defend one's life can only be an individual right.

Aha! Here's the source of conflict and contention:

➽ the world operates under a specific paradigm and to prove YDOM! under that paradigm requires one specific thing: a State.
...
➽ arguing YDOM! to governments and government actors is truly futile until a new paradigm is created, and that won't be happening in our lifetime.
...
➽ When your new paradigm is recognized by Whoever Rules The World let me know!

🔍A paradigm is a standard, perspective, or set of ideas. A paradigm is a way of looking at something.🔍

You have failed to understand that I am presenting a new way of looking at something. I am presenting a new way of looking at government. I am presenting a drill down to the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "government", its alleged authority, and its alleged right to rule.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman I cannot properly answer any of your response because you cannot accept the fact that if there are any 'unalienable rights' those 'unalienable rights' FIRST begin with the right to alienate those rights; due to the fact that logic dictates that if someone has the sole and exclusive 'right' to anything, they would most certainly have the right to 'lien' or give away their sole and exclusive 'right'.

Thus, there can be no such thing as an 'unalienable right' because to have an exclusive 'right' to anything INCLUDES the 'right' to give it away.

You are operating under the fiction that there exists unalienable rights when logic dictates that this cannot be the case.

Dale Eastman Logic dictates this to be the case with regard to 'unalienable rights' due to the fact that there are 7.9+ billion humans who have given away their 'unalienable rights' to live within collectives called society / state / nation / country / whatever-word-describes-the-incorporation-of-individual-humans-into-groups.

If this were not the case there would not be roughly 26,280 people controlling 7.9+ billion others.

In order for any productive discussion to further from this point you need to drop your fiction of 'unalienable rights' because it is contrary to reality and reality's terms.

P. S. Just as an aside that only has relevance because you involved the individual by name, just ask Larken Rose which system protects the copyright(s) on his books and watch how fast you get blocked by him.

Dale Eastman One last thing.

"The people of the 50 states united are NOT free because they are not free to spend their money on things they choose. Taxation - Give us money or we hurt you."

You're erroneously assuming you are 'the people' of any system on this planet.

You are not.

'The People' throughout all history have been the popular rulers—were you part of the popular rulers, "the people", that committed treason and started a civil war because you were pissed off at parliament?

No.

Were you the English Lords and Populists that regicided Charles I by inventing the fiction called 'the people' and usurping his power?

No.

Were you part of the popular leaders during the slave rebellion in Haiti?

No.

Were you part of the popular leaders that rebelled against Spain in Europe and Central America?

No.

Do you see the pattern yet?

"I used to believe that same BS until I started examining the written words of the organic documents that purport to have created the American nation of 50 states united"

You instead changed one BS belief into another called 'unalienable rights'. Likely because Jefferson's words resonated with you; they did with me too, until I started studying the institution those "Founding Fathers" used to legitimize their rebellion in their own minds and found out that their entire system was for themselves and their direct bloodlines.

The problem with the reasoning you're using here is based off of your nescience of The Law of Nations / International Law and how "The Founding Fathers" used its principles to get people to give away their natural abilities for political inventions called Civil Rights.

Now, back onto the topic of 'unalienable rights':

Rights are just as fictitious as government. Rights don't exist in nature. This is why 'rights' change from country to country. They change from country to country because they are a pure fabrication of the mind of man and applicable only within their political inventions called States. Show me some 'rights' in nature that some 'sovereign' is going to punish those who breach said 'rights'; I would love to see them!

The only thing that exists in nature is ability and if you cannot accept that fact then there can be no progress in discussion.

I have copied your words to a local file. I'll get back to you when I have decoded your... ahem... words and your attempted presentments of your beliefs... Er... Concepts.

Dale Eastman Be well today and have a good one