Political Pidgeotto

[Dale Eastman]

Government is necessary. Only representative government is not statist.

I'm guessing HOA's are also "criminal syndicates" then?

Key words: Still waiting for a valid refutation.

Waiting for your answer before I continue. There's no point in giving you anything deeper if you're just going to handwave any attempts at refutation regardless of validity.

Thank you for admitting you have no valid reply.

Yessir that's exactly what I did. Thank you for showing you have no real interest in hearing a valid reply.

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
People who support government support extortion.
I'm off of FecesBook for the next 6- 10 hours.

And the broken record continues. So again I ask as a preliminary question that I've asked to establish common premises for a future logical discussion attempt:

Are Homeowner Associations (HOAs) also "criminal syndicates" or not?

I await your reply in 6-10 hours. Please ensure your reply avoids logical fallacy.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Political Pidgeotto
Do HOA's extort people?

That's my question to you. Do they?

Do HOA's have men with guns to kidnap you and throw you in a cage if you don't do what they want?

Why yes, sometimes they do. You can be arrested for violation of certain HOA bylaws depending on your HOA and state regulations.

They also levy taxes (annual dues), fines, dictate what you can and can't do on and with your "private" property, take your home away from you, and similar. All based on the fact that the person who bought the land before building your house dictated that anyone who purchased the property forevermore would have to belong to the HOA in order to own the property.

"State regulations"? By what authority?

State regulations can in some cases restrict the scope and consequence of HOA rules, meaning that in certain areas an HOA is not allowed by government decree to incarcerate or detain individuals for certain violations.

Okay. I've looked and found out that you are a page. I have one of them also. The posts on your page suggest to me that you are NOT a statist.

So if that is correct, I do not know what the purpose and intent of your challenge is.

You said you're looking for a "valid refutation" to the idea that the government is a "criminal syndicate" and nothing else. The thing is, there is actually a logical pathway within your system the legitimizes government and governmental authority. The problem is your mannerisms within the preliminary conversations suggest you're not actually interested in hearing any attempts to do so.

Appreciate the clarification. The first thing it does is highlight a communication error caused by an assumption of mine. When I refer to "government" I am using it as synonymous with "state". In that view, I should be referring to statists as govermentalists as well.

I find it on the humorous side that a non-governmentalist has decided to challenge.

For the moment I am setting your HOA challenge aside. I wish to come back to it later.

The longer previous version, as shown on my website, is:
=================
My Purpose

To Make This Claim

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

Supporting Logic

We all know that extortion is when somebody is told "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you." We all know that extortion is what a bad person, a criminal, does to a victim.

Organized crime syndicates use a method of extortion called a protection racket. "If you don't pay us to protect you, we won't protect you (from us)." "From us" may be brazenly stated or only implied.

Politicians write rules. Politician's rules are written demands to be obeyed under threat of being hurt if you don't obey. The politician's rules called "penalties" or "fines" are the threats to hurt you if you don't comply. Thus rules of politicians, dictators, and monarchs are all extortion. Do what they tell you to do or be hurt.

These criminal actions can not be defended by logic or by morality.
=================
This is all I have time to post this morning. I'll come back to the HOA when I've some time again.

Yes, I've read your linked site, no need to copy and paste your tired, emotionally charged, and logically flawed claim.

You, as a non-statist and from what I've seen of your site, believe in the general doctrine of ideas known colloquially as "anarcho-capitalism" correct? If so, then you believe that authority over another comes through ownership. I own my house/land/property, and I have ultimate authority over who enters/uses said property and any such parameters or behaviors while using my property.

If I say "no hats on in my house" then you either remove your hat, or find yourself unwelcome. I'm allowed to defend my property, with force if necessary. If someone refuses to leave my property, I'm allowed to defend my property with a firearm, including using it in a deadly manner. This could even theoretically extend into incarceration by making those entering my property aware that doing so is conditioned on agreeing to such a penalty for certain infractions.

As an extension of being able to do anything I wish with my property, I'm allowed to sell, trade, rent or give away my property, for any price, terms, conditions, whether they be one-time, extended time/repeating, or continuing into perpetuity. I could "sell" my house on the condition that you must sing and act out "I'm a little teapot" daily to me for 30 years (or more), as a more absurd example.

As such, if I legitimately acquire a tract of land and develop a neighborhood on said land, I can condition the transfer of ownership on agreeing to be bound to and HOA, and within the HOA build a self-perpetuation clause that guarantees all future ownership transfers are also conditioned on agreeing to relinquish self-authority to the HOA. Change HOA to "state" and you therefore have a fully legitimate pathway to government and states having ownership over the landmass within which you reside, and authority over the subjects within said landmass.

[Dale Eastman]

First, let me apologize for confusing you with a non-statist. Your subsequent postings have apprised me of my error of assumption.

Since you have figured out how to navigate to my website, I am informing you that I keep public archives of my discussions with statists. In most cases, I anonymize the archive by just using initials of the parties I'm in dialog with. In your case, I'm making an exception. Political Pidgeotto is your nom de plume / nom de guerre. You, personally, are still anonymous.

synapticsparks DOT info/dialog/index.php?topic=849

I am doing this in your case because I'm just oh so "emotionally charged" by your unsupported claim.

Specifically:
➽ "your tired, emotionally charged, and logically flawed claim"

➽ "[L]ogically flawed claim"
Ipse dixit is an assertion without proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

And also: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.
You are wrong about my logic.

So now I'm going to call you on your invalid logic. You wrote, and I quote:
➽ You said you're looking for a "valid refutation" to the idea that the government is a "criminal syndicate" and nothing else.

You did get my claim/ challenge HALF correct. I am looking for a valid refutation that government is a criminal syndicate.

I did NOT claim "nothing else". You made that up. As your straw man attempt, I am under no duty to defend against your lie.

My specific words were and are: Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

You have not refuted this. Nor have you challenged me on my burden of proof to support that specific claim. If you read any further into my website, then you know I have already provided support of my claim.

So, shall we have an honest discussion of my "logically flawed claim"?

Your turn, Statist.

Political Pidgeotto > 48 hours.

Oh, you're still around flaunting your ignorance? Life got in the way of making a priority out of reading your reply that came 19 hours later, so excuse me for giving you false hope that you could do your pigeon walk around the chessboard in victory.

Since you're such a "learned" man, you should already be able to see your flaws in your logic, but I'll spell them out for you:
Loaded language fallacy, false dichotomy, vacuous truth fallacy, continuum fallacy, and more. I trust you can work google for yourself.

Funny enough, reading comprehension would dictate that you should have understood my claim, especially seeing as you waited until this reply to "correct" it. The sentence form "X is Y that does Z" and "You claim that X is Y and nothing else" followed by a long form rebuttal that concludes with "Some X is D" shows that "and nothing else" is understood to translate to "X is only Y and can never be not Y" not "there is no other parts to my claim." Therefore not a Strawman. It also follows that if X is not Y then they don't necessarily do Z either, as Z is a function of being Y, but as predicted, proof by semantics.

My second comment is 100% validated:
There's no point in giving you anything deeper if you're just going to handwave any attempts at refutation regardless of validity.

Re: "and more"
Distinction Without a Difference
Argument from Silence
Argument by Selective Reading (which is rampant through your website as well)

[Dale Eastman]

My claim:

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

Your turn statist.

I already answered that. It's still your turn.

And if acknowledging the fact that a governing body can legitimately arise from the logical basis of anarcho-capitalism is being "a statist" then you've already lost in perpetuity.

I love having discussions with people of your fine caliber of mind.

Remember the words I posted that triggered your reaction? Attached is the very same comment card:



"Government IS..."

as in, currently; presently; today; at present; at this moment; at this present time; right now; at this very moment in time...

"A criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control."

In case you need to review this discussion:
synapticsparks DOT info/dialog/index.php?topic=849

[Dale Eastman]

Cute use of definitional retreat and Motte-and-Bailey fallacies. It's funny how quickly and subtly people of your caliber can shift the goalposts when things just aren't going your way.
So, in order to back you into a proper corner, lets go ahead and define ALL your terms in fully solid ways so I can respond to your bad faith arguments with finality.

What is "government" in your claim? All governments? The government under which you reside? The US Government? All governing bodies, even if not specifically labeled "government" by lay folk?

Apparently, "is" means "presently" instead of what any normal human not attempting to argue in bad faith would understand it to mean, aka Webster dictionary definition of "be" #1 a(equal in meaning : have the same connotation), b (to have identity with : to constitute the same idea or object as), or e (to belong to the class of) take your pick. Feel free to explain why the common definition doesn't apply to your use of the term, or why your chosen definition cannot be found listed under the entries for "is" or "be" and why this isn't definitional retreat.

Define "Criminal Syndicate" and explain your choice of this specific term and why it isn't a case of loaded language fallacy.
And finally, where your burden of proof lies currently, and what you should be spending your replies doing if you were honestly looking for a refutation instead of this dishonest charade, go ahead and display your proof that "government" did not originate from AnCap principles in the manner in which I've outlined previously. In case your mental gymnastics have you turned around so that you can't remember the outline of how a legitimate, non-criminal "government" could come to exist and persist beyond the establishing generation, you've helpfully archived our full discussion at a website banned by Facebook for being spam.

I will be replying to your points not in the order presented.

➽ lets go ahead and define ALL your terms in fully solid ways

Works for me. Thank you for such consideration.

➽ What is "government" in your claim? All governments? The government under which you reside? The US Government? All governing bodies, even if not specifically labeled "government" by lay folk?

Let's just use the US federal and 50 state governments as the example of and for any national 'government' be it elected politicians, dictators, or monarchs. And just so you know, the 50 national governments of the 50 states ARE national as they are individual (political) States with alleged territories, independent from one another.

➽ Define "Criminal Syndicate" and explain your choice of this specific term and why it isn't a case of loaded language fallacy.

Criminal Syndicate: An organization and its members that commit malum en se crimes.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

Like, you know, Murder, rape, robbery, lying, enslaving and/or terrorism. In a word: Extortion.

➽ loaded language fallacy

Just to be sure, this is the language of my claim that you claim is loaded:

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

I couldn't find much searching for "loaded language fallacy." Here's what I did find:

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Appeal to emotion fallacy occurs when someone appeals to the feelings of the listeners in order to convince them that something is true, instead of using relevant facts and valid logic.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/12-common-rhetorical-fallacies-with-examples/#Appeal_to_Emotion
⛔ ⛔ ⛔
⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Appeal to emotion is among the most common types of logical fallacies. It is often a highly persuasive strategy in influencing people’s views and behavior.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/the-appeal-to-emotion-fallacy-with-examples/
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

Either the audience already agrees with the statement or the audience vehemently disagrees. In your case, I'm assuming you disagree.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
There’s a reason why clickbait and charged headlines get shared and clicked on with ease: the writers put “loaded words” in the titles because they bring about strong emotional reactions.
https://cerebralistic.com/loaded-words-fallacy/
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

It worked to trigger you. It caused you to engage. It did exactly one half of what it was designed to do.

➽ loaded language

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Loaded words are a persuasive technique that has also been called emotive language, high-inference language, or loaded terms. It is often used in order to: [...] Push an agenda [...]
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/loaded-language-examples.html
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

Nolo contendere.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Loaded language is emotive terminology that expresses value judgments. When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the listener to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so. Also called Prejudicial Language.
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#LoadedLanguage
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

I have concluded, after examining government and its actions, that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. That is the value judgement I am espousing and challenging statists about. Remember the second line on my comment card: Still waiting for a valid refutation.

I find it amusing that you, Mr. Logic, did not challenge me on "Burden of Proof."

➽ Apparently, "is" means "presently" instead of what any normal human not attempting to argue in bad faith would understand it to mean, aka Webster dictionary definition of "be" #1 a(equal in meaning : have the same connotation), b (to have identity with : to constitute the same idea or object as), or e (to belong to the class of) take your pick. Feel free to explain why the common definition doesn't apply to your use of the term, or why your chosen definition cannot be found listed under the entries for "is" or "be" and why this isn't definitional retreat.

I did not say, nor imply, that "IS" was not used as an equate. You just keep beating the straw out o' those bib overalls.

You started spewing (how's that for loaded language?) about "WAS" and / or the "ORIGIN", thus necessitating my chronological shepherding to herd your focus from whence it strayed.

For example, how you and your focus strayed right here in the post I'm replying to wherein you wrote:
➽ go ahead and display your proof that "government" did not originate from AnCap principles in the manner in which I've outlined previously.

It's not my burden to prove or disprove anything about where government originated. That has nothing to do, what so ever, with what government is and does right now, as my claim addresses. And if you actually spent time reading my website, you know I have already examined the indoctrinated belief in the pro-government propaganda regarding its origin. Be happy to copy-n-paste the pertinent parts for you.

➽ In case your mental gymnastics have you turned around so that you can't remember the outline of how a legitimate, non-criminal "government" could come to exist and persist beyond the establishing generation,

Irrelevant non-sequitur to the issue of what this provably criminal government presently is and does.

➽ you've helpfully archived our full discussion at a website banned by Facebook for being spam.

You really wanna go with FecesBook being something laudable? Do you even know what a TLD is?  How about an htaccess file?

And just exactly how does that last comment refute my claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control?

➽ So, in order to back you into a proper corner, lets go ahead and define ALL your terms in fully solid ways so I can respond to your bad faith arguments with finality.

Okay.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman there is only one point in your reply that needs addressing. Seeing as you've still not discovered what critical thinking is in order to deduce the meaning for yourself, I'll go ahead and spell it out in crayon.

➽ It's not my burden to prove or disprove anything about where government originated. That has nothing to do, what so ever, with what government is and does right now, as my claim addresses.

Let's go ahead and jump to your hypothetical Ancapistan to illustrate where your logic falls apart.

In a world without governments, if I were to walk into a grocery store with a pistol and shoot someone for no other reason than they were in front of my gun when I pulled the trigger, I am a killer. More importantly, I am a criminal, a murderer. I had no right to take that man's life whatsoever. This is uncontroversial.

In contrast, if I see someone picking the lock on my front door, and I defend my property leading to the man's death, I am still a killer. However, I am not a criminal or murder, as it was within my right to defend my will and property by any means necessary, including deadly force.

In a twist, if I was renting from a landlord, me killing a thief would still be non-criminal, but if the man was there on behalf of the true property owner without my knowledge, I am still a criminal for taking a life when I had no right to.

As such, the legality/morality of my actions depend on the origin and circumstances leading up to the action I took. So, you see, the origin of government has everything to do with claims about what it is and does currently, especially when discussing criminality or morality of its existence and actions.

Therefore, seeing as you're the one who made the positive claim of what government is and does, you have one of three options to prove your claim to others:

1. You can prove that it is impossible government can arise from AnCap first principles of the rights of individuals, property, or contracts. (impossible, as you would need to deny the existence of small scale "governments" in the process such as HOAs, CO-OPs, or (where the impossibility originates) the "monarchy" of the rights of an individual property owner)

2. You can prove that the functions government carries out cannot arise from AnCap first principles, or that certain functions delegitimize their entire existence. (improbable, as you would have to deny functions of property/contract rights that would also exclude the legitimate existence of businesses and landlords)
or

3. You can prove that the US federal and/or state governments (and any additional governments you wish to push under your umbrella of criminality) did not originate legitimately within AnCap first principles as I have outlined in my previous example, or via another means.
None of these 3 options exist within your current proofs, so again, it's your turn.

➽ Dale Eastman there is only one point in your reply that needs addressing. Seeing as you've still not discovered what critical thinking is in order to deduce the meaning for yourself, I'll go ahead and spell it out in crayon.

You do realize that when you sling shit like that paragraph, you are telling the world more about you than about me?

➽ Let's go ahead and jump to your hypothetical Ancapistan to illustrate where your logic falls apart.

You do realize that you are not the first statist to attempt to refute my claim without addressing the claim itself?

So... No. I am not going to allow you to red herring the discussion away from my assertion of what presently exists.

Therefore, seeing as you're the one who made the positive claim of what government is and does, you have one of three options to prove your claim to others:

IMO, you conveniently forgot the 4th option... Presenting actual evidence of government extortion. But then you would be required to disprove such evidence.

I love having discussions with people of your fine caliber of mind.

➽ Please ensure your reply avoids logical fallacy.
➽ Since you're such a "learned" man, you should already be able to see your flaws in your logic, but I'll spell them out for you: Loaded language fallacy, false dichotomy, vacuous truth fallacy, continuum fallacy, and more.

I especially love having discussions with somebody who is an expert such as you are regarding logical fallacies.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Holder_of_the_burden

Burden of proof (also known as onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

You have neither refuted my claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
Nor have you actually insisted that I provide proof of my claim.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Ad hoc fallacies can be very tricky to spot because they are not arguments in and of themselves. Rather, they are faulty responses to an argument. They occur when someone is faced with an argument that discredits their position, and they respond by making something up that serves no purpose except to patch the hole in their view.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/27/the-rules-of-logic-part-3-logical-fallacies/#Ad%20hoc%20fallacy
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

Well... Logically, I must let you slide on this one. You are making a faulty response to my claim. My claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. My claim is not an argument. It is a premise. "A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. It is an assumption that something is true. More at Wikipedia.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
The english translation is, “after this, therefore because of this.” This fallacy is essentially a faulty assumption of causality, but differs slightly from a strict correlation fallacy.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/27/the-rules-of-logic-part-3-logical-fallacies/#Post%20hoc%20ergo%20propter%20hoc
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

You are claiming that because of my observation and stated claim of my observation, some bad things. You hit a twofer with that.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Slippery slope fallacy
In many ways, this is a special type of reductio ad absurdum fallacy. This fallacy occurs when you claim that event A will inevitably lead down a slippery path to B, and B is bad, therefore you should never do A. Note: this is only a fallacy when the causal relationship is in question, and you argue either that A will always cause B, or that A should always be avoided because it might cause B.
https://thelogicofscience.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/the-rules-of-logic-part-3-logical-fallacies/#Slippery%20slope%20fallacy
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

Government does criminal things, therefor it follows that government is a criminal syndicate. You are attempting to justify a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control because you are impliedly asking, Who will protect us from criminals? You are attempting to prove there is a reason that what exists right now should not be corrected.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Red herring fallacy
This fallacy can essentially be thought of as dodging an uncomfortable question. It usually occurs when someone on one side of a debate asks a question to their opponent, and the opponent answers a different question, or rambles around the question without ever actually addressing it. If you’re not paying attention though, it can appear that they did in fact answer the question.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/27/the-rules-of-logic-part-3-logical-fallacies/#Non%20sequitur%20fallacy

Straw man fallacy
This is one of the most common fallacies there is. It can be deliberate, but it is often unintentional and results from ignorance on a given topic. It occurs when you present a weak or misrepresented version of an opponent’s argument, then discredit that misrepresentation and claim to have discredited your opponent’s view.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/27/the-rules-of-logic-part-3-logical-fallacies/#Straw%20man%20fallacy
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

You have been trying to remove focus on the present reality.

Now getting back to your three Straw Man, Red Herring, non sequiturs.

➽ 1. You can prove that it is impossible government can arise from AnCap first principles of the rights of individuals, property, or contracts. (impossible, as you would need to deny the existence of small scale "governments" in the process such as HOAs, CO-OPs, or (where the impossibility originates) the "monarchy" of the rights of an individual property owner)

This does not challenge my provable claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ 2. You can prove that the functions government carries out cannot arise from AnCap first principles, or that certain functions delegitimize their entire existence. (improbable, as you would have to deny functions of property/contract rights that would also exclude the legitimate existence of businesses and landlords)
or

Are you going to claim that extortion (do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you) doesn't delegitimize an organization that claims its purpose is to protect people from extortionists?

This does not challenge my provable claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ 3. You can prove that the US federal and/or state governments (and any additional governments you wish to push under your umbrella of criminality) did not originate legitimately within AnCap first principles as I have outlined in my previous example, or via another means.

This does not challenge my provable claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ None of these 3 options exist within your current proofs, so again, it's your turn.

None of these 3 options properly challenge my claim for evidence proving my claim. Maybe I'll finally have to present the evidence on my next turn.

Back to you.

[Dale Eastman]

> extortion (do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you)

Is this the definition of extortion we're supposed to be using? No wonder why you're so flagrantly deluded into thinking you're right. No wonder your own use of Ad Hoc fallacy is so rampant. No wonder why you handwave away everything as "irrelevant" or "red-herring"

Is a homeowner telling a trespasser on his property "leave or I'll shoot" an example of "extortion" in your mind? Is a restaurant demanding payment for the food you ate "or else" (under government "or else we'll call the police, who may shoot you", or in AnCapistan "or else we'll shoot you ourselves") also extortion? I mean, if so, that's fine, it literally just means you're not an Anarcho-Capitalist as I thought, but instead some kind of AnCom who thinks no one can own anything and everyone can take and do what they please as long as they don't involve physical transgressions against another person.

If not, however, then what I think you need to revise that to is a slightly modified distillation of the Wikipedia definitions of extortion and coercion. I offer the following:

>> obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so.

using this definition of extortion, we see there's a criminal element baked into the definition (loaded words fallacy), which means that simply proving that violence is used to achieve compliance is not enough to prove extortion or criminality. Instead you have to prove one options #1-3 to establish they don't have the right to first before your claim of criminality is even considered valid.

I'm going to omit my responses to your remaining flawed counters, lack of reading comprehension, fallacies, misapplication of fallacy to my statements, and general tone of bad faith discussion, except for one. If you really want to bait a red-herring side discussion instead of staying relevant, though, I will publish them on request.

> My claim is not an argument. It is a premise.
> A premise or premiss is ... an assumption that something is true. -Wikipedia

Thank you for accidentally revealing yet again that I appear to be wasting my time here. To quote it again: "There's no point in giving you anything deeper if you're just going to handwave any attempts at refutation regardless of validity."

Similarly on request, I can rewrite my full argument in the format of formal logic proof with all axioms, premises, conclusions, and linked evidence placed into a single post.

➽ > extortion (do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you)

➽ Is this the definition of extortion we're supposed to be using? No wonder why you're so flagrantly deluded into thinking you're right. No wonder your own use of Ad Hoc fallacy is so rampant. No wonder why you handwave away everything as "irrelevant" or "red-herring"

Per Voltaire's Admonition, If you wish to communicate, define your terms.
➽ So, in order to back you into a proper corner, lets go ahead and define ALL your terms in fully solid ways so I can respond to your bad faith arguments with finality.

Yes, this is "the definition of extortion we're supposed to be using", because this is the definition I have been using all along. I am well aware that the word, the definition, and the intended concept I present is not one you can easily refute. And yes, that is why I {handwave away everything as "irrelevant" or "red-herring"}.

➽ If not, however, then what I think you need to revise that to is a slightly modified distillation of the Wikipedia definitions of extortion and coercion. I offer the following:
>> obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so.

With my accepting that specific definition, I allow you to loosen the bind you are in. Because I already know you want to parley "no express right to do so" in to a government right to do so.

➽ using this definition of extortion, we see there's a criminal element baked into the definition (loaded words fallacy), which means that simply proving that violence is used to achieve compliance is not enough to prove extortion or criminality.

Yeah, like I said: you want to parley "no express right to do so" in to a government right to do so.

I hereby accept your specific definition.

➽ > My claim is not an argument. It is a premise.
> A premise or premiss is ... an assumption that something is true. -Wikipedia

➽ Thank you for accidentally revealing yet again that I appear to be wasting my time here.

Thank you for finally realizing that the premise is the point to be refuted. As was presented in the original comment card:
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. I'm still waiting for valid refutation.

Lemme translate that with your definition equated and transforming the claim.

Government is a criminal syndicate that [obtains a desired outcome], money and control, [through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so]

To eliminate "criminal" in that claim, you need to prove government has "an express right to do so".

[Dale Eastman]

So, at this point, you've now openly admitted that you don't know anything about logic, and that you're literally just a troll looking to start fights and sling mud like a monkey.

Your claim is not a premise, but a conclusion, which is the only reason why you'd be looking for a "refutation"

Logic is the systematic study of valid rules of inference, i.e. the relations that lead to the acceptance of one proposition (the conclusion) on the basis of a set of other propositions (premises).

Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements. A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises.

Your claim is actually rife with logical fallacy, seeing as you've inherently and dishonestly used the Equivocation Fallacy to prebuild your conclusion.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
The term equivocation refers to the use of ambiguous language, meaning words or phrases that can be interpreted in more than one way, in an attempt to hide the truth or avoid commitment to a point of view.
Equivocation fallacy occurs when someone uses such language in order to support or refute an argument. It may be committed, for instance, in the political arena when someone wishes to avoid a certain question and, instead of answering directly, they give a vague response that doesn’t really address the question.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/equivocation-fallacy.../
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

You argument follows the form of:

P1: The government commits extortion (do what we want or we'll hurt you)
E1: example of government enforcing literally anything
P2: Extortion (The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right) is a crime.
(legal definition of criminal extortion curtesy of https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion)
C1: Therefore government is a criminal syndicate.

Your definition of extortion that you've been using does not prove criminal action, through the use of the term you have committed the two-fold fallacy of using a specific word (loaded words fallacy) that carries a connotation (criminality) without using it under that definition (equivocation) to "prove" your point.

➽ To eliminate "criminal" in that claim, you need to prove government has "an express right to do so".

*I* no longer have to prove anything. If you read your own posts, you would know that. You've made the claim that they have "no express right to do so" and that's your burden to prove. In fact, I've gone much further than I needed by showing you multiple times over that it's at minimum possible that they do have the express right to, which makes your job that much more difficult, seeing as you can no longer ignorantly claim that it's impossible they would have the right to do so.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)...

Burden of proof (also known as onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

Sorry I didn't know you had replied. Not your fault. Your post was the second I was not notified of as mentioning me.

I'm going to do a recap of our discussion. I want to make clear, and to be clear, as to exactly what points we do not agree upon.

① My claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
② My implied, and now hereby explicitly claimed: Government does not have an express right to extort people.
③ My implied, and now hereby explicitly claimed: Without an express right to extort people, when government extorts people, the government is actually doing a criminal act.
④ You claim that you have presented "that it's at minimum possible that they [government] do have the express right to" [extort people].
⑤ You imply that an act of extortion is not a criminal act.
⑥ You rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that extortion by government is not a moral wrong.

Tell me if/ where you disagree. If you agree that I've properly summed up our disagreement, then I'll continue to dissect your post.

[Dale Eastman]

Please provide proof for ②, as your existing proofs on your website do not explicitly establish this. Or, if you think you have, then provide the link to where you do. (BTW, this is literally my "option #3" from earlier which you said was unnecessary to prove or address, so it's nice to see your circular reasoning make another trip around the bend)

For ⑤, you made the explicit distinction that *your* definition does not entail criminality, as it encompasses actions that are non-controversially known to be permissible, such as defense of property from trespassers and malfeasants. I have covered this previously. With this correction, it follows that ⑥ is not how I support this argument, but instead by using your own moral standards and truths within your belief system that do not rely on government decree.

Also, ④ needs to amended to make a point of distinguishing your addition "[extort people]" depends on your original (and faulty, see above about ⑤) definition of "extort."

The purpose of my last post was to get the points we disagree about on the table and clearly in view.
Per your post, I have changed some wording.

① My claim us that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. You disagree.

② My implied, and now hereby explicitly claimed: is that government does not have an express right to extort people. You disagree.

③ My implied, and now hereby explicitly claimed:  is that without an express right to extort people, when government extorts people, the government is actually doing a criminal act. You disagree.

④ You claimed by implication, that government extorting people is something government has an express right to do and thus is not a criminal act. I disagree.

⑤ Extortion is a criminal act. You imply that you do not agree.

⑥ You do not rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that extortion by government is not a moral wrong. I disagree.

Have I missed any specific disagreement?

For the record, from the record:
Your extortion definition as presented:
➽ obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so.
My extortion definition as presented:
➽ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.

[Dale Eastman]

Let's go ahead and dispense with the false pretense as to why you want to do this "recap." Do you really see me as such a fool that within your specific outline format I can't spot thinly veiled attempt to hide the fallacy I've already called you out on (with supporting argument) nor the strawman you've attempted to build to make your argument easier? It's the same bait I've already fallen for by attempting to tackle your original claim in the first place.

So, in order to put all of that aside, I've prepared a similar outline. Don't worry though, I haven't pulled your same tricks in misrepresenting your original argument. I also have taken great care not to lose the nuance this discussion has held up until your "recap" either.

① Your claim is that government is a criminal syndicate that "extorts" people for money and control. I challenge this claim.

② Your implied, and now hereby explicitly claimed: is that government does not have an express right to "extort" people. I challenge this claim.

③ You implied, and now hereby explicitly claimed: without an express right to "extort" people, when government "extorts" people, the government is actually doing a criminal act. I actually agree with this.

④ I claimed, that government extorting people is something government is capable of having an express right to do and thus is not necessarily a criminal act. You disagree.

⑤ You claim "extortion" (as defined below) is a criminal act. I disagree.

⑥ I do not rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that "extortion" (again, as defined below) by government is not a moral wrong. You disagree.

My definition of "extortion" is no longer relevant to my revised refutation, we can continue using only your implied, now explicit definition:
➽ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.

let me know if there's anything you disagree with in the above comment.

Real life Effed up my circadian rhythm. I'm composing my reply right now while fuzzy brained. Not likely to post it before a review while not being fatigued. This comment as a courtesy to let you know.
IMO, now we are going to get into the meat of our contested points. Helps if I don't misread your words, which I did, first to third read through of the numbered points as you edited them.

➽ I haven't pulled your same tricks in misrepresenting your original argument.

Are you claiming I misrepresented Political Pidgeotto's (your) original argument or that I misrepresented Dale Eastman's (my) original argument?

Ambiguities like this is why I am being a pedantic asshole and doing things like my last post recap of the verbal and ideological conflict you and I are engaged in.

So, point ❽, You are claiming I am misrepresenting something. I do not agree.

Please be specific and articulate exactly what was presented and exactly how I misrepresented such "thing".

I am tempted to end this post here and await your clarification, however my lack of clarity of your claim does not create any impasse to my starting to address our other ideological conflicts. So, moving on...

If you have not noticed, I have ignored many of your ad hominem insults. These do not move the discussion of ideological differences towards an understanding. Having the points of contention labelled, described, and displayed on the table does. So at this time, based upon your last post, it looks to me like we agree as to what our contentions with each other's positions are:

❶ Claimed: Government is a criminal syndicate that "extorts" people for money and control. Contested.

❷ Claimed: Government does not have an express right to "extort" people. Contested.

❸ Claimed: When government "extorts" people, without an express right to "extort" people, the government is actually doing a criminal act. Uncontested.

❹ Claimed: Government extorting people is something government is capable of having an express right to do and thus is not necessarily a criminal act. Contested.

❺ Claimed: "Extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") is a criminal act. Contested.

❼-❺ Claimed: This must include the other definition presented: "Extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") is a criminal act.

❻ Claimed: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") by government is not a moral wrong. Contested.

❼-❻ Claimed: Claimed: This must include the other definition presented: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") by government is not a moral wrong.

❽ Claimed: Eastman is misrepresenting something. Contested.

Contested because I do not agree. This is not a hard denial... Yet... Because I could have misunderstood something and thus actually misrepresented it.

Back on track: Previous comments:

➽ A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises.

I agree. No challenge on this specific point.

➽ Your claim is not a premise, but a conclusion, which is the only reason why you'd be looking for a "refutation"

In reviewing the discussion, I admit to my error in directly challenging this point. In making this error I was focused my claim as a premise. My claim is, as you point out, is a conclusion. As a conclusion, my claim is from my direct observations of what government is and does. This then is what I, as the initial claimant, must present to support my conclusion. My claim is also a premise. If my claim is true, my claim WILL justify a conclusion that has not yet been presented. If my claim is false, my conclusion fails unborn, not even expelled out o' the womb.

➽ Please provide proof for ❷ [Government does not have an express right to extort people] [...]

Translating, keeping in mind things you have written:
➽ Please provide proof for [Government does not have an express right to use violence against people to achieve compliance]

You chose to connect my non-statism position with capitalism. You did this by assumption...  Because I wrote nothing about where I believe non-bogus authority comes from. Your assumption is merely the error of an assumption. Not fatal to your intent in doing so. I do not "handwave" this "ownership" issue away because ownership IS an issue in the environment being discussed.

➽ If so, then you believe that authority over another comes through ownership.

Government does not own me. Neither do you. Neither does any of the mere men and women claiming to be government.

➽ I own my house/land/property, and I have ultimate authority over who enters/uses said property and any such parameters or behaviors while using my property.

Yes. Agreed. Only in regard to the "house/land/property" you actually own.

Do you own my "house/land/property"? Does government? Remember, you are arguing that government DOES have an express right to use violence against people to achieve compliance with its dictates about what people (to also include you and I) can do with, in, or on our own "house/land/property."

➽ As such, if I legitimately acquire a tract of land and develop a neighborhood on said land, I can condition the transfer of ownership on agreeing to be bound to and HOA [...]

What you can NOT do, is force me to purchase any of that property from you.

➽ [...] and within the HOA build a self-perpetuation clause that guarantees all future ownership transfers are also conditioned on agreeing to relinquish self-authority to the HOA.

I quote this half of the sentence only because it sets the scene for your subsequent sentence.

➽ Change HOA to "state" and you therefore have a fully legitimate pathway to government and states having ownership over the landmass within which you reside, and authority over the subjects within said landmass.

Either the people, to also include you and I, own our "house/land/property" on that landmass, or government does.

Alleged jurisdiction and alleged authority is NOT ownership of the landmass. Even if it was, alleged jurisdiction and alleged authority is NOT ownership of privately owned houses/lands/properties.

With your HOA example, you are claiming authority via contract. Your HOA example:

➽ I legitimately acquire a tract of land and develop a neighborhood on said land, I can condition the transfer of ownership on agreeing to be bound to and HOA, and within the HOA build a self-perpetuation clause that guarantees all future ownership transfers are also conditioned on agreeing to relinquish self-authority to the HOA.

With your words Change HOA to "state", What you are attempting to do, implied or not, is claim the CONstitution is some sort of contract. Lysander Spooner debunked that bullshit 151 years ago.

❾ Claimed: The CONstitution is NOT a contract. I'm assuming you WILL contest this.
❿ Claimed: The CONstitution has NO non-bogus AUTHORITY over any non-governmental human. I'm assuming you WILL contest this. I would have said any non-governmental entities, but corporations ARE governmental entities because they are creations of the government/state.

➽ What is "government" in your claim? All governments? The government under which you reside? The US Government? All governing bodies, even if not specifically labeled "government" by lay folk?

Government in my claim is synonymous with state. The other governing bodies questions set aside for now, for the purpose of simplifying discussion of the states/governments.

What, specifically is "government"? My definition of government being a criminal syndicate notwithstanding... Is not government merely men and women called government?

Keeping in mind your implied claim that government has an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain a desired outcome, that is, to obtain compliance;

My claim can be restated as "Mere men and women do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance."

➽ there is actually a logical pathway within your system the legitimizes government and governmental authority.

Authority has not been defined in this discussion. I do so now:

❶❶ Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.

Whence comes this authority?

I have not yet presented my direct observations of what government is and does in this discussion. I have done this on my website.

[Dale Eastman]

❯ Are you claiming I misrepresented...

My paragraphs are intended to be consumed wholesale, not piecemeal. Put the two starting paragraphs together, and from them collect the following quote:
❮ Do you really [think] I can't spot the strawman you've attempted to build to make your argument easier [within your specific outline format]? I haven't pulled your same tricks in misrepresenting your original argument.

Not that you have, outright or directly misrepresented, but that within the format of your summary you've made it easier to move forward with a misrepresentation of the argument within "the meat of our contested points."

[unchanged and unchallenged changed points omitted for brevity]

❻ Claimed: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") by government is not a moral wrong. Contested.
I don't like this wording, it only adds a layer of convolution to this point. This reads as something entirely different from all previous iterations of ❻.

❼ This is not claimed. My contesting within ❺ is wholly limited in scope to your definition, not the revised definition. My justification to this within ❻ is similarly limited in scope. I agree (see ❸) that "Extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") is in fact, a "criminal" ("Malum in se") act. To require both definitions be equated or forced to be included is to commit the Equivocation Fallacy, as I've outlined previously.

❽ Implied: Eastman is [attempting to] [misrepresent] something.

❯ You chose to connect my non-statism position with capitalism

I connected your wholesale position to the broad belief system known as "Anarcho-Capitalism" not just "capitalism" as you suggest. I gathered that from your public discourse outside this conversation. From your connection to the page through which I found you, from your own website, and from your personal posts/shares that you leave in public view on this forum. I also have confirmation of this connection within these recent replies.

❯ Government does not own me...
This was not claimed by me or anyone. It wasn't even claimed within the sentence you took out of context to fabricate this claim. This is also not contested in the slightest. The sentence in fact is just a tie-in to the next point, which you don't contest.

❯ What you can NOT do, is force me to purchase any of that property from you.
Irrelevant to the point. Are you, by omission of a challenge to the claim of the legitimacy of an HOA (and instead focusing on the counter you gave), agreeing that contracts limiting the authority of your ownership over a property (such as HOA agreements) are valid and binding?

❯ Either the people, to also include you and I, own our "house/land/property" on that landmass, or government does.
This is an example of false dichotomy. These are not necessarily the only mutually exclusive options for ownership of a property. See above which creates the allowance that it's actually both have valid ownership over aspects of the property. To deny this is to similarly deny HOAs, rentals, tenancy, cooperatives, joint ownership/partnership, and all the various names that refer to this same concept. Unless, of course, you wish to deny the legitimacy of this concept with a formal proof as to why.

❯ Alleged jurisdiction and alleged authority is NOT ownership of the landmass. Even if it was, alleged jurisdiction and alleged authority is NOT ownership of privately owned houses/lands/properties.

I did not claim it was. I do not need to claim it is. Easements are not ownership of the landmass, HOAs are not ownership of privately owned houses/lands/properties, mineral rights are not ownership. They are ownership of authority and rights themselves, they are ownership of jurisdiction in itself. You still own the land and the house, but you do not own the right to violate these contracts that limit your authority over your land and house.

What you are attempting to do, implied or not, is claim the CONstitution is some sort of contract. Lysander Spooner debunked that bullshit 151 years ago.
❾ Claimed: The CONstitution is NOT a contract. I'm assuming you WILL contest this.
❿ Claimed: The CONstitution has NO non-bogus AUTHORITY over any non-governmental human. I'm assuming you WILL contest this. I would have said any non-governmental entities, but corporations ARE governmental entities because they are creations of the government/state.

You chose to connect my argument to this. I do not claim the "CONstitution" is "some sort of contract." Such a claim is unnecessary, and largely indefensible. It doesn't follow the form of a contract in the slightest. It is, at best, a set of bylaws and procedures for one of the parties within a contract. I do not contest neither ❾ nor ❿. In fact, I see this potential for authority as coming from something else entirely. Again, I am not arguing that our current government is legitimate, per se. I am refuting your argument as it stands. You wanted a valid refutation, and a valid refutation to an argument does not require proving the polar opposite as truth, especially not in an argument that contains a very much distributed middle like this one.

❯ What, specifically is "government"? Is not government merely men and women called government?

Government is not the people themselves, but is instead the institution binding those who fall within its authority. Is "Wal-Mart" the employees? Is it the building? What is "Wal-Mart?" In both cases these institutions are actually a collection of rights and procedures which bind persons and property with authority, via various and potentially dissimilar contracts, both express and implied in nature. Not every contract need be explicitly stated, written down, and physically signed to be binding. No matter what system of belief one holds, walking into "Wal-Mart" and leaving with unpaid product is a violation of the contract I agreed to as a customer upon entry to the property.

❯ implied claim that government has an express right

again, my explicit claim is that you have not met a valid standard of proof for your claim. That is not a claim to the opposite. A refutation need only show that the bag you're holding is empty of value, not that I actually possess a bag with something of value inside. As far as you're concerned, I may actually agree with your claim about state/federal government within the USA being criminal and/or illegitimate, my beliefs and/or counterproofs are not what's on trial here though.

❯ My claim can be restated as "Mere men and women do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance."

I'll allow this version of restatement in spite of my challenge above on what "government" is only because I believe it follows more closely with what your intended claim is better than anything previous or that could be constructed in light of my challenge. Also, because it makes my refutation equally clear as to what your argument has been lacking as far as proof is concerned.

❮ Mere men and women [Security staff employed by landlords, officers within HOAs, "Wal-Mart"(/generic) employees, and homeowners] do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance.

Your supporting arguments for the specific example of "government" have to be of equal caliber to someone arguing this augmented claim.

I hereby accept your definition in ⓫: Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.

In case they're needed:
⓬ ⓭ ⓮ ⓯ ⓰ ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ ⓴

1 of 3
In case they're needed:
⓬ ⓭ ⓮ ⓯ ⓰ ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ ⓴

Thank you. I have added them to my Tidbits file. My copy & paste special characters source.Screenshot attached. I'm still thinking about if I want to use them or not. They are smaller than the ones I already have (❶ - ❿). The size difference is why I changed from what I used the first time (① - ⑳). Unlike a BB forum, FB doesn't allow text sizing.

➽ Not that you have, outright or directly misrepresented,

I can understand heat of the moment, wrong words slipping out. So that admission gets a thank you for the correction.

➽ but that within the format of your summary you've made it easier to move forward with a misrepresentation of the argument within "the meat of our contested points."

Those explanatory words can't get a thank you because those words indicate an assumption being projected. When I actually misrepresent, then you call me on it.

➽ My paragraphs are intended to be consumed wholesale, not piecemeal.

From my website, which you've indicated you've read:
⚠ Be forewarned: I take positions apart, sometimes word by word, to show where the logic fails. If you post really goofy stuff, I might even devote a webpage to ridiculing your goofiness. If you can prove to me that I am wrong, I'll change this website. ⛔

A devoted webpage means a static page. The warning was written before I installed the (SMF) Simple Machines Forum freeware where I find it easier to post constantly changing words (discussions). Alas, I digress.

➽ ❻ Claimed: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") by government is not a moral wrong. Contested.
I don't like this wording, it only adds a layer of convolution to this point. This reads as something entirely different from all previous iterations of ❻.

Evolution of ❻ (⑥):

You have indicated that this is your position via ❷ (unchanged and unchallenged changed points omitted for brevity):
⚠ Government does have an express right to "extort" people. ⛔

⚠ ⑥ You rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that extortion by government is not a moral wrong. ⛔

⚠ ⑥ is not how I support this argument ⛔

⚠ ⑥ You do not rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that extortion by government is not a moral wrong. I disagree. ⛔

⚠ ⑥ I do not rely upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make your case/point that "extortion" (again, as defined below) by government is not a moral wrong. You disagree.
My definition of "extortion" is no longer relevant to my revised refutation, we can continue using only your implied, now explicit definition: Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you. ⛔

⚠ ❻ Claimed: Reliance upon the specific distinction of "lawful" / "unlawful" and "legal" / "illegal" to attempt to make the case/point that "extortion" (defined as "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you") by government is not a moral wrong. Contested. ⛔

➽ This reads as something entirely different from all previous iterations of ❻.

I hope laying out ❻ (⑥) in the order presented in the discussion helps you see what I see.

➽ ❼ This is not claimed.

I'm making claim ❼. You've contested claim ❼.

➽ To require both definitions be equated or forced to be included is to commit the Equivocation Fallacy, as I've outlined previously.

The definitions, next to each other, for comparison:
Ⓐ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.
Ⓑ obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so.

Ⓐ Do what we tell you to do = Ⓑ obtaining a desired outcome
Ⓐ or we will hurt you. = Ⓑ by using threat or use of force

Ⓒ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you, where one has no express right to do so.

Just sayin'.

Nevertheless, at this time I see no reason why I can't drop ❼

➽ ❽ Implied: Eastman is [attempting to] [misrepresent] something.

Those words [ALSO] indicate an assumption being projected. When I actually misrepresent, then you call me on it.

2 of 3
➽ I connected your wholesale position to the broad belief system known as "Anarcho-Capitalism" not just "capitalism" as you suggest. I gathered that from your public discourse outside this conversation. From your connection to the page through which I found you, from your own website, and from your personal posts/shares that you leave in public view on this forum. I also have confirmation of this connection within these recent replies.

I find that this is a plausible reason for you to make the connection. I challenged only on the fact that such evidence was not directly observable in our discussion. And as admitted, Not fatal to your intent in doing so. The other reason such connection is "lightly" contested is because the specific properties, attributes, & characteristics of Anarcho-Capitalism and Capitalism have not been laid out; I might or might not have alignment with those specific properties, attributes, & characteristics.

➽ I hereby accept your definition in ⓫: Authority is any higher claim on any human or their property than that human has over their self or their property.

I'm putting that here, antecedent to the use of "authority" that follows.

➽ ❯ Government does not own me... This was not claimed by me or anyone.

I made that statement because you claimed ownership as a source of authority when you wrote this:

➽ I own my house/land/property, and I have ultimate authority over who enters/uses said property and any such parameters or behaviors while using my property. If I say "no hats on in my house" then you either remove your hat, or find yourself unwelcome. I'm allowed to defend my property, with force if necessary. If someone refuses to leave my property, I'm allowed to defend my property with a firearm, including using it in a deadly manner. This could even theoretically extend into incarceration by making those entering my property aware that doing so is conditioned on agreeing to such a penalty for certain infractions.

Therefore, If ownership creates authority, the claim of government ownership of the people as a path to authority over the people is preemptively forestalled.

➽ The sentence in fact is just a tie-in to the next point [...]

So, um... No.

➽ ❯ What you can NOT do, is force me to purchase any of that property from you.
Irrelevant to the point.

If you can't force me to purchase the property, then your HOA condition of ownership and contractual relinquishment of self-authority does not, and can not, apply to me. You want to force discussion of HOA private contracts as a means to prove government has legitimate non-bogus authority over people and their property.

This means you want to use the idea of a contractual relinquishment of self-authority to State/government.

➽ Are you, by omission of a challenge to the claim of the legitimacy of an HOA (and instead focusing on the counter you gave), agreeing that contracts limiting the authority of your ownership over a property (such as HOA agreements) are valid and binding?

No.

I neither agree nor disagree that contracts limiting the authority of your ownership over a property (such as HOA agreements) are valid and binding.

I do specifically note that you are attempting to use this very concept of contracts limiting the authority of ownership over a person or their property to give alleged non-bogus authority to State/government.

Below, you deny that the CONstitution is a contract, and you deny the CONstitution has any authority over anybody. Lysander Spooner agrees with you.

➽ ❯ Either the people, to also include you and I, own our "house/land/property" on that landmass, or government does. This is an example of false dichotomy.

As I presented the dichotomy, it is not false. Given your supporting words, I admit: Maybe.

➽ See above which creates the allowance that it's actually both [that] have valid ownership over aspects of the property.

How does that valid ownership over "aspects" of the properties you list (HOAs, rentals, tenancy, cooperatives, joint ownership/partnership), etc. come into existence?

By contracts, yes?

So you are still trying to make the case that government's alleged authority over people and their property is by means of some alleged, unpresented, and unexamined contract.

So the dichotomy is State/Government on one side and its diametric opposite, authority over private property via contracts.

➽ Easements are not ownership of the landmass [...]

Same questions: How does that easement come into existence? By contracts, yes?

⚠ Easements are usually created by a transfer in a deed or some other written document such as a will or contract. Creating an easement requires the same formalities as the transferring or creating of other interests in land. It typically requires a written document, a signature, and proper delivery of the document.
Findlaw.com ⛔

➽ You still own the land and the house, but you do not own the right to violate these contracts that limit your authority over your land and house.

Yes. Easements come into existence by contract.

➽ I do not contest neither ❾ nor ❿.

❾ & ❿ omitted as noncontested points... Unless your double negative was NOT a typo.

➽ I see this potential for authority as coming from something else entirely.

Feed back verification:
You are claiming that government's authority to demand "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you" does NOT come from the CONstitution?

3 of 3
My claim is that government is a criminal syndicate. As this discussion has been addressing the point of criminality, the focus has been put on the whether or not extortion is a crime.

You have agreed that extortion is a crime, with proviso when you wrote:
③(❸) [...] without an express right to "extort" people, when government "extorts" people, the government is actually doing a criminal act. I actually agree with this.

Your proviso shows in point ④(❹) wherein you wrote: government extorting people is something government is capable of having an express right to do and thus is not necessarily a criminal act.

By what authority? By what authority is government given an express right to "extort" people.  Once this alleged authority is presented, it can then be examined as to if it bogus or non-bogus authority.

➽ You wanted a valid refutation, and a valid refutation to an argument does not require proving the polar opposite as truth [...]

Agreed.

I am refuting your argument as it stands.

What, exactly, is my argument... used to support for my claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control?

Criminal syndicates extort. Extortion is criminal. Refuting my argument requires you to prove extortion, when done by government, is something government has an express right to do. Failure to prove an express right to extort is a failure to prove government is not doing a criminal act.

I am not arguing that our current government is legitimate, per se.

If our current government is not legitimate, then it is criminal, acting without authority.

❯ What, specifically is "government"? Is not government merely men and women called government?

➽ Government is not the people themselves, Rude interruption and immediate SNIP!

If every single human working in or for government quit at midnight tonight, then there would be NO government tomorrow.

➽ Government is not the people themselves, but is instead the institution binding those who fall within its authority.

Well now... There's that issue of authority again. Please present your evidence that I fall under this alleged authority.

➽ the contract I agreed to as a customer upon entry to the property

Verifiable evidence of this contract you allege?

As I assume you are aware, there are four basic elements required in order for a contract to exist. These elements are: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds).

This is a pre-emptive challenge to forestall any attempt to claim government gets its alleged authority via a contract. It doesn't.

➽ I may actually agree with your claim about state/federal government within the USA being criminal and/or illegitimate, my beliefs and/or counterproofs are not what's on trial here though.

If you actually agreed with my claim, and you wanted to school me on logic, wouldn't suggesting a better way to present the claim and explaining why be a better way to school me on logic? Wouldn't that be a better way to challenge my "errant" presentation of something you agreed with? Perhaps if you wrote, "IMO, Here's a better way to present this fact." You didn't do any of this, so I don't believe you have any agreement with me on the evil of government.

What you are suggesting to me with those words, is that you might have agreed with the statement even before challenging me for proof. If you actually agreed, I would expect a different demeanor in your words. Anytime I engage in discussion of the criminality of the states, governments, the people who make up such, and the people who support such, human nature and human psychology is part of that environment.

➽ I'll allow this version of restatement ["Mere men and women do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance."] because it makes my refutation equally clear as to what your argument has been lacking as far as proof is concerned.

➽ Your supporting arguments for the specific example of "government" have to be of equal caliber to someone arguing this augmented claim.

Note to self: Specific example & equates. Expound or not?

➽ ❮ Mere men and women [Security staff employed by landlords, officers within HOAs, "Wal-Mart"(/generic) employees, and homeowners] do not have an express right to use force or threat of force to obtain compliance.

I actually like how you have laid that out. Now I can ask questions, my preferred method of debate.

Is the demanded compliance, "Give my property back", or is it "Give me your money"? Is the demanded compliance, Initiatory or reactive? Is the demanded compliance, Offensive or defensive?

➽ Your supporting arguments for the specific example of "government" have to be of equal caliber to someone arguing this augmented claim.
➽ my explicit claim is that you have not met a valid standard of proof for your claim.

And you have not proven extortion is not a criminal act.

I am not arguing that our current government is legitimate, per se.

No, you're not. You're arguing that our current government is not illegitimate.

How does government (and the mere men and women thereof) get money? How does calling it taxation make give us money or we will hurt you not extortion?

Remember the original claim:

Government is an organized criminal syndicate that extorts people for MONEY and control.

How does government (and the mere men and women thereof) get money?

How does calling it taxation make "Give us money or we will hurt you" not extortion?

Remember the original claim:
Government is an organized criminal syndicate that extorts people for MONEY and control.

[Dale Eastman]

❼ Even though you're dropping this one, I must point out your shifting goalposts fallacy within it to keep you on target:
Ⓐ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.
Does not coincide with the newly added information in Ⓒ "...where one has no express right to do so."
Implications and half definitions that change to suit your current subpoint are not allowed, as these are fallacy. Your definition was formally and explicitly rolled into ❺ above. Your even earlier quote further expands on how the tail of Ⓒ is where our two definitions diverge and specifically are not equivalent (and how treating them as equivalent is fallacy).

➽ With my accepting that specific definition, I allow you to loosen the bind you are in. Because I already know you want to parley "no express right to do so" in to a government right to do so.

This is a linchpin of my refutation, and one you are not allowed to fallaciously back out of. The explicit admission of this definition is why so much of my argument, including my proposed revision are deemed irrelevant, as they are no longer necessary for a "valid refutation."

the claim of government ownership of the people as a path to authority over the people is preemptively forestalled.

This was never a path that was going to be explored, and their introduction is as unnecessary as you claim my "projections" into your argument are. So, to reflect on your own words: That is assumption being projected. When I actually make that argument, then you call me on it.

➽ If you can't force me to purchase the property, then your HOA condition of ownership and contractual relinquishment of self-authority does not, and can not, apply to me.

➽ I do specifically note that you are attempting to use this very concept of contracts limiting the authority of ownership over a person or their property to give alleged non-bogus authority to State/government.

Without settling (obtaining a mutual understanding, and agreement to the details of) this point in the theoretical sense, then no further discussion of this refutation is possible. You can't refuse to participate because you seemingly don't like where the conversation leads. You either address the point, as is, without making assumptions (as I have ceased at your request as well), or no productive conversation ensues.

➽ So the dichotomy is State/Government on one side and its diametric opposite, authority over private property via contracts.

This is not a dichotomy, despite your false claim that it is. I do, again, reiterate that the "CONstitution" is NOT the "contract" binding the citizens in the non-theoretical path of arguing legitimacy of the federal or state governments of the USA, because that's plain and obvious. It does not read like a contract with the citizens, it does not include the citizens as a party to an agreement per se, and many other reasons, some of which are probably in line with Spooner that you mention. That fact, however, does not mean that there does not exist a contract between citizen and "State/Government." Therefore, these are not diametrically opposed concepts. I refuse to move further into details until the current points are settled. This concept is known in formality as argumentum a fortiori, which is not a fallacy.

➽ You are claiming that government's authority to demand "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you" does NOT come from the CONstitution?

Correct, this has been explicitly stated multiple times now.

➽ Criminal syndicates extort. Extortion is criminal. Refuting my argument requires you to prove extortion, when done by government, is something government has an express right to do. Failure to prove an express right to extort is a failure to prove government is not doing a criminal act.

And here's where you actually do misrepresent both your and my argument again, despite me pointing out on multiple occasions where this logic breaks down. In this word salad you call an argument, you commit no less than 2 fallacies.

->Loaded language, in using the word "extort" because of the connotations brought forth in the lay person's mind. This becomes especially apparent when you explicitly defined extort(ion) as "Do what we tell you to or we will hurt you (Full stop)."

->Equivocation fallacy. This is because you use the common definition of extort (which entails criminality) as equivalent to your "definition" which doesn't entail criminality (as shown by example above, with multiplicity).

I don't need to prove they have a right, as you have claimed both that they do not, nor can they ever have the right. You have instead used fallacy to imply that they don't have the right ipso facto through your careful word craft and previously hidden definitions. Bringing this into light is in all regards refutation enough. I have already offered my supporting evidence of this, if you wish to deny this, you are welcome to show how I am wrong. The fact that you've avoided addressing this even currently does not bode well for your argument.

>Verifiable evidence of this contract you allege?

Contracts need not be written, nor verbal per se. There are plenty of examples of implied, yet fully enforceable contracts. They all still contain the same elements as you point out: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement. In the walmart example, this would be "I offer you entry into my property under certain conditions," consideration is the potential for a trade to occur, acceptance is obtained by the physical act of entering the property, and mutual agreement comes from both parties carrying out their duties within this contract. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-implied-contract.html

>And you have not proven extortion is not a criminal act.
I have proven that people saying "Do what I say or I will hurt you" does NOT imply criminality, so I have proven that YOUR definition of extortion is not (necessarily) a criminal act, and requires external circumstance and additional proof on behalf of the claim maker (you) that it is.

Much of the rest is either you jumping ahead, or ignoring foundational counter-arguments to continue to push your conclusion ahead of its proper time.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ Ⓐ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.
Does not coincide with the newly added information in Ⓒ "...where one has no express right to do so."

➽ This is a linchpin of my refutation, and one you are not allowed to fallaciously back out of. The explicit admission of this definition [Extortion: Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you] is why so much of my argument, including my proposed revision are deemed irrelevant, as they are no longer necessary for a "valid refutation."

The claim that "Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control" is the claim to be refuted.

➽ ->Loaded language, in using the word "extort" because of the connotations brought forth in the lay person's mind. This becomes especially apparent when you explicitly defined extort(ion) as "Do what we tell you to or we will hurt you (Full stop)."

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Extort: to obtain by force or threat

Extortion: the act of getting something, especially money, by force or threats

extortioner also extortionist: a person who obtains something by force or threats

Cambridge Dictionary
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
transitive verb : to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

Choose the Right Synonym for extort
extort suggests a wringing or wresting from one who resists strongly.

Did You Know?
To extort is literally to wrench something out of someone. Extortion is a mainstay of organized crime. Just as the school bully extorts lunch money from the smaller kids in exchange for not beating them up, thugs extort "protection" money from business owners with threats of violence. But that's only one kind of extortion; a mobster might extort favors from a politician with threats of revealing some dark secret, just as you might extort a favor from a brother or sister by promising not to tell on them.

History and Etymology for extort
Latin extortus, past participle of extorquēre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquēre to twist — more at torture entry 1

Merriam-Webster
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

You know god damn well that extortion is a criminal act else you wouldn't be crying "loaded language".

Didja ever think, Maybe the negative connotation is because extortion IS a criminal act? As you yourself have admitted.

➽ I agree (see ❸) that "Extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") is in fact, a "criminal" ("Malum in se") act.

You want to make the words "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you" not extortion. I withhold my conjecture about your motivation for this.

➽ I have proven that people saying "Do what I say or I will hurt you" does NOT imply criminality, so I have proven that YOUR definition of extortion is not (necessarily) a criminal act [...]

Not necessarily a criminal act... Unless it actually is.

I will so stipulate "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you" is not extortion ONLY in the defensive use case.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Quoting out of context is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies may be either intentional or accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it to be non-essential.
Wikipedia
⛔ ⛔ ⛔

The context is "An entity that extorts people for MONEY and control is an extortionate entity regardless of the words used for the extortion."

Extortionists initiate harm to others, Defenders reply to harm initiated by others.

It is readily apparent to me that you want to make the case that government is a defender against harm and thus is not an extortionate syndicate.  I withhold my conjecture about your motivation for this.

This is of no matter because this defensive use of the words "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you does NOT refute my original claim: Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

You have already agreed that in order for "extortion" to not be "extortion" one needs an express right to extort.

➽ I agree (see ❸) that "Extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") is in fact, a "criminal" ("Malum in se") act.

Without an express right to extort, the entity saying "Do what we tell you to do [Give me your money] or we will hurt you" is an extortionist committing the crime of extortion.

➽ [...] and requires external circumstance and additional proof on behalf of the claim maker (you) that it is.

There is a readily observable external circumstance, the difference between "Give me your money or I will hurt you" and "Do not attempt to rob me or I will hurt you.

Is, "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you" the words extortionists would use?
Is, "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you" the words criminals initiating harm against a victims would use?

You have already agreed that in order for "extortion" to not be "extortion" government needs an express right to extort.

The additional proof is your failure to prove the syndicate called government has an express right to extort via your claims regarding a contract. Thus it is now time for me to examine your claims of a contract.

➽ I do, again, reiterate that the "CONstitution" is NOT the "contract" binding the citizens
➽ That fact, however, does not mean that there does not exist a contract between citizen and "State/Government."

➽ Contracts need not be written, nor verbal per se. There are plenty of examples of implied, yet fully enforceable contracts. They all still contain the same elements as you point out: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement.

You have NOT presented an unwritten contract between myself and the syndicate called government.

Your Walmart bloviation notwithstanding...

What specifically has government offered to me?
What specifically has government requested from me in consideration of its alleged offer to me?
I specifically DO NOT ACCEPT this alleged contract.
Therefore, there is NO MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-implied-contract.html
From your link:

Implied At-Law Contracts
With an implied at-law contract, the law imposes a duty to perform a contract, and will enforce a contract even against a person’s will, where circumstances are such that without this remedy one party would be unfairly enriched by another party’s action.

Implied In-Fact Contracts
If the parties’ conduct or the circumstances suggests they had an agreement or understanding that created an obligation, then the LAW will find that they had an implied in-fact contract.

What, specifically, is LAW?
Where does this alleged LAW get its alleged AUTHORITY?

How does government (and the mere men and women thereof) get money?

How does calling it taxation make "Give us money or we will hurt you" not extortion?

Remember the original claim:
Government is an organized criminal syndicate that extorts people for MONEY and control.

Um... It's been a week.

[Dale Eastman]

To the remainder of your comment concerning contracts, government rights, or lack thereof, claims, and the providence of proof or lack thereof, I present a quote from your own comments above:

» When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

Which of us fits this standard better? The one issuing the challenge for someone to refute their claim that challenges the status quo? Or the one who came in and revealed the hidden premises of the former, pointed out the fallacies, and brought to the table examples that show how you could be incorrect? Feel free to provide your proof at this time that it is currently the case that government did not obtain the right to enforce its rules on the geographical area. Feel free to include showing your work on where the real written contract is that perpetuates the legitimacy of government identically to an HOA. You could also expound on the ideas of custody and attorney especially concerning parent/child relationships. I could go on, but I'll just leave you in your dunning-krueger inspired ignorance.

➽ I present a quote from your own comments above:

» When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

Yep. A PERCEIVED status quo.

A perception that could be correct or could be incorrect.

➽ Feel free to include showing your work on where the real written contract is that perpetuates the legitimacy of government identically to an HOA.

There is no real contract that perpetuates the (ALLEGED) legitimacy of government. It is not my duty to show something that does not exist. This one is really simple. Embarrass me by providing this contract.

➽ Feel free to provide your proof at this time that it is currently the case that government did not obtain the right to enforce its rules on the geographical area.

Point number 1
Let's start with looking at the PR propaganda (bullshit) spouted by those called government and their toady sycophants. From one of the "organic" documents: "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"

This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT! By government's own words, their powers are no longer just.

This point will be beaten like a dead horse if you choose to ignore it.

Ignoring arguendo my publicly accessible published non consent claim, there is that little issue of no written contract actually having been presented to me for my consent.

Thus the claim that I consented is a provable lie, regardless of what government, its toady sycophants, and you believe. In case you missed it the first time: I DO NOT CONSENT!

Point number 2
If consent can not be withdrawn, Then it never was consent.

Point number 3
If you do not have non-bogus authority over me, you can NOT delegate it. This is really a very simple concept. If I do not own a car and thus do not have the keys to that car (authority over it), I can NOT give you those keys and thus delegate authority over that car via the key.

Point number 4
If you and everybody else does not have authority over me, Then NONE of you can delegate it to a politician by voting for the politician.

Point number 5
Government lies to indoctrinate a belief that it has authority. Government controls the schools and thus uses the Prussian Method to inculcate belief in its, alleged and provably false, authority.

Point number 6
Per your own admission:
➽ I agree (see ❸) that "Extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") is in fact, a "criminal" ("Malum in se") act.

Sure looks like "no express right to do so" to me when alleged authority is proven to be bogus.

Point number 7
Taxation is "Give us the money we demand or we will hurt you."

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

See a pattern?

[Dale Eastman]

Yeah, there's no point in continuing. To recap:

» Yes, this is "the definition of extortion we're supposed to be using", because this is the definition I have been using all along. I am well aware that the word, the definition, and the intended concept I present is not one you can easily refute.
[this being "extortion (do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you)"]

» With my accepting that specific definition, I allow you to loosen the bind you are in. Because I already know you want to parley "no express right to do so" in to a government right to do so.

» My extortion definition as presented:
➽ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.

» Ⓒ Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you, where one has no express right to do so.
You then attempt to use the dictionary to suggest you meant to include the part after the comma, despite your own comment history explicitly claiming the contrary.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

Mic Drop, conversation over. Thanks for wasting my time and proving my second comment in our overall discussion to be completely accurate.

Your ORIGINAL definition of extort is not a criminal act, as ANY form of enforcement, valid or criminal falls under the definition used. Self-defense? Me telling you to stop assaulting me or I will hurt you. A store preventing theft? The store telling you to stop stealing their things or they will hurt you (or call the cops, who will hurt you). A man stopping a burglar from breaking into his home? The man telling him to get off his property and stop stealing my things or I will hurt you. Are any of these actions that follow the template of "do what I want or I will hurt you" criminal? Or does that definition fall flat on "proving" criminality?

Maybe that's why all of a sudden you needed to change your definition from a period to a comma? You know god damn well that what you've described of government action (aka "enforcement") doesn't prove criminality ipso facto despite your insistence on using the term "extortion" to describe it.

Seems I missed a post of yours. My notifications took me to the second comment. Regardless...

The original claim that triggered you:
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Taxation is "Give us the money we demand or we will hurt you."

Per your own admission:
➽ I agree (see ❸) that "Extortion" (defined as "obtaining a desired outcome, esp. the action of another, through the threat or use of force where one has no express right to do so") is in fact, a "criminal" ("Malum in se") act.

Whence comes that ALLEGED authority to hurt people who refuse to cough up what Caesar demands?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman I do see a pattern, you claim the authority doesn't exist, yet provide no proof. Then, when someone points out the flaw in your argument, you try to turn the tables. I've been warning that you'd do this since my second post, and yet you do not change. There will be no further replies. I HAVE provided a valid refutation to your original challenge, and have used your own words as the standard to prove as much. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge this. This is my last comment, and only serves to enter into public record this truth.

Dale Eastman Honestly, it's your strawmen that bore me the most out of this conversation. To wit:
- The constitution is not a contract between the governed and the government
- Authority is not derived from consent of the governed
- Your definitions of "taxation" and "rule enforcement" are narrow minded and ignore the implications of free market equivalents.
- I've mentioned multiple times from whence "non-bogus" authority may originate from, and yet you insist on using these strawmen instead.
If you really wish to have a productive conversation with ME, and not your past opponents masquerading as me, then start by exploring within your own beliefs how a "democratic government" akin to USA could legitimately arise from the "first principles" (aka your beliefs on ownership and rights). From there, show that the existing USA did not follow that path. I promise you, a path like that exists, and despite your protests a level of evidence and a rather convincing argument can be made that the existing USA has and is following that path.

➽ you claim the authority doesn't exist, yet provide no proof

Prove the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist.
Prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

I'll then use your method to prove the authority of this thing called "government" doesn't exist.

It would be VERY simple for you to disprove my claim... By proving authority...
So I will examine this alleged authority of government, a.k.a. this alleged authority of a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control, below.

I see you have chosen to ignore a key question (⚿�) in the post you responded to:

⚠ Whence comes that ALLEGED authority to hurt people who refuse to cough up what Caesar demands? ⚠

➽ I HAVE provided a valid refutation to your original challenge,

My original challenge was to refute that: "Government is an organized criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control."

Lemme help you focus...

How does government (and the mere men and women thereof) get money for government's "purposes"? Rhetorical because... "taxation."

How does calling it taxation make "Give us money or we will hurt you" not extortion?

That loops back to my first sentence quote of you in this post.
By What Authority are mere men and women allowed to tell mere mortals (non government syndicate humans) "Give us money or we will hurt you"?

I have FRE #602, personal first hand knowledge of the words of the Declaration of Independence. This organic document that purports to give government authority over me.

The Declaration of Independence, states in part:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This organic document claims “just powers,” that is to say “authority,” over “the governed” by the “consent of the governed.”

You can NOT prove I consented to government's alleged authority. Assuming arguendo that any consent was given in the first place, if this alleged consent can not be withdrawn, then it was never consent.

In order for one to consent (give permission), one needs to be presented with a choice. I was never presented with a choice; I was never asked for my consent to be governed; Nor was I given a list of the terms I would be consenting to.

Per, FRE#602, as to any witness government could call to testify that I was given a choice; that I was given sufficient, pertinent, and specific information in order to make an informed choice; and that I actually consented; Such a witness would be committing perjury for the simple fact that I was not given a choice; I was not given sufficient information to make an informed choice; and I have NOT consented.

What I have just presented in the previous paragraph is the exact same problem you, and government, would have proving a slave in the early 1800's gave specific and informed consent to being a slave and obeying his owner's every edict.

Absent my express consent, government's powers over me are NOT just powers. In fact quite the opposite: they are “unjust” powers. Absent my express consent, government's actions of using the powers, the force, of government to control me is no more than “Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you” extortion.

A critical examination of the alleged authority of government will of necessity be an examination of where this authority is purported to originate. This examination thus begins at the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

This Preamble states in part:

We the People of the United States, [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

An internet search finds that “To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law.” Both of which are orders to others to do, or not to do, some thing. To ordain or to enact a law requires non bogus authority, else they are non binding opinions.

Since “All humans are created with the same lack of authority over any other humans,” this includes “We the People” long dead as well as any of “We the People” presently alive.

Do you have any documentation or evidence that any of the “rules” in the Constitution apply to me?

Quoting one of the High Priests of the religious cult of lawyers and attorneys, in
the 1886 case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; 118 U.S. 356, 370; Mr. Justice Matthews proclaimed:

[...]"sovereignty itself remains with the people"[...]

Sovereignty: Sovereign humans have the same lack of authority over any other sovereign humans.

➽ - I've mentioned multiple times from whence "non-bogus" authority may originate from [...]

Key word there: "May."

May - definition of may by The Free Dictionary
Might and may are used mainly to talk about possibility. They can also be used to make a request, to ask permission, or to make a suggestion. When might and may are used with the same meaning, may is more formal than might. Might and may are called modals.

May | Definition of May by Merriam-Webster
Can and may are most frequently interchangeable in uses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one's doing something may depend on another's acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission.

Might be possible. Might not be possible. Could be possible. Could also not be possible.

So prove this "non-bogus" authority of the criminal syndicate called government that extorts people for money...

If you really wish to have a productive conversation with ME, [...] then start by exploring within your own beliefs how a "democratic government" akin to USA could legitimately arise from the "first principles" (aka your beliefs on ownership and rights).

My own beliefs are that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. I do not need to explore your beliefs as you just stated.

Furthermore, I've already examined the indoctrinated, and provably false belief, of government's alleged authority by means of its very own organic documents.