DM

[Dale Eastman]

I will admit that in the beginning, I answered your comments with KISSed truths about the government you continue to imagine is not evil. It is because people who believe as you do seem to be impervious to logic. Now, I am really curious about your thinking, and how you and those like you use your thinking to defend your beliefs. I have answered every one of your points presented, Sometimes unpacking three of your points that you have thrown willy nilly together in a sentence.

You, on the other hand, have ignored many of my sentences... So much so that I must keep putting the topics and concepts back on the table after you ignore them.

I find your psyche exposed in and by your words, "Fascinating." Be that as it is, I'm trying to emulate one of my internet friends in honestly trying to understand the other's (yours) thoughts presented.

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

Function follows form. I have already proven that the only way government can rule, Is by extortion. You keep seeming to ignore that point.

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

I do understand the point you are trying to make. My counter to that is: If the knife was only ever used for murder, then that is what it was created for. Tying that to "Function follows form", the reason any government was allegedly created, Is to rule people. So repeating what I have said, again:  The only way government can rule is by extortion.

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

A claim without evidence may be refuted without evidence. I won't fully dismiss this specific claim because you presented an avenue where you could present evidence. While I don't think you will present evidence of my thoughts being in error, I do anticipate this as a chance to learn more of how and why you think and/or believe as you do.

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

You've actually got that one correct.

➽ 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.

And again you're claiming you can read other human's minds. You can't, so stop claiming you can. And again, you're claiming you have the authority to speak for others. Present their documentation making you their representative, or stop claiming by implication that you have their blessing to speak for them.

With that dross evaporated away by the light of logic, What is left is YOU speaking for YOURSELF.

Since I'm the one with that "I'll check them myself" opinion, and I'm the only one in this discussion, What you are claiming is that YOU believe that I would be a force attempting to govern you. As I wrote, I am trying to understand your cognition patterns. What, specifically, did I write that makes you think I want to rule and control you. An-Archy... Without rulers. Why would I want to be what I don't want?

Reading between your lines, I see a coward afraid of imagined threats. I have seen this over and over in your words. You want extorting criminals to protect you from extorting criminals. Somehow, you just can't seem to understand that you are presenting that you want criminals to protect you.

➽ 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.

You're claiming that you can read my mind and/or you can read the future.

Regardless, On the first point, I have been arguing from the beginning, that without consent, I have not delegated (given) authority over my self to any other human or reified concept.

On the second point, you seem to have conflated defensive warnings with criminals demanding the obedience of their victims. Full transparency, I will have to wait to see if I have observed correctly.

➽ 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.

If, in controlling myself and my own life, I do not attempt to harm you or any other human, You really have NOTHING to say on the matter. This is again, your cowardice and fear about the anarchist boogie man surfacing.

➽ 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.

Please present all the logical steps that proves the claim; That proves my being the sole owner and controller of my life is the same as being the sole controller of other's lives.

➽ You'll argue "no that's not what I meant" [...]

You are correct because that's what you imagine I meant.

➽ and I agree you didn't think it through realistically

Writes the guy who imagines that what he imagines is correct.

I have thought this through far deeper and far longer than you know.

➽ and the idea you intended to get across was simply some unrealistic fantasy in your mind.

Pot-Kettle-Black. Or in other words, there you go calling my by your maiden name.

Perhaps the unrealistic fantasy is what you keep trying to use to support your fantasy that extortion is good.

➽ 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.

There you go imagining shit again. What I'm terrified of is people like you who believe it's good to have extortionists ruling everybody. What I see is YOU being terrified of not having extortionists ruling everybody.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how a governing force, that is, how an official government works without 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 [...]

Your claim of my inadequacies: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Your ad hominem attack of me is dismissed for lack of evidence.
But enough of my dealings with you calling me by your maiden name.

➽ [...] you'll only be trying to benefit yourself with the excuse that you're helping others.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you come to the conclusion that I am trying to benefit ONLY myself.

➽ 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.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what your definition of "sinful" is.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman answering my question does not mean you're right though.

As Ive said; you're the kind of man who thinks government has only ever been used for evil and thats rather shallow thinking of you and quite a mundane way to defend your position.

The founding fathers for instance specifically created our form of government to prevent your specific fears. They designed the government to be ruled by the people, they designed the government to check and balance itself from multiple branches and angles.

The issue is how man was able to corrupt even their attempt at government, not the idea and structure of the government itself.

Quite simply, it does not have enough redundancy measures in place to prevent corruption, as most governments don't, but if you read the constitution and the bill of rights, you can see plainly just how hard they worked to protect peoples rights and liberties, it is simply the greed of man that has lead to the corruption you see today, no more and no less than that.

Communism would work if people weren't greedy.
Socialism would work if people weren't greedy.
A monarchy would work if people weren't greedy.
Oligarchy, anarchy, capitalism, each and every facet idea of government or lack thereof COULD work to the betterment of every man, woman and child, it is simply the people who are the problem, not the structure of government.

As I have said, you need to look at the larger picture.

➽ Dale Eastman answering my question does not mean you're right though.

➽ As Ive said; you're the kind of man who thinks government has only ever been used for evil and thats rather shallow thinking of you and quite a mundane way to defend your position.

➽ The founding fathers for instance specifically created our form of government to prevent your specific fears. They designed the government to be ruled by the people, they designed the government to check and balance itself from multiple branches and angles.

➽ The issue is how man was able to corrupt even their attempt at government, not the idea and structure of the government itself.

➽ Quite simply, it does not have enough redundancy measures in place to prevent corruption, as most governments don't, but if you read the constitution and the bill of rights, you can see plainly just how hard they worked to protect peoples rights and liberties, it is simply the greed of man that has lead to the corruption you see today, no more and no less than that.

➽ Communism would work if people weren't greedy.
Socialism would work if people weren't greedy.
A monarchy would work if people weren't greedy.
Oligarchy, anarchy, capitalism, each and every facet idea of government or lack thereof COULD work to the betterment of every man, woman and child, it is simply the people who are the problem, not the structure of government.

➽ As I have said, you need to look at the larger picture.

[Dale Eastman]

You make claims. I ask questions about your claims. You fail to address my questions about your claims. So I will limit my posts to your claims, singularly, sequentially, one at a time. That is one of the reasons I archive discussions; to keep track of the ignored questions about claims.

➽ 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.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what YOU mean when you use the term "sinful".

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.

➽ 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.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what YOU mean when you use the term "sinful".

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.

YO! DM, Answer my questions about your claim you fucking Buybull thumping ignoramus.

Exodus 20:16
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Deuteronomy 5:20
‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Proverbs 24:28
Do not be a witness against your neighbor without cause,
And do not deceive with your lips.

Matthew 19:18And Jesus said, You shall not bear false witness;

Proverbs 12:17
He who speaks truth tells what is right,
But a false witness, deceit.

➽ 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.

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, what YOU mean when you use the term "sinful".

Since I've said my purpose is to understand your thinking, please present, with detail, how you know I am a sinful human who can not be trusted.