DM

[Dale Eastman]

My real question is, in a system of anarchy, whats to stop the criminals from becoming an organized mafia fueled by greed?

➽ My real question is, in a system of anarchy, whats to stop the criminals from becoming an organized mafia fueled by greed?

Please explain to me what you think "a system of anarchy" is. Else you are asking questions about an undefined term.

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

I can prove this.

Since I can prove this, your description of "the criminals" that have already become "an organized mafia fueled by greed" is the government that exists.

Dale Eastman what im asking is, if the villains just stayed organized and teamed up, wouldn't the civilians lose unless they tactically organize to defend themselves? The tactical organization of humans to defend themselves on a long term basis spanning several decades leads to militia, and on a larger scale, an army, which to be organized for tactical battle, must be judged, ranked, and governed<-in some way.

So long as there is organized crime, and there will be a need for organized crime fighting, because even if we peacefully bring down a corrupt government, we will have dismantled the leading force of our armies, IF the soldiers still even want to fight, we have to worry about invasion and terrorization from hostile countries, AS WELL AS internal crime rings that were already operating outside of a law that just had its leaders ripped out.

You can say people can volunteer to do this, but you can't ignore how disastrous the change will be to our national defenses on a local, state, and international scale.

My worry is about how a country full of greedy, power seeking people can transition into a nation of peaceful anarchy when there are so many non peaceful people ready to take action the moment we show weakness?

Simply put; the people, even for a day, can't be left unchecked, but the problem now is that there's too many in power.

So which is better morally? No government to defend the nation on both a large and small scale, leaving the common men to fend for themselves, or a corrupt ruling class of people who are making the masses poor and enslaved while also defending the country for the most part?

My final thought here is that government wouldn't be a problem if it were uncorrupted people who couldn't be corrupted. I think government is a lot like guns and drugs, its how the people use it that makes some people hate it. If I knew 99 other people whom I was absolutely sure could be trusted and intended to rule and protect this country with integrity and dignity, I wouldn't mind them governing the country with me, government would be a good thing.. if the people were good. We don't have a government problem, we have a heart problem. I mean, we totally DO have a government problem, but the problem is more the people than the structure.

I appreciate that your plethora of words actually conveys thought. Which means I'm going to be archiving our discussion on my website under "DM".

I do this for a number of reasons when I get interactions that I hope, believe, or suspect will have value. This allows me to compose my replies not on the Fecesbook crap platform and makes my replies easier to proofread and edit.

I'll reply to the substance of your words when I get them and my replies organized.

what in God's name is a "system" of "anarchy"?
I can't answer your question if we're using different definitions of these words. My understanding is that anarchy isn't a system, by any definition.

i mean that for anarchy to prevail, it must be agreed upon, lest more people will simply organize to govern.

[Dale Eastman]

1 of 3

➽ i mean that for anarchy to prevail, it must be agreed upon, lest more people will simply organize to govern.

I find I have a big problem with speculations of this type. I've yet to find a perfectly working crystal ball. In other words, your guess may or may not come to pass. I appreciate that you have not worded this as "Anarchy could never happen."

➽ So long as there is organized crime, and there will be a need for organized crime fighting, [...]

There is organized crime right now. It's called government. Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. This is provable; this is irrefutable. And yet, the responses I get always question what will replace this organized crime syndicate.

➽ [...] because even if we peacefully bring down a corrupt government, we will have dismantled the leading force of our armies, [...]

"A corrupt government"? You should call it what it is: A criminal extortion syndicate. Government is not good. Government does not give a shit about you, I, or any of the plebs.  (n. The lower order of citizens in ancient Rome; the plebeians; hence, in general, the populace.) The only reason the plebs believe that government is good is because government incarcerated the plebs for about twelve years in its indoctrination centers, aka, public schools, filling the plebs minds with the bullshit that government is good.

Then there is your choice of words; "the leading force". Sadly, I find those specific words to be on point. What you are referring to, I specifically call the upper echelons of command or rank. Leaders don't need force to command. Military commanders are NOT leaders. Military commanders are military controllers. In fact, military commanders are military dictators given the alleged authority to rule by extortion.

10 U.S. Code § 890 - Art. 90. Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished—
(1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and
(2) if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

"Lawful command"? By what authority? I'll be hitting on the authority issue, or more specifically that it does not exist, very frequently.

➽ [...] IF the soldiers still even want to fight, [...]

If the soldiers even want to be in a kill or be killed situation. Kill or be killed over what issue? If you don't recognize that the people of the 50 States united are less safe now, because of the use of the U.S. military, then you have NOT been paying attention. Somewhere in my piles of old papers, I have my draft card. I was required, by politician's opinion backed by threat of force (aka by law) to get a draft card. Then came Nixon's bullshit claim: "Peace with honor". The U.S. military got its ass kicked by North Vietnam. You are too young to remember the 6 o'clock news with the daily body counts. I wasn't. A fucking war over ideologies. A fucking war over what type of ruling extortionists.

➽ [...] we have to worry about invasion and terrorization from hostile countries, [...]

You do not get to claim "we". Especially where you attempt to include me with you.

Have you even ever fired a gun? I have. Even as an old fart, I can hit you at 250 yards with iron sights. So I am specifically NOT afraid of invasion. I'll keep my thoughts and comments about your cowardice to myself, limited to this sentence.

"Terrorization from hostile countries"? Do you mean, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

By its own rules, the U.S. committed an act of terrorism on Japan

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

Well, this is not the case if the politician's opinions make it legal to kill millions per each bomb dropped on civilian cities.

➽ [...] AS WELL AS internal crime rings that were already operating outside of a law that just had its leaders ripped out.

You could have, and should have, proof read what you wrote. I am forced to interpret and speculate what you intended to present. I am assuming you meant the government by the words, "its leaders". Government is not leaders. Government is rulers. Law is merely "politician's opinions". Since government is merely men and women called government. None of these people are deities or demigods, their opinions are no more important or authoritative then mine.

➽ You can say people can volunteer to do this, but you can't ignore how disastrous the change will be to our national defenses on a local, state, and international scale.

On second thought, I am specifically calling you out on your cowardice. You are afraid of what you speculate and project will be the case.  It's NOT national defense with troops "stationed" in 150 countries. This is empire building.

⚠The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with more than 160,000 of its active-duty personnel stationed outside the United States and its territories. This list consists of deployments excepting active combat deployments, which consist of troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Wikipedia⚠

Your homework is to study the word Hegemony.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hegemony+definition&t=ffab&ia=definition

➽ national defenses on a local, state, [...] scale.

⚠Guns.com
This includes an estimated 434 million firearms in civilian possession, with about half, 214 million, of those entering the market since 1991.⚠

The question is, what are you going to do when such an imagined invading force comes ashore and is no longer imaginary?

➽ My worry is about how a country full of greedy, power seeking people can transition into a nation of peaceful anarchy when there are so many non peaceful people ready to take action the moment we show weakness?

You are already showing weakness. The greedy, power seeking non peaceful people have already taken action. They've convince everybody that if you don't vote you can't complain. My non-voting in my youth was apathy. My non-voting now is my refusal to support the corrupt system that presently exists.

2 of 3

➽ Simply put; the people, even for a day, can't be left unchecked [...]

Are you including yourself as one of the people who can't be left unchecked, even for a day?

➽ Simply put; the people, even for a day, can't be left unchecked, but the problem now is that there's too many in power.

"To many in power" is any number greater than zero.

➽ So which is better morally? No government to defend the nation on both a large and small scale, leaving the common men to fend for themselves, or a corrupt ruling class of people who are making the masses poor and enslaved while also defending the country for the most part?

What, specifically, do you imagine this government defending this nation, is actually defending against?
Ideologues, other governments, or ideologue governments?
What, specifically, do you imagine is the actual harm to be done?
What, specifically, do you imagine is the actual harm to be done to you?

Now, Not only do I question your cowardice, I question your morality.

➽ My final thought here is that government wouldn't be a problem if it were uncorrupted people who couldn't be corrupted.

Government, regardless of consisting of corrupted or uncorrupted people, does not have legitimate, non-bogus authority. The very notion of government is corrupt from its very beginning.

➽ I think government is a lot like guns and drugs, its how the people use it that makes some people hate it.

Government is extortion. Do what you are told or be hurt.

➽ If I knew 99 other people whom I was absolutely sure could be trusted and intended to rule and protect this country with integrity and dignity, I wouldn't mind them governing the country with me, government would be a good thing.. if the people were good. [...]

I DO NOT CONSENT to you or your 99 friends ruling me under threat of death. You have no authority, you will never have authority over me. Government extorts people for money. Thus, if you and your 99 friends actually were good, you loose your goodness the very moment you "tax" for funds to operate. Thus government will NEVER be a good thing.

➽ We don't have a government problem, we have a heart problem. I mean, we totally DO have a government problem, but the problem is more the people than the structure.

Taxation. The problem IS the structure.

3 of 3

➽ i mean that for anarchy to prevail, it must be agreed upon, lest more people will simply organize to govern.

I do not agree to obey your newly organized government. Lacking my consent, you don't have authority over me. You only have extortion: If I don't obey your newly organized criminal syndicate, your criminal syndicate will attempt to hurt me.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman you seem pretty confident about using your pea shooter to fend off an invasion from China, North Korea, Mexico, all of Europe, and even possibly Russia.
You seem confident in your ability to survive or evade a surprise drone strike from an organized army, with your uhm.. 250 yd pea shooter.
I'm not very impressed with that confidence.

Dale Eastman you've made it clear that your problem is with authority because you think you're a big boy who can be trusted to do whatever he wants. This is simply not true.

You've made it clear that you're one of the reasons why a peaceful , loyal, dignified group of people need to oversee the larger needs of the people.

You ask if I include myself in the people that can't be left unchecked, and the answer is no, I can already trust myself to be a good person, with or without your opinion on the matter, because its simply an irrelevant opinion compared to the facts of the matter. While on the other hand, you've shown that you simply cannot be trusted to act of your own accord.

You assume that any government created would threaten your life, youre simply wrong.

You assume that any government created would do so solely for the purpose to punish or enslave you, youre simply wrong.

Your opinions are based on too many assumptions, and even though I trust people even less than you do as my other posts have quite obviously shown, even I know that a government can't be corrupt on its own, corrupt or ignorant people must corrupt it, this is basic knowledge.

A gun cannot kill people on its own, and a government cannot be corrupt on its own, all these things require humans to corrupt it.

This is why I continue to say that a government with 100 uncorruptable, trustworthy people would be a good thing for a nation, it would simply be a bad thing for you because you simply want to be left unchecked to commit sins against your fellow man, and the government is the biggest threat to you in the face of those motives because they wouldn't leave you unchecked.

You say "well they would threaten my life!!!" But fail to consider that a just government would almost never do that, and even so, only if you're the one threatening other peoples lives first, YOU would be the first threatening piece on the table in the face of a just government. Thats your issue

you're conflating a military or militia with government. They're not mutually exclusive.
Ask the Afghan poppy farmers, or the Vietnamese. This argument against anarchy that invokes us military superiority is so stupid on so many levels bc you're basically saying you'll happily take it up the ass bc you're unnarmed or lack a fighter jet, despite FARMERS taking down and fending off military superpowers.

Why would any of those countries invade? What's the benefit?

You've claimed I am "wrong" about several things. Now that you have identified yourself as a statist, I will make one specific claim in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong. As most statists I have interacted with have done, when I start proving them wrong, they shut up and go away. They have all been cowards. Here is my statement, my claim: ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably. I presently believe you are a coward for that reason.⚠ I have other reasons for "ASSUMING" your cowardice, but those other reasons are not why I have made this specific challenge to you.

It took me over 3 hours to compose the 3 of 3 comments I posted this morning. I will be spending as much time as I need to, to respond to your claims. So I'll post my replies when I am done writing them.

This may, or may not, include replies you have made to others, depending upon the context and topic focused on.

➽ Dale Eastman you seem pretty confident about using your pea shooter to fend off an invasion from China, North Korea, Mexico, all of Europe, and even possibly Russia.

I see right through your attempt to frame the situation to support your narrative. Apparently you've never watched the movie "RED DAWN" original version. I knew that government registration of guns was a bad idea going all the way back to 1973 as a junior in high school. When I saw RED DAWN in 1984, four years after leaving the Army, I saw the exact reason portrayed as to why I was correct 11 years prior.

According to the stats I posted above, that source claims 20 million AR-15'S owned. The innards of an AR look basically like the innards of a military M-16. But conversion of an AR to a full rock and roll capable rifle needs a whole bunch of red tape forms and an expensive license to own. Laws like that are a government NOT protecting its people from external threats. I'll skip the issue of what the "militia" actually is.

So be sure to include military M-16's in your misinformed comment about "pea shooters".

You have no fucking clue about parapets with intersecting lines of sight, zeroing the sights at 25 meters to be accurate again at 250 meters. You don't even have the rudimentary knowledge of battle field tactics.

➽ You seem confident in your ability to survive or evade a surprise drone strike from an organized army, with your uhm.. 250 yd pea shooter.

If hostilities have commenced, it's not a surprise strike. Remember, it's your good ole US of A blowing up mosques, weddings, and what not, with "minimal collateral damage".

MT asked you a question. I'm making it mine. Why would any of those countries invade? What's the benefit?

➽ I'm not very impressed with that confidence.

I'm not very impressed with your cowardice. Your cowardice to let the military deal with it, and your confidence that you only need pay the tax extortion so you don't have to deal with it.

➽ Dale Eastman you've made it clear that your problem is with authority [...]

Nope. What I have done, is actually what I have NOT done, which is to show you that this authority you believe in, does not exist. I give you leave to present your definition of authority, since there is presently no agreement between us as to what authority means and what is being discussed as authority.

➽ you think you're a big boy who can be trusted to do whatever he wants. This is simply not true.

What, specifically, are you implying that I would do?
What specific evidence do you have to make such a scurrilous statement about me?
Prove to me that you have FRE #602, personal first hand knowledge that you can testify to as to what I would do... Else you're just trying to get your mere opinion accepted as fact.

➽ You've made it clear that you're one of the reasons why a peaceful , loyal, dignified group of people need to oversee the larger needs of the people.

Please articulate, with specificity, exactly how I am one of the reasons why YOU believe a government of extortionate rulers is needed.

➽ You ask if I include myself in the people that can't be left unchecked, and the answer is no, I can already trust myself to be a good person, with or without your opinion on the matter, because its simply an irrelevant opinion compared to the facts of the matter.

Please present your evidence, with specificity, as why you are "special" and I am not.

➽ While on the other hand, you've shown that you simply cannot be trusted to act of your own accord.

Please present your evidence, with specificity, as why you are "special" and I am not.

➽ You assume that any government created would threaten your life, youre simply wrong.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Ruby Ridge and Waco. There's my proof that you are wrong about the present government... Unless you don't consider taking people's lives as the same as threatening people's lives.

➽ You assume that any government created would do so solely for the purpose to punish or enslave you, youre simply wrong.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ Your opinions are based on too many assumptions [...]

And yours aren't?
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ [...] even I know that a government can't be corrupt on its own, corrupt or ignorant people must corrupt it, this is basic knowledge.

You make the error of reification. Setting that aside...

What, specifically, do you mean by "government"? Please be as articulate and factual as possible.

➽ A gun cannot kill people on its own, and a government cannot be corrupt on its own, all these things require humans to corrupt it.

What, specifically, do you mean by "government"? Please be as articulate and factual as possible.

➽ This is why I continue to say that a government with 100 uncorruptable, trustworthy people would be a good thing for a nation, it would simply be a bad thing for you because you simply want to be left unchecked to commit sins against your fellow man, and the government is the biggest threat to you in the face of those motives because they wouldn't leave you unchecked.

Sigh...
Please articulate your evidence, with specificity, that I want to be left unchecked to commit sins against my fellow man.

Just so you know, the truth is an absolute defense against defamation, be it slander or libel.

➽ a government with 100 uncorruptable, trustworthy people would

would still be a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ You say "well they would threaten my life!!!"

Not "WOULD." "DO."

But [you] fail to consider that a just government would almost never do that, and even so, only if you're the one threatening other peoples lives first, YOU would be the first threatening piece on the table in the face of a just government. Thats your issue

There can never be a "just" government.

[Dale Eastman]

https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

this helped me realize one thing; anarchy can't work in a society where people can't be trusted to be left unchecked. Likewise, the argument against government is that people can't be trusted anyways so we can't give them power, but the solution there is simple; those people also cannot have the power to remain unchecked. Everyone, officials included, needs to volunteer transparency to ensure they are adequately checked, this is more so a requirement for people placed in a governing position, since as the ones with the most power, they could do the most damage.

The only real solution for a society is completely, 100% transparent officials and businesses. If they have a cell phone, everything on it is declassified always. Any computers, always declassified.

I don't care if we are worried about the secrets of our national defenses, we can accommodate for that some other way.

I see the real problem as the fact that the people are unable and, for the majority of them, unwilling to truly keep the official powers in check. And I can understand why, bribery is a big political deal. You have leftist politicians out there everyday offering "free (for non tax payers)" services to people in exchange for ignorance and turning the other way when they don't want to be checked and kept in line.

That article makes it clear that others agree, other nations will invade if we fall into anarchy, not "local warlords" like this article describes, or mercenaries for hire, entire nations would wage war on our land and seize it for themselves. It might take them a few decades but eventually we would lose those battles completely, America as an ungoverned nation simply could not defend from invading countries attacking at once, and privatized defense simply won't cut it on an invasion scale that massive. Imagine if Russia and China and Korea attacked the west coat. England and the Middle East attacking the east coast. The south being invaded by Mexico and any countries boats that just roll on up.

The people need protection from the other 7billion people in the world, half of which would readily attack our country if given the chance.

People can't be left unchecked, so they need to be governed, but more importantly, those governing need to constantly be in public check to ensure the governing is done properly.

The answer to this? The government can't threaten to threaten or arrest the people, but the people can threaten or arrest the government. Our government acts like threatening its officials is a bigger crime than theft, when in reality, thats just to cover their ass and remain unchecked. Government isn't the issue, the people placed in power using that privilege to remain unchecked is the issue

I made one specific claim in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.

I made the claim: ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably. I presently believe you are a coward for that reason.⚠

I hope your posting five comments after my last post directed at you and then you going away was because real life demanded your attention.

I made one specific claim ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably⚠ in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.

The record shows that ⚠you have gone away⚠ leaving myself and others to speculate why you are no longer interested in this discussion.

[Dale Eastman]

That name looks familiar.
I made one specific claim ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably⚠ in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.
The record shows that ⚠you have gone away⚠ leaving myself and others to speculate why you are no longer interested in this discussion.
synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=923.0
Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.

Dale Eastman maybe because weirdos like you show up and say stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. Your post didn't even include the word prerequisite or college a single time, you had absolutely nothing to add here.
You bore me.

Just posting to remind you of your cowardice. Carry on.

Dale Eastman cowardice? You the guy sounding like a fucking dumbass joining a conversation you obvious know nothing about and had no information to provide anyone.
Literally you Dale Eastman, are like that six year old that walks up while the adults are talking about taxes, and says loudly how much they really like skittles while there's a bag of skittles on the table right there.
Thats you, thats your vibe, autistic six year old.

Anytime you wish to continue the conversation you ran away from, you go ahead and tag me.

Dale Eastman okay Dale, explain to the class why YOU think prerequisite courses don't contain any indoctrination at all, that IS the discussion we are having here, isn't it?
I'm waiting child

Dale Eastman hurry up

Dale why ya running away man I thought you were letting the record show how brave you are, go on, share your entirely well thought out ideas with the class man, I promise no one will finish reading it laughing out loud. Cross my heart, you don't have to be afraid of discussions at the adult table.

[Dale Eastman]

In yet another location...

At least the coward will discuss with you. He refuses to discuss his statism with me. I wonder why?
Perhaps this is a clue:
synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=923
Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.

➽ Dale Eastman cowardice? You the guy sounding like a fucking dumbass joining a conversation you obvious know nothing about and had no information to provide anyone.
Literally you Dale Eastman, are like that six year old that walks up while the adults are talking about taxes, and says loudly how much they really like skittles while there's a bag of skittles on the table right there.
Thats you, thats your vibe, autistic six year old.

If I'm such an idiot, you should have no problem decimating MY logic using YOUR logic

Dale Eastman seems you're either unable to read or simply too foolish to do so properly, so ill keep waiting for your reply to my previous questions and statements, avoiding them will get you no further here.

Dale Eastman I try not to insult them...I try.

As do I... Yet sometimes... Even when "they" (code for "him") insult me.

I am going to attempt to take his complaint at face value: ➽ "so ill keep waiting for your reply to my previous questions and statements"

Even though I have to "unpack" his statements to figure out exactly what he intends to present, even when he does so, so horribly.

So I'll spent the one to three hours decoding his words and composing a reply.

[Dale Eastman]

I am calling out the coward that posts to Fecesbook as Dakota Abdur Mohammed. kota.king.7568

I made one specific claim ⚠You will go away and refuse to admit when I have proved my claims irrefutably⚠ in which I would enjoy having you prove me wrong.

The record shows that ⚠you have gone away⚠ leaving myself and others to speculate why you are no longer interested in this discussion.

synapticsparks[DOT]info/dialog/index.php?topic=923.0
Change [DOT] to . to decode the address thanks to Fecesbook censorship.

➽ Dale Eastman maybe because weirdos like you show up and say stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.

Which is why I'm calling you out in your very own conversation on my status wall.

I'm aware of your D⁶ games: Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail the topic.

This discussion topic is about your statist beliefs and your cowardice to interact with me while I dissect your statist beliefs.

I don't think you have the balls to engage me. Prove me wrong.

➽ You've made it clear that you're one of the reasons why a peaceful , loyal, dignified group of people need to oversee the larger needs of the people.

Please articulate, with specificity, exactly how I am one of the reasons why YOU believe a government of extortionate rulers is needed.

Please take your time to think about what you wish to present. Write it in a non Fecesbook text editer. Proof read what you wrote. Then post it, tagging me dale.eastman.75 so that I know you have replied.

Take your time. 48 hours to reply is perfectly okay with me because I know real life demands can slow discussion.

[Dale Eastman]

Being unaware of how he has described himself Dakota Abdur Mohammed stated:
➽ Dale Eastman seems you're either unable to read or simply too foolish to do so properly, so ill keep waiting for your reply to my previous questions and statements, avoiding them will get you no further here.

So I will take this claim at face value, review this discussion from the top, and post my replies to evaporate his claim that I am avoiding his "previous questions and statements".

I will do so about every 48 hours giving him time to examine my quotes of his words, my replies to his words, and grow some balls to allow him to engage honestly on the topics under discussion.

On my public archive of this discussion, I will provide JUMP LINKS so that the reader can examine what the source words are when I do edits for clarity as shown in the following quote.

➽ My real question is, [...] anarchy, whats to stop the criminals from becoming an organized mafia fueled by greed?

What's stopping you from seeing that all the governments that exist are all organized criminals acting just like the mafia, also fueled by greed?

[Dale Eastman]

It's been almost 48 hours. Time for another coward Dakota Abdur Mohammed call out post.

➽ Dale Eastman what im asking is, if the villains just stayed organized and teamed up, wouldn't the civilians lose unless they tactically organize to defend themselves?

Who, specifically, are the villains to which you refer? How, specifically, do you imagine these villains would be organized? What, specifically do you image would be their agendas and goals?

Why do you refer to the two sides as "villains" and "civilians"? What criteria are you using to describe these opposing groups? What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of these people. What makes them what they are?

Have you ever had ANY tactical military training? I have.

You write of tactical organizing. What specifically do you mean? What would this tactical organization look like?

Do you realize that tactics in the scenario you presented means denying the villains achievement of their agendas and goals without getting one's self killed in the process?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman dude I have been working 12-15 hour shifts for the last 5 days and I'm on break right now ill get to it when I get to it

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being ignored. I can be patient now.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman villains would be defined as those who impose or infringe on the rights of others for their own personal gain. I have no doubt our current government is already doing that but thats not the issue, the issue is letting it run rampant and unchecked. Their agendas and goals would be to seize as much land, weapons, and resources for themselves as possible and use that as a leveraging tool against those less powerful, less fortunate, and less aggressive, as human greed is the root of all evil.

Civilians would be defined as the common folk who want to live in a peaceful society without war and hate, without a constant battle for survival, the people who are perfectly fine working 30+ hours a week to better their lives and community without infringing on the rights of their fellow man. This could be achieved through government or anarchism, but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

Mafias are a tactical organization of criminal lords and possibly the best modern day example. They have rank and file, leaders and bosses, weapons and agendas against other humans, and as ibstated previously, their main goals consist of resources and land, which gives you power over people who require those resources to survive a basic life. Its easy to say that the common folk would rally against them, but with strategic criminal activity, its easy to cut off supplies; water, food, nitrate, weapons, materials for crafting and trade, etc, making it much harder for an unmilitarized group of patriots and/or "civilians" to even consider fighting back.

People such as Alex advocate for a peaceful land of consensual anarchism and self responsibility, but the moment war lords do not consent to such a relationship with the common folk is the moment such ideas of peaceful anarchy collapse into our current struggle; a fight for a system that allows consensual peace, responsibility, and prosperity for everyone.

You asked if I have military training but I've never enlisted in our military, I had considered it before but I've never wanted to be some pawn in another super-power's war for resources and power over other people. But don't worry, im more than capable of handling tactical war, assessing situations, rank and file, strengths and weaknesses of units along with their capabilities or absence thereof in unusual situations. I've read Sun Tzu's art of war many times just to further my understanding of tactical situation analysis in my past and have moved far beyond that, because while his words hold true, they're still only the fundamentals of war and need to be heavily expanded on in our day and age. I play chess nearly everyday and, while this doesn't apply to real life war situations obviously, I do enjoy many world conquering war strategy games, most notably Civ 6, and I greatly enjoy the new expansions they've added to the game that add more political and congressional actions in the world, giving more consequences in choices and ethics. I actually really enjoy that last part because people need to heavily understand that winning a battle or war is not the same as winning the favor of the people, I could easily make a light that would permanently blind 1000 soldiers at once and ensure victory on nearly any boots-on-ground situation, but such tactics are barbaric, absolutely no one here would live our society to dissolve into a state of anarchy where I'm forced to rule over this town by permanently blinding any incoming human threats, and trust me, there would be A LOT OF THREATS.

If humanity has shown us anything at all in our history, its that they cannot be trusted to remain peaceful when dirty warfare would benefit themselves or their tribe AND such warfare is easily attainable. Our government, as cruel as it may be, does in fact act as an amazing deterrent to civil war, they have the power to rain death and destruction on entire cities and leave a nuclear fallout that makes it uninhabitable for decades, and nobody wants to challenge that.

Is it coercion? Oh yes indeed.

Is it better than unchecked warlords bringing death and destruction on a daily basis in their fights for resources and weapons?

You can be the judge of that, its more of an opinion than anything, my point is that neither system is truly better than the rest because it relies on humans remaining peaceful and friendly, and while you might find 100Million peaceful americans, what are you going to do about the other 200Million who would be fighting over resources and supplies?

I give you a like, because I appreciate the engagement of discussion. You've put a lot of words, so I have some unpacking, and parsing to do. Keep in ,mind that I am publicly archiving this discussion. You can use it as I do. Easy to review to keep track of points and topics forgotten in the heated parts of discussion. Lemme know if you need me to post that link again?

[Dale Eastman]

Part 1

➽ Dale Eastman villains would be defined as those who impose or infringe on the rights of others for their own personal gain.

Excellent! 100% agreement.

➽ I have no doubt our current government is already doing that but thats not the issue, the issue is letting it run rampant and unchecked.

Checking the archive, I see that I have not asked you if you've ever read NO TREASON by Lysander Spooner. Have you?

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

My issue with you is your concept of "Checking" the unchecked. The three branches of government, according to the myth and lore, those three branches are supposed to be the checks built in to the government by the CONstitution (sic). As a matter of course, I will be looking for your suggestions for "Checking" the criminal syndicate members infesting "government."

As placed, your second sentence doesn't really belong between the first and third. This is why I have to unpack and parse your words. A critique for feedback and improvement. Not meant as a denigrating criticism. Just explaining why I sometimes spent an exorbitant amount of time composing my posts.

➽ Their [the villain's] agendas and goals would be to seize as much land, weapons, and resources for themselves as possible and use that as a leveraging tool against those less powerful, less fortunate, and less aggressive, as human greed is the root of all evil.

And you just described government, exactly, and provably, as it is. I say provably, because I can prove my claim that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. My proof is already written, canned, and ready to be presented via copy-paste.

I'll toss the inclusion of government villains aside for now and just focus on the criminal miscreants and malefactors who impose or infringe on the rights of others for their own personal gain. Thus leaving this focus on ordinary criminals who look for weak people to victimize. What then to do to provide security? That is really the question in either case, be it ordinary criminals or "official government" criminals. Setting this aside because your next paragraph goes off on a tangent.

➽ Civilians would be defined as the common folk who want to live in a peaceful society without war and hate, without a constant battle for survival, the people who are perfectly fine working 30+ hours a week to better their lives and community without infringing on the rights of their fellow man.

I find that to be a good start of a definition. I find it to also be lacking. The common folk are NOT the ruling folk. So I am forced to contest this description. Civilians would be the non-ruler class. The ruler class would be every officer, employee, or elected official working for, within, or as government.

I object to the 30+ hours a week because it is an arbitrary standard. (A standard that, IMO, really needs discussion and examination regardless of this discussion.)

➽ This could be achieved through government or anarchism, but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

Decoding the sentence:
[Common folk living in a peaceful society without war and hate, without a constant battle for survival, without their rights being infringed upon] could be achieved through government or anarchism, but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

"Could be" also means "could NOT be". In other words, just a meaningless guess.

Looking first at government.

❶ Government can NOT achieve common folks living in a peaceful society, because government will NOT leave the common folks alone.
❷ Government can NOT achieve common folks living without war and hate, because government, especially the U.S. government, creates enemies, creates phantom menaces, to scare the common folks into believing they need government to go to war to for protection.
❸ Government can NOT achieve common folks living without a constant battle for survival because government steals from the people at every turn via Taxes, fines for victimless crimes, and license fees.
❹ Government can NOT achieve common folks living without their rights being infringed, because government is the worst offender of such rights. I find your ignorance of all the dead people, killed by their own governments, appalling and disgusting.

Government, by its very nature, infringes on the rights of its victims, a.k.a. those it rules. Again I state: My proof is already written, canned, and ready to be presented via copy-paste.

Now looking at anarchy.

❶ Common folks living in a peaceful society already happens in most folks interactions with other folks in the anarchy of life that government has not attempted to control.
❷ Anarchy doesn't pay attention to hate, until hate causes actions to violate and harm others. Most folks don't go to war killing other folks. It takes a government to whip the folks into a hateful frenzy.
❸ Anarchy doesn't have governments claiming a right to extortion, then using the euphemism of taxation.
❹ Anarchy doesn't have governments infringing on the folks rights.

Anarchism= No ruling class= No class extorting the victim peons to rule them.

Larken Rose calls the belief in authority The Most Dangerous Superstition. That is the title of his book. If you are willing to find it online and read it, I won't have to copy/paste portions of it in this discussion. This dangerous superstition is how so many people have been murdered by their own governments. Milgram and Stanford experiments support this concept.

➽ [...] but either could be just as easily corrupted because of the mass overflow of human greed in the world.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. I have to chastise you for posting your assumptions as if they are facts. This is not the first time you have done this. I have to reject your implied claim that you know what goes on in other folks minds and call you on attempting to speak for others.

The only thing I can me sure of is that you have have posted what goes on in your mind. You are telling me that YOU are easily corrupted because of YOUR greed. Greed meaning the intense desire for more of something than you actually need.

The only thing easily corrupted is the folk's minds. You are a prime example of this. You believe you need a criminal organization to extort funds from you in order to be protected from criminals. Corrupted minds that were exposed to corrupting influences starting early in childhood and lasting for the next twelve years. Minds indoctrinated, inculcated, and corrupted in the education system the ruling class controls.

Minds indoctrinated, inculcated, and corrupted into believing: That the ruling class has a right to rule; That the ruling class has a right to exist; That the ruling class has a right to use threats and violence to force obedience; That the ruling class has a right to extort compliance from their victims.

That is where the corruption presently exists. Greed and shitty humans notwithstanding.

Part 2

➽ Mafias are a tactical organization of criminal lords and possibly the best modern day example. They have rank and file, leaders and bosses, weapons and agendas against other humans, and as ibstated previously, their main goals consist of resources and land, which gives you [them?] power over people who require those resources to survive a basic life.

Congrats. You just described the minor league mafia teams. Small potatoes compared to the major league mafia teams, the governments of the world. Their main goals are the resources of the people. They get access to the people as a resource, and the people's resources to be farmed, by conquest. They farm the people's resources by extortion called "taxation."

➽ Its easy to say that the common folk would rally against them, but with strategic criminal activity, its easy to cut off supplies; water, food, nitrate, weapons, materials for crafting and trade, etc, making it much harder for an unmilitarized group of patriots and/or "civilians" to even consider fighting back.

It's just as easy to say that the common folk would not be able to fight back (your belief and assumption). I challenge and deny your assumption about common folk fighting back against villains. You have not presented enough detail about these criminal villains to even begin to discuss how to defend against them.

Never mind your assumption; your imagined magic mind reading; about what victims will or will not consider in regard to protecting themselves from criminals, organized or not. I can not deny on this particular point in specific situations. In specific situations you are actually correct.

The specific situation is when the criminal villains have brainwashed the victims to believe that the criminal villains have a right to victimize the victims. As has been said, The only difference between the mafia and the government is the mafia doesn't educate its victims with twelve years of teaching the victims what they do is not wrong.

The moment the common folk pick up weapons to defend themselves, they are the Militia. Just as when the common folk picked up arms to defend themselves from the depredations of King George's officials and military of the first civil war, known as the revolutionary war. The actual militia of able bodied men, with their own arms. This militia is NOT the U.S. National guard. That's just more goverment corrupt Jedi mind tricks on the population.

I, as presently one of the common folk, have actually had military basic training. There are other common folk who have had advanced military training such as to advanced hand to hand skills and lethal soft points on the human body. So there are common folks with skills and knowledge on combat tactics and strategies to teach the farmers how to use their pitchforks and torches.

➽ People such as A advocate for a peaceful land of consensual anarchism and self responsibility, but the moment war lords do not consent to such a relationship with the common folk is the moment such ideas of peaceful anarchy collapse into our current struggle; a fight for a system that allows consensual peace, responsibility, and prosperity for everyone.

Anarchy is NOT a system. That is a flaw in your thinking. That parses in my mind as being the same as a Theist claiming Atheism is a religion. This leads me to wonder what else regarding anarchy do you not understand.

"Consensual Anarchism?" Are you fucking with me? You practice consensual anarchism every day you interact with people by your own choice and with free will everyday. Even while interacting with me (though I had to be an asshole to get you re-engaged}. Thank you for re-engaging in the discussion. Besides, how would NON-consensual anarchism work? I order you to not interact, with whomever you don't want to interact with ? ? ? ?

How, exactly, is a war lord different from any other criminal villain? Speaking of war lords, have you examined the actions of the Federal United States? Here's the resumé of the U.S. Federal War Lord:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
Military conflicts funded by extortion. A critical analysis will reveal that these actions are NOT about protecting the people of the U.S. hegemony.

Your description is correct though. The U.S. Federal "war lords do not consent to such a relationship with the common folk"

➽ But don't worry, im more than capable of handling tactical war, assessing situations, rank and file, strengths and weaknesses of units along with their capabilities or absence thereof in unusual situations.

I will accept your claim at face value. You have the brains you claim you have until you prove to me that you don't.

Sun Tzu's art of war is about government wars funded by the people, That is to say war funded by extortion of the people. And the issue of getting the people to accept the taxes funding the war was handled most adroitly by the present criminal villain U.S. Federal War Lord lying about weapons of mass destruction. The false flag operation taking down the Trade Center towers sure helped by viscerally emphasizing The Phantom Menace. (How prescient that movie was.)

➽ people need to [...] understand that winning a battle or war is not the same as winning the favor of the people

That is a poorly written sentence. That is why I have to unpack and parse your words. In this case I must interpret your intent and assume what you mean. So...

Correct me if I misunderstand. [Anarchists] need to understand that winning a battle or war is not the same as winning the favor of the people

As I assume that is directed at me, I give you notice that I do understand what you are trying to present. What is not clear to me is the assumed context, the assumed situation of this war. Nor have you presented what these wars are about.

I am actually in a war against the corruption of thought created by the forced indoctrination, inculcation, and brainwashing done by the criminal syndicate called government. My weapons are words.

Your words indicate a war by conventional government, regardless of your attempt to spin this as a war against other malefactors.

Part 3

➽ I could easily make a light that would permanently blind 1000 soldiers at once and ensure victory on nearly any boots-on-ground situation, but such tactics are barbaric, absolutely no one here would live our society to dissolve into a state of anarchy where I'm forced to rule over this town by permanently blinding any incoming human threats, and trust me, there would be A LOT OF THREATS.

Your run on sentences imply to me that you don't proof read what you write. The problem with that particular run on sentence is that it jumps topics. So now I unpack the sentence.

➽ I could easily make a light that would permanently blind 1000 soldiers at once

Of no import: Chemical, Electrical, or Nuke powered? I'll accept the sentence at face value.

➽ and ensure victory on nearly any boots-on-ground situation

"Nearly" is a weasel word. In other words, you just claimed NOT 100% effective in ensuring victory. I'll accept your claim as 100% victory.

➽ but such tactics are barbaric

And shooting guns at humans, killing and maiming them is not? And war is not barbaric? I silently, to myself, question your morals.

➽ absolutely no one here would live [like] our society to dissolve into a state of anarchy

There you go, presuming to read the minds of others. I reject such assumptions on your part.

➽ a state of anarchy where I'm forced to rule over this town

Do I understand you correctly? You intend to become the thing you allege you will protect against? If you were ruling the town, you would be extorting the town's people's compliance. The town's people must do what you tell them or you will hurt them.

And this segues back to the topic of greed.
You are telling me that YOU are easily corrupted because of YOUR greed, YOUR intense desire for more of something than you actually need. The word is megalomania.

➽ forced to rule over this town by permanently blinding any incoming human threats

How, specifically, does your "permanently blinding any incoming human threats" force you to rule? How does this rule you to rule?

➽ and trust me, there would be A LOT OF THREATS.

No! I do not trust you. Nor do I trust your imagined claim of "A LOT OF THREATS." With what you have described, you would be the first threat to a society of humans minding their own business. Fuck you. Then and now.

➽ If humanity has shown us anything at all in our history, its that they cannot be trusted to remain peaceful when dirty warfare would benefit themselves or their tribe AND such warfare is easily attainable.

Who, specifically, is this "us"? You do NOT speak for me. You "might" speak for others, however, absent my knowledge of the consent of any other, you can NOT speak for them either. Nor can you know what's in their minds.

Did you write Biden's spew, I mean speech, "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons"?

➽ [humanity] cannot be trusted to remain peaceful

Since you are part of this "humanity", you are stating that you "cannot be trusted to remain peaceful."

You cannot be trusted to remain peaceful, yet you imagine ruling a town. One does NOT rule without extorting compliance by threatening and using violence

You made this claim earlier:
➽ You ask if I include myself in the people that can't be left unchecked, and the answer is no, I can already trust myself to be a good person, with or without your opinion on the matter, because its simply an irrelevant opinion compared to the facts of the matter.

You trust yourself to be a good person. I DO NOT. As I work through your slew of words, I trust you less and less.

I previously asked you to:
Please present your evidence, with specificity, as why you are "special" and I am not. You did not. Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. Translation: "Who is silent, when he ought to and might have spoken, is seen to agree.”

Turns out, you're not special. Turns out, you're a megalomaniac. Turns out, you're a control freak.

➽ [...] when dirty warfare would benefit themselves or their tribe AND such warfare is easily attainable

Dirty warfare? Like the U.S. nuking and destroying two Japanese cities? Like the U.S. using depleted uranium? The U.S. government is the biggest user of weapons of mass destruction. I'll let you do your own search to learn about DU munitions.

Such warfare is only easily obtainable with the deep pockets government fills by extortion.

➽ Our government, as cruel as it may be, does in fact act as an amazing deterrent to civil war, they have the power to rain death and destruction on entire cities and leave a nuclear fallout that makes it uninhabitable for decades, and nobody wants to challenge that.

"That" actually being the U.S. criminal syndicate's willingness to kill indiscriminately. That is what cowards like you don't want to challenge.

➽ Is it coercion? Oh yes indeed.

Your acceptance of such coercion, Your acceptance of such extortion, shows me just what an immoral person you are.

Is it better than unchecked warlords bringing death and destruction on a daily basis in their fights for resources and weapons?

You mean like the unchecked U.S. Federal warlords bringing death and destruction on a daily basis in their fights for most of the 235 years it has existed?

That would be a hard NO!

You can be the judge of that, its more of an opinion than anything, my point is that neither system is truly better than the rest because it relies on humans remaining peaceful and friendly, and while you might find 100Million peaceful americans, what are you going to do about the other 200Million who would be fighting over resources and supplies?

I'm leaving this to remind myself to answer it. I will address this with specifics when I actually do.
 

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman you seem to be missing the idea that the government is little more than people and buildings, and the buildings aren't hurting anyone.

You seem to think that government is the enemy, when really its the people in the government, and destroying the structured government won't change the hearts and goals of the villains within.

Government, don't government; centralize, don't centralize; such discussions will head no progress for humanity because it seems to address the big issue as whichever system we are using or may use.

Tearing down our government won't change the situation in America because the greedy people will still remain and continue their actions in even darker rooms, and furthermore this would only weaken us to other governments of the world, terrorists, etc.

You claim the government does more harm than good, and I agree, but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being governed, even if we disagree on the amount of good it produces, but a lack of government eliminates all good that it was producing while simply allowing all the bad it was doing to continue unchecked. A lack of government won't provide more checks against the villains of the country.

So my question for you is, what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and prote t their power and resources and all organized crime could simply continue without it?

It seems most anarchists simply aim for a system that puts as few checks and balances between them and their ill desires as possible, and little more than that.

[Dale Eastman]

Extortion Is...

Any rational and moral person would understand that extortion is when some person or persons say to another, "Do what I or We tell you to do or else I or We will hurt you."

This is an act of offensive aggression; This is an act of initiating harm to another; This is a malum in se criminal act (Legal Definition of malum in se : an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature irrespective of statute).

This is not to be confused with a defensive act such as "Do what I tell you to do and stop aggressing against me, or I will hurt you by using escalating defensive force and violence against you until you stop trying to harm me."

I presently know of no person that would argue against what I have written above.

That is, until I specify who the criminals actually are and what things they attempt to get by extortion.

Their morality, logic, and bravery evaporates when I state:

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

➽ Dale Eastman you seem to be missing the idea that the government is little more than people and buildings, and the buildings aren't hurting anyone.

You seem to be missing that the only difference between government and Santa Claus is that you know the truth about Santa Claus.  You seem to be missing that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

➽ You seem to think that government is the enemy, when really its the people in the government, and destroying the structured government won't change the hearts and goals of the villains within.

Do you really think NON-villains structured the government? Do you not realize that government was structured to extort people for money and control? Do you not realize that government has structured public schools into Indoctrination Centers? Are you unaware of the "Prussian Method/System" designed to create good little submitizens (sic)? used within the 50 states United?

➽ Government, don't government; centralize, don't centralize; such discussions will head no progress for humanity because it seems to address the big issue as whichever system we are using or may use.

Care to proof read what you wrote. I'm not able to guess your intent on this one.

➽ Tearing down our government won't change the situation in America because the greedy people will still remain and continue their actions in even darker rooms, and furthermore this would only weaken us to other governments of the world, terrorists, etc.

Which situation would that be? The situation where government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control? Evidence on extortion for money already written and ready for copy - paste.

The situation where greedy people in government will use extortion to satisfy their greed?

Though I don't think it to be your intent, I like that you merged government with terrorists. Because governments ARE terrorists. Both use threats and force to get what they want.

➽ You claim the government does more harm than good, and I agree, but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being governed, even if we disagree on the amount of good it produces, but a lack of government eliminates all good that it was producing while simply allowing all the bad it was doing to continue unchecked.

Another compound sentence to be unpacked.

➽ You claim the government does more harm than good, and I agree, [...]

If you agree that government does more harm than good, that means you agree NOT having government will do more good than harm.

➽ [...] but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being governed, [...]

Parsing the statement, [...] but we can both agree that there IS SOME good that comes from the people being extorted, [...] Nah, I don't think so. I've not had reason to present why just yet.

➽ [...] A lack of government won't provide more checks against the villains of the country.

And having government won't provide checks against the villains in government.

How many people have been killed by 'government'? Betcha it's many, many more than the number of people killed by the Manson, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, and Berkowitz personalities of the world. There are many more serial killers and their body count doesn't come anywhere near the numbers killed by government.

➽ [...] So my question for you is, what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and prote t their power and resources and all organized crime could simply continue without it?

Another compound sentence to be unpacked:

➽ [...] So my question for you is, what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and prote t their power and resources [...]

You are asking me what is the benefit of taking down a government that extorts people for the people's resources? Have you bothered to read anything I have posted? I don't think so.

You are asking me what exactly is the benefit of taking down the government if they can still keep and protect their power. Obviously you have NOT read the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, to wit, these words: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"? You know, the reason for the second amendment that you wrote Joe's speech about? This one: "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."

➽ [...] and all organized crime could simply continue without it? [...]

Are you implying that non criminals can't organize but criminals can?

➽ It seems most anarchists simply aim for a system that puts as few checks and balances between them and their ill desires as possible, and little more than that.

➽ I can already trust myself to be a good person, with or without your opinion on the matter,

Seems to me you continue to imagine that you are superior to anybody who isn't you.

You have just called those who don't believe like you, Villains.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman you believe that government was created solely for extortion.

That would be the same as saying the knife was created solely for murder.

This is where you are, and will remain wrong, until you better understand why people need to be governed.

Your argument is "I don't need government to check people for me, ill check them myself"

But what you fail to realize is that if absolutely everyone holds that opinion, then they will view YOU as the force trying to govern them.

You're going to argue that without concent, no one can tell you what to do, then argue for a system in which you are the one getting to tell other people what to do.

Your problem therein lies with authority, your pride is the flaw in your false ideas about people needing to be governed because you belive that you yourself do not need to be governed and can be the governing force in your life. With this, you simply are not following the logical conclusion that within YOUR life still hangs the lives of many others, and your attempt to be the sole governing force in your own life is equivalent to being the sole governing force in the lives of those around you.

You'll argue "no that's not what I meant", and I agree you didn't think it through realistically and the idea you intended to get across was simply some unrealistic fantasy in your mind. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while your think your intentions are pure by removing a larger governing force than yourself simply because you're terrified that every human with more power than you will attempt to extort you, through this you've blinded yourself to the possibility of a governing force that doesn't require extortion.

Until you learn to see past your own inadequacies in the face of a greater power than yourself, you will never be looking at a picture large enough to benefit all of humanity, you'll only be trying to benefit yourself with the excuse that you're helping others.

You absolutely cannot be the sole governing force in your life or the lives of others simply because you are a sinful human who cannot be trusted to do so, and I cannot make it more simple than that.