A Facebook Discussion

[Dale Eastman]

As I copy-n-paste the dialog here, I will be highlighting unaddressed points in red.

Does anyone feel like fighting today? I feel like that all the time.

No. But I'll have at it anyway.

Nice segue to our unfinished discussion about authority.

yes the most violent usurp the authority -- I told you that before -- all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.

(I finally looked at your FB page. The irony of the following is not lost on me.)

Then according to you Ms. xxxxxxxx, Hitler had non-bogus authority regardless of how acquired.

Using your own words regarding the validity of authority, the German soldiers invaded Poland because they had a belief in Hitler's authority.

And by your own words, Ms. xxxxxxxx, Hitler then had valid, non-bogus authority over Poland and the people thereof.

Germans shipped Jews and other undesirables to the death camps.
Germans showered Jews and other undesirables with Zyklon B...
Again because they had a belief in Hitler's authority.


Let's apply your statement to a scenario of you and I on some lost deserted island. How we got there is irrelevant, ship wreck, plane crash, alien kidnapping, whatever.

There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.

I am a big guy and an asshole. I will tell you what to do and if you don't, I will hurt you. I have taken you and the island by conquest.

By your own words: "I have authority over you whether you consent or not [ ] I have more power than you have."

By your own words, my authority over you is legitimate - NOT bogus.

And by you defending the concept of your words, I must presume that you are okay with this.

Are you?

A link to where the following post resides on Facebook was here in the original.

[Dale Eastman]

Chain of Authority

1. A chain of authority has a subordinate end.

2. A chain of authority has a superior end.

3. Which may also be called a sovereign end.

4. The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.

5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.

6. For comparison, a plantation owner's ownership of a cotton picking slave was presumed to have had a higher claim on the slave than the slave had over him or her self, property, and labor.

7. Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior authority is by definition: enslavement.

8. The alleged authority of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.

9. Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.

10. This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!

11. There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.

12. For example, I always used seat belts before there were laws (politician's opinions) commanding I always wear seat belts. To properly protest that law, I would have to do something that lessens my survival odds in a collision - Not wear the seat belt.

13. Examination of alleged consent finds that it was never actually given, only usurped or fabricated. I'll come back to this.

14. Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have? Well... If they don't have it...

15. Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else? Claiming you were born with authority over me is a declaration of war with me. You have been warned!

16. The alleged authority of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances is presumed to come from the legislators.

17. This means the alleged authority imbued in the written words of law (politician's opinions) is the authority that the legislators (politicians) are alleged to have over everyone else.

18. Legislators (politicians) are not born with this alleged authority over everyone else, therefore this alleged authority must be delegated to the legislators (politicians).

19. The main source of this alleged authority is presumed to come with the office.

20. The other part of this alleged authority comes from the selection of a person to hold the office.

21. If you do not have authority over me, then you can not select any person to have an authority over me. You can only select a person to have authority over you.

22. Voting for a person to hold the office of legislator does NOT give him authority over me unless I also voted for that politician.

23. Prove I've ever voted for any present officeholder. (You can't because I didn't.)

24. If appointed to an office, if the person doing the appointing does not have authority over me, then the delegation of authority and the appointee can not have authority over me.

25. The person doing the appointing was put into their office the same way... By appointment or by vote. The same failure to have authority over me still exists.

26. Returning to the alleged authority of the office. These offices were created by people who were not born with authority over me.

27. Therefore these offices do not have authority over me.

28. Focusing on the federal level constitution, also known as the highest law in the land, Those long dead authors of the constitution did not have authority over me.

29. Therefore, the constitution has no authority over me.

30. And neither do the offices created by the constitution.

Any alleged authority over me is bogus and fraudulent.

Regarding the Consent Of The Governed...

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.

[Dale Eastman]

Ms. xxxxxxxx attempted to dodge the issue and unknowingly made my point for me by writing:

That was a very long answer to say that those with might have rights. Yes if you were bigger and stronger than me and we were on a deserted Island, you would have authority over me until I kill you.

Didn't you say authority is valid regardless of how acquired?
{Scrolling up to verify my memory is correct.}

You wrote: "just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte"

Yep. You claimed my authority is valid regardless of how acquired.

You stated that you intend to rebel against people with VALID authority.

Were the roles reversed, my intent would be to rebel against people who claim threat, duress, and coercion are valid authority.

If that authority is bogus, your rebellion is justified.
If that authority is valid, your rebellion is not justified.

Threat, Duress, Coercion, or Extortion is not Authority.

[Dale Eastman]

I disagree. I believe that your authority is valid if acquired by force.

and my rebellion against it is also valid

[Dale Eastman]

yes the most violent usurp the authority -- I told you that before -- all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.

To challenge and examine this view of authority, I wrote:

...................................... ......
Let's apply your statement to a scenario of you and I on some lost deserted island. How we got there is irrelevant, ship wreck, plane crash, alien kidnapping, whatever.

There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.

I am a big guy and an asshole. I will tell you what to do and if you don't, I will hurt you. I have taken you and the island by conquest.

By your own words: "I have authority over you whether you consent or not [ ] I have more power than you have."
By your own words, my authority over you is legitimate - NOT bogus.

And by you defending the concept of your words, I must presume that you are okay with this.

Are you?
...................................... ......

That was a very long answer to say that those with might have rights.

And:

Yes if you were bigger and stronger than me and we were on a deserted Island, you would have authority over me until I kill you.

I will confess to misreading this. At first read it translated in my mind as "Might makes Right" / "Might makes Moral".

After I replied to your reply, I found this editorially added:

Am I ok with those who have the power and money controlling those who don't? Of course not -- but that is how reality works. THose with the weapons make the rules.

I didn't say anything about those with power and money.
What I did say is, “There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.”

I'm calling you on your attempt to change the subject to avoid what the question was actually meant to examine...

Your words, specifically and to wit:

all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because violence was used does not make the authority illegitimate because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.

Rephrasing because of avoidance of the question.
Are you okay with me having VALID authority over you gained by conquest and violence?
It's your own damn words that claims my authority over you is NOT BOGUS.

You wrote: "you would have authority over me until I kill you."

By parsing, combining, and translating your various words, you have claimed that:
You would be willing to kill me to end my VALID authority and VALID rule over you.

This says much about your morality and beliefs. You stated that you are willing to commit murder to end authority that you claim is valid.

If this authority is valid, then why would you premeditate murder to end it?

Perhaps you recognize that you did not consent to this authority over you and you actually recognize that this is BOGUS authority?

Or perhaps you've described yourself with your own words: “yes the most violent usurp the authority”.

Or perhaps you believe "Might makes Right" and "Might makes Moral", twin concepts that I reject and dismiss unless you actually claim such belief, thus taking the discussion in another direction?

You previously agreed to this description of authority:

4. The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.
5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.

At issue is, When is such a claim valid?

I have read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy web page about and titled “Authority”. (Link) I have found nothing to change my view, and in fact that page has helped me clarify my view.

I draw a line between one concept of authority and all the rest.
Authority by extortion on the one side, Authority by consent on the other.

Extortion is not authority.
Threat, duress, or coercion is not authority.
Do what we tell you to do or you will be hurt is not authority.

So STOP using authority as a euphemism for threat, duress, coercion, and extortion.

[Dale Eastman]

I have found you to have a great deal of mental acuity showing in your posts. In the following statement, not so much.

Yes I would be willing to let soldiers commit murder to end the authority of government that I claim is valid since those with power have authority.

I said nothing about soldiers committing murder. I remind you again, I said, “There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.”

I repeat, You stated that you are willing to commit murder to end authority that you claim is valid.

And I ask again, If this authority is valid, then why would you premeditate murder to end it?

And again, I must call you on your use of the euphemism of authority when you are actually referring to the extortion of “Do what you are told to do or you will be hurt.” With the ability to hurt being the power referred to.

You also wrote:

You would have authority over me on that island whether I like it or not until I figure out how to take over.

So... You've just admitted that you're an immoral, power hungry, despot wannabe.

Remember, you're the one calling my threat, duress, and coercion “authority.”
Unlike you, I'm calling my action in the scenario precisely what it is: “EXTORTION”.

If alleged authority is bogus, then why call it authority? Especially since extortion is closer to and much more descriptive of the truth?

In the next post, you wrote:

I don't like philosophy so I'm not reading that description.

Am I to assume you are referring to the Stanford page? If so, I have no problem with you not reading it. If you are referring to something else, I can't comment with my lack of understanding of to what you refer.

Also, philosophy has several different meanings, and again I have no knowledge of what you mean. So I'll just copy this one from Merriam-Webster:

Philosophy; 4 a :the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group.

By that definition, You have a philosophy.

You also wrote:

Extortion is authority, power is authority, might is authority, threat, duress coercion -- all authority -- bogus? of course but so what -- in the real world of might makes right this is immoral but yet valid.

So I repeat the questions I asked above:
If alleged authority is bogus, then why call it authority? Especially since extortion is closer to and much more descriptive of the truth?

Authority does not have to be fair, just or moral to be valid. It just has to be able to coerce and force others.

Then it's not authority, it's extortion.

[Dale Eastman]

Then call authority extortion if it makes you happy.

Thanks to our discussion I already do. You however, do not.

Does not change that the powerful always win.

Why would you want to help the powerful win?
You are giving the powerful a free pass when you refer to their extortion as authority.
Innate to the concept of authority is the indoctrinated belief in a duty to obey.
Why would you want to present the extortion of the powerful as something people have a duty to obey?

-------------------------------

Yes I would love power. Yes I enjoy controlling people.

That makes you no different than the powerful you rail against.
Am I correct in assuming, by your other posts, that you view the powerful as indifferent to the plight of the unexalted?

If that is correct, then I also assume you want to make things better. You can't, you won't. Give Larken Rose your attention for 14 minutes and he'll explain why.

https://youtu.be/z0HtWSlFCAQ

No I would not kill people that is what the army is for -- so I don't have to get my hands dirty.

You are so right, Ms. Hitler. You have an army so you don't have to get your hands dirty implementing the Final Solution at Auschwitz and ten other locations.

[Dale Eastman]

Yes I view the powerful as indifferent to the plight of the unexalted, the plight of the disabled and elderly. I could make it better because I am kinder than most people.

Thank you for confirming my assumptions.

As I pointed out, You can't make things better, you won't make things better.

With the miracle of copy-n-paste I can prove my statement using your own words...

“I could make it better because I am kinder than most people” “of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way”

By your own words you admit to premeditating the murder of people you don't even know.
Would a kind person premeditate the murder of unknown others?

By your own words you contradict yourself.
As Shakespeare would say, Ye be hoist by ye own petard.
...................................

AYNCRAP BS LARKEN ROSE IS AN IDIOT

Your emotional prejudice is showing.

It doesn't matter that you didn't view Larken's video explaining why you can't make things better. The video link is (t)here for the curious.
https://youtu.be/z0HtWSlFCAQ

When the Catlick Church refused to look in Galileo's telescope, they did NOT refute what was presented. Likewise, your refusal to spend 14 minutes watching the video does NOT refute the points contained within. Just observin'
...................................

of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way -- it is about CONTROL

That's exactly how these people thought:
Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Benito Mussolini
Mao Zedong
Fidel Castro
Marshall Joseph Tito
General Augusto Pinochet
Idi Amin
Ho Chi Minh
Saddam Hussein
Ayatollah Khomeini
Pol Pot

So it appears that great minds do think alike.
/Snarcasm

[Dale Eastman]

I watched the video. I think it is nonsense.

There's that blanket dismissal that I wrote of in an earlier post. The blanket dismissal that ignores the points.

The points:

1. You want to make things better by giving stuff to the needy and poor. You won't be creating the things you'll be giving to the needy and poor. Before you can give stuff to the needy and poor, you will have to extort that stuff from others. And if those others don't want to give you their stuff? What would you do about their refusal? Silly question... Asked and answered: “of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way” Killing people that don't want you robbing them makes things better?

2. You want to make things better by building things that benefit the people in general like public schools, libraries, public parks, museums, zoos, roads, and hospitals. How do you pay for it? Again, first you have to extort money from others. You are not giving them anything. You are spending their money for them. And if those others don't want to give you their money? What would you do about their refusal? Silly question... Asked and answered: “of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way” Killing people that don't want you robbing them makes things better?

3. You want to make things better by making others to live healthier lives by exercising, eating a well balanced diet, not smoking, not drinking alcohol, not using drugs, not eating too much candy. What would you do about their refusal to obey? Silly question... Asked and answered: “of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way” Killing people makes their lives healthier?

4. You want to make things better by protecting the innocent and protecting the good from the wicked. How do you pay for it? Again, first you have to extort money from others. And if those others don't want to give you their money? What would you do about their refusal? Silly question... Asked and answered: “of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way” Killing people that don't want you robbing them protects the innocent?

5. Power via brute force can not fix the world. All such power by its very nature is nothing more than the ability to threaten people and hurt people.

You claimed, “I could make it better because I am kinder than most people” “of course I will kill those who don't want to do things my way”

Threatening, hurting, and killing people makes the world better?

Excusez mon français, BULLSHIT!

Yes I want to be the dictator of the entire world.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one gets filled first.

No I don't want voluntarism and free-dumb.

By that statement I will assume nobody in your family tree had numbered tattoos.

Glad you understand.

That you are premeditating the committing of murder. Yep. I do.

Kind people do commit murder -- ever heard of euthanasia?

You were not writing about euthanasia. Nice try with the red herring.

I watched the video.

According to FB:
My post with the link to Larken's video went up at 8:05.
Your first reply went up at 8:14.
Your second reply where you dissed Larken went up at 8:17, a difference of 12 minutes.
If the clock ticked over just before the 8:05 post and ticked over just after the 8:17 post, then you would have had 13m58s to write and post two posts plus watch a 13m55s video.
I don't know when you edited the typo on the Rose dissing post, so I discard that action as being in that 13:58 time span.

[Dale Eastman]

no more Larken Rose, Mark Passio, or Jordan Peterson videos -- I would rather read sources than listen to them.

Oops. We agree on something. I would rather read as well.

I hit the main points of Larken's 14 minute video with 377 words. Of course it took more than 14 minutes to paraphrase and type those 377 words.

I was replying while I was listening to it.

I did consider that possibility. The timeline presented does suggest that typing while listening was the only way you could have contemplated the points in the video in the time shown.

You can't make the world better for those you eliminate, only for those who remain.

The world becomes better for those who remain only if those eliminated are thieves, murderers, extortionists, criminals, despots and tyrants. But that's not who you are intent on eliminating.

I want to control you.

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 both.

I refuse to submit to you imposing injustice and wrongs upon me.

You want freedom and I want to control you. I think that puts an end to this debate.

Debate?

Quick recap:

I presented a definition of authority as a presumed higher claim over an individual and their property than that individual's own claim over themselves and their property. You agreed.

I presented authority in the absence of consent as extortion. You agreed.

You have presented that you want to {kill those who don't want to do things} your {way}.
You have presented that you to intend to impose injustices and wrongs on those who don't want to do things your way.

We both know exactly where we stand.

Yes, we do.

You are willing to initiate aggression and violence and ignore the immorality of such action.

I am pointing this out to you.

Voluntary charity will never meet the needs of those who cannot produce due to illness or age. Force is required to extort people or there will always be a precariat class and an oligarchy, which is what all ANCAPs want.

I decline to follow the trail of your red herring. Doubly so since you are trying to pigeon hole me with a label again.

Just as I declined to follow this red herring:

You really should han[g] out in A Pluralist Accord of Differences United by Universal Love and Struggle for a few days so you understand what REAL anarchists want, not AYNcaps.

And though this diversion was tempting, I decided to not follow it at this time as well.

The government has the legal ability to create money without interest or debt. It gave up that ability in 1913 and that was a big mistake.

In another thread you wrote:

CC Ask DE if he understand what I am saying.

I understand exactly what you are saying. My focus has been on what you wish to ignore that is contained within what you are saying.

He thinks he hears me loud and clear and I'm not voluntaryist.

That sentence structure indicates to me that you did not proof read what you wrote.

Different parses attempting to understand what is actually meant:

1. He thinks he understands me but he doesn't?

2. He thinks he understands that I AM a voluntarist?

3. He thinks he understands that I am NOT a voluntarist?

4. He doesn't understand that I am NOT a voluntarist?

5. I am not a voluntarist!

For $500 Alex number 5, Who is not a voluntarist?

/snarky response

I love to control people.

Apparently without regard for morality.

Voluntary chairty will never meet the needs of those who can't produce so taxation (which you call extortion) is necessary to prevent oligarchy

You mean like how the present extortion/taxation prevented the oligarchy you rail against?
The one you want to overthrow so you can be the new oligarchy?

February 17 You wrote:

Without capitalism, the people can never truly own the means of production. They are enslaved to the collective and ruled by sociopaths. Capitalism with all its inherent flaws is the ONLY system that gives direct control to the citizens. The collective of their consumer demand is powerful. Every other system means government taking the control from the people and giving it to the corrupt cronies for the benefit of the politicians. Without capitalism, oligarchy is unavoidable. Even with capitalism, the U.S. is more like an oligarchy than a republic or a democracy.

Parsing: {Without capitalism, oligarchy is unavoidable}: With capitalism, oligarchy is avoidable.
In context in the paragraph, I doubt a typographical error or a Freudian Slip.

September 14 at 8:06am You wrote:

Oligarchy always results when the taxation system which is supposedly progressive is really a con -- it redistributes wealth upward

Can a taxation system move wealth upward when it doesn't exist?

Other than that reply, I decline to follow you off topic on that tangent.

CC How more clear can I be about "I want to control people"? I hate voluntaryism. I am not an anarchist. You think I'm just saying this to start a debate? Hell no. I mean every word.

With a certain glee Ms. xxxxxxxx, I present a news flash to you...
You are already a voluntaryist.

Nobody is forcing you to interact with me. It's free will, it's your choice to interact or ignore.

LM I have been controlled and manipulated my whole life so to me, manipulation is the only answer. Otherwise I will never be free from being controlled by others.

Roni Weisberg-Ross wrote:

When the Abused Becomes the Abuser
It doesn't always happen. But it happens to a large enough degree that it can be referred to as commonplace.
[…]
The point here is that children who were abused are taught to abuse as a way of communicating and connecting. And many times their primary role models, their parents or other family members, are the ones who taught them this.
[…]
The behavior feels familiar and it feels like home. It is instinctive; furthermore, the abuser may not know any other way to behave.

I am sorry that you had a shitty life. I find your inability to see other options to be the real tragedy of your early shitty life.

You either control others or they control you. You have not learned that yet.

CORRECTION. You have not Unlearned that yet.

[Dale Eastman]

Replacing missing context...
Cuz... Well... Context:

Yes I would love power. Yes I enjoy controlling people.
Yes I want to be the dictator of the entire world.

I wrote: By parsing, combining, and translating your various words, you have claimed that:
You would be willing to kill me to end my VALID authority and VALID rule over you.

I wrote: This says much about your morality and beliefs. You stated that you are willing to commit murder to end authority that you claim is valid.

I asked: If this authority is valid, then why would you premeditate murder to end it?

Ms. xxxxxxxx did not answer the question at the time it was asked. As of this post draft, Ms. xxxxxxxx is still ignoring the question.

Ms. xxxxxxxx did not challenge my parsing, combining, and translating her various words. (This is not a legal proceeding so estoppel does not apply. I will just point out Ms. xxxxxxxx's backpedal when/if it happens.)

Ms. xxxxxxxx wrote:

I love to control people.

To which I responded: Apparently without regard for morality.

-- Are you familiar with stage 6 moral reasoning and the Heinz dilemma. I posted a short video of it. Have you reached stage 6 yet where it explain under what circumstances stealing is morally right?

This is a non sequitur to the topic of your immoral world dominating aspirations.
This is also another attempt at deflection, distraction, and diversion regarding your immoral world dominating aspirations.

However, I will engage on this topic because I opened this door by questioning your immoral world dominating aspirations.

Wikipedia has the words of the video in print as if transcribed. Link.

You misrepresent the purpose of the Heinz dilemma.

You ask:
{Have you reached stage 6 yet where it explain under what circumstances stealing is morally right?}

Excusez mon français, BULLSHIT!

It does NOT explain circumstances where stealing is morally right. It posits a dilemma. It's words are, and I quote:
{Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
OR: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.}

Those are the words of a dilemma. In no way, shape, or form do those words justify theft. Their purpose is to elicit justifications.

Wikipedia wrote:

For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma, and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion, and classified it as belonging to one of six distinct stages.
[…]
Kohlberg's scale is about how people justify behaviors and his stages are not a method of ranking how moral someone's behavior is.

Wikipedia wrote:

Kohlberg's theory holds that moral reasoning, which is the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental constructive stages

You are attempting to use the dilemma as a form of justification for your immoral world dominating aspirations.

My main point was "Voluntary charity will never meet the needs of those who cannot produce due to illness or age.

Your evidence for that claim please?

Force is required to extort people or there will always be a precariat class and an oligarchy"

Your evidence for that claim please?

and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

In a third thread

He [...] thinks the government's power is illegitimate and calls it extortion.

Extortion is authority, power is authority, might is authority, threat, duress coercion -- all authority -- bogus? of course but so what

That sure looks like you agree with me.

Was there a point you were attempting to establish?

Full quote:

He says he is not an Ancap but an anarchist who thinks the government's power is illegitimate and calls it extortion.

There you go, presuming to speak for me and presuming to label me.

If you go back through our dialog you will see that I have been pounding on one thing: Without consent - authority is threat, duress, and/or coercion which all fall under the description of extortion. Government's alleged authority is extortion: Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.

Do you have anything to refute that political law is all Comply or die?

no I cannot refute that

[Dale Eastman]

You want a good argument JMJ -- DE is your man. He can match you legal point for legal point and I'll bet Dale would love to argue with someone who has a law degree -- he likes a challenge -- oh and by the way he is an anarchist who will tell you the government's authority is illegitimate and they are no better than the mafia. How dare they government him without his consent?

It takes you less than a minute to post your sound bite comments.

I want to be sure of what I am attempting to communicate, so 3+ hours per post to articulate my points is not uncommon.

And I'm calling you on your presumption to speak for me and label me.  Just link to this forum if you want people so see my points.

[Dale Eastman]

If you are not up to posting on the forum I provided, we can go back to the discussion right here.

I will still be keeping a record of our discussion over there.

My number 1 purpose is for me to keep track of the flow of our discussion.
Number 2 purpose is so I can keep track of the points not yet addressed.
Number 3 purpose is so others can do number 1 & 2.

Over there:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=653.msg14800#msg14800

[Dale Eastman]

Ms. x wrote:

I think it is extortion. I like extortion

I appreciate you being honest that Do what you are told or you will be hurt is extortion.

And I read this as you agreeing with me that such alleged authority is bogus.

Extortion is authority, power is authority, might is authority, threat, duress coercion -- all authority -- bogus? of course

Connecting that quote of you to your second sentence, I parse you saying you like bogus authority.

[Dale Eastman]

Yes the alleged authority is bogus unless you accept the unpleasant fact that in the real world, might makes right.

[Exasperated sigh]

So...
A car jacker pointing a gun at your face and saying, Get out of the car lady, is right?
A junkie pointing a gun at a cashier's face and saying, Gimme the money, is right?
Soldiers implementing the Final Solution at Auschwitz and ten other locations is right?

I find that I must insist that you answer the third question.
If you answer yes, I must demand you present your justification.
I want to know why a Jew would justify Hitler's Final Solution.
Just so you know, ishshah, though I be a goy, I am not unaware of Jewish angst.
(In a room full of Jews, this goy was the only one to sound the shofar.)

Yes I like bogus authority - statism - as opposed to anarchy.

Then am I correctly interpreting that you like Hitler's statist Final Solution?

Yes he is lol. How dare you claim that the property conquered by an army during a war does not mean legitimate ownership of that land?

How dare you presume to speak for me.