The view of the world from my YDOMist foundation is unique and uncommon. I see what many do not see. I would like to change this. I would like the many to see what I see.
As a YDOMist I have a duty to describe and explain the world as viewed from a YDOMist foundation. YDOM is a very simple concept with some very far ranging consequences.
YDOM is the acronym for You don't own me.
A slave mindset is the antithesis of a YDOM mindset. A human blind to YDOM can not see the many slave mindsets they are surrounded by. I know this because I could not see the many slave mindsets I was surrounded by when I had such a slave mindset.
A slave is a human whose free will is over-ridden by another human's will. Pick cotton or get the whip. Do what you are told to do or get the whip. This means an enslaved human's possessions or property are also under the enslaver's will. Do what I tell you to do with your possessions or property or get the whip.
A slave's slave mindset does not register that their human free will IS being over-ridden by another human. Enslaved and unaware of the enslavement.
A flesh and blood person, a human, that is being treated as a slave, is a human that is being treated as less than human. If you are unperturbed by slaves getting the whip; If you are unperturbed by treating humans as less than human, then you are not a moral person.
If you are a believer in moral relativism; If you are a believer that it is okay to treat a human as a slave because doing so is beneficial to a group, then you are not a moral person.
As a YDOMist, I see many immoral actions done because the actors doing their actions don't understand that they don't own any other human. In short, I see an immoral collective of humans nescient or ignorant of their immoral actions.
(Nescient simply means not knowing. Ignorant's base word is "ignore". To ignore means to decide choose to not pay attention to. Thus, ignorance is a choice. Deliberate in my opinion.)
After much contemplation I have concluded that folks must be given the concepts and the information supporting the concepts in order to think about the concepts. No human can easily think about concepts or information that is hidden from their mind. This is a fact, regardless of whether the information was hidden deliberately or was simply overlooked. I have often stated, If it goes without saying, it must be said.
Because the most important concept of liberty is: You don't own me, I have chosen the appellation of The YDOMist,
The YDOMist will be an irregular periodical explaining what I see, and why, from a YDOMist's perspective.
A Gun is an Anti-Slavery Tool
Alas, Woe unto me. I am greatly saddened by what I have seen; humans actively arguing against self-protection and against self-defense. Humans actively arguing for slavery and enslavement.
These are the words that these folks took exception to: A human with a gun will not gently become a slave.
Seemed like a logical conclusion to me.
But then, I examined this concept as if I was a potential slave with a gun surrounded by those attempting to enslave me. With a gun, I will not gently become a slave.
The distress I caused those folk indicates to me that they have already accepted... and enjoy... being slaves. How dare I suggest that a gun is an anti-slavery tool.
For that matter, How dare I suggest slavery is immoral and evil to those so blind they can't see any enslavement, theirs or anyone else's.
These blind fools will spew the erroneous platitudes of their owners when liberty-minded folk point out what should be obvious.
- YDOM means no one has a right to rule anybody else.
- Tyranny ends when you stop being a slave.
- Tyranny ends when you stop obeying those that have no right to rule.
A Gun is a Self-Defense Tool
If you are a criminal willing to rob people or worse, Who would you prefer for your victims? Armed folks or unarmed folks?
Conversely, if you were a potential victim and you understand the truth of the prior paragraph, would you prefer to be unarmed or to be armed and trained to proficiency with your hand gun?
Those two paragraphs should be all the convincing you need to come to a reasonable conclusion.
As the adage reminds us, Remember when seconds count, the cops are minutes away.
Which tool will protect you sooner, a fully functioning cell phone or a loaded hand gun?
I don't need to purchase and read Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens to know what I already know. But maybe you need to, to learn what you don't know.
There have been laws against murder in the Code of Hammurabi for the last 3,800 years. Murders have been happening for the last 3,800 years as well. Laws and cops are not deterrents to crime.
Cops: No Duty to Protect You
The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.
South v. Maryland
59 U.S. 396 (1855)
Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.
In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.
The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.
Warren v. District of Columbia
444 A.2d 1 (1981)
The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.
"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
545 U.S.748 (2005)
We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.
The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.
Statutory Law. California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.
California Code 845:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.
New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
Do you believe cops have a duty to protect you from criminals because your rulers told you this?
Think about this when the opportunists and cowards demand more gun control.
Admit it! Unless you've previously interacted with me, you have no idea what the word means. And if you have previously interacted with me, you still have no idea what the word means. I learned of the word because it was a funny series of sounds emitted from my brother's mouth.
Communication requires an understanding of the words being used. A serious failure to communicate happens when there are assumptions made as to what any specific word actually means. I have had serious miscommunications with people who refuse to accept that what any specific word means to them is not what the word means to me.
When I interact with these... disagreeable... people, I ask:
What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "word" as YOU use the word?
I've had some of these Brainiacs actually tell me to go look up the word in a dictionary. Their reading comprehension is very suspect. I didn't ask them what the dictionary means, I asked them what they mean.
Merriam-Webster defines euphemism as:
The substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.
If the unpleasant thing is the concept to be discussed, I attempt to get the person focused on the unpleasant properties, attributes, and characteristics, in short, I attempt to get them to examine reality.
You assume, correctly it appears, that you and I do not look at liberty the same way. Please explain exactly what you mean when YOU use the word "Liberty".
I go by what the U.S. Constitution says liberty is.
The word "liberty" is used in the CONstitution three (3) times. Copy-paste citation quotes follow:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not a definition. In fact, raises another question: What are "the blessings of Liberty"?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Again, Not a definition. So the question still stands, What is this liberty to not be taken without due process.
Fourteenth Amendment Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And for a third time, not a definition.
Please explain exactly what YOU mean when YOU use the word "Liberty".
Dale Eastman, dude, who TF are you to be demanding answers? Yes, I put a like react. So what? That was me acknowledging your post. I looked at your YDOM and we are world's apart. Let's leave it at that, mmm'k?
You talkin' to me, Gasorminumplaz?
I ended that discussion by calling the Ftard a Gasorminumplaz, just to emphasize Ftard's failure to communicate because of a refusal to define what Ftard meant when Ftard used the word "liberty".
This discussion was after I asked Ftard to "Please explain why you are hostile to liberty", a conclusion I reached per the context of the prior discussion.
As a YDOMist, I Know
- You don't own me.
- They don't own me.
- I don't own you.
- They don't own you.
- Imaginary entities like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny do not own you or me.
- Government is an imaginary entity.
- Government does not own you or me either.
- Two differences between government and Santa Claus:
- Somebody told you the truth that Santa is not real.
- You know Santa does not have "authority" nor "a right to rule" you.
- The same is true for the people in government and the people claiming to be government.
Since the people in government own nobody except themselves, they provably can not have a "right to rule" you, me, or any other human. Nor can they give a "right to rule" to government.
This is the same reason why Voters Voting can not give a "right to rule" anyone but themselves to the humans calling themselves government.
What Government Is
Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are all imaginary entities.
These imaginary entities need a non-imaginary human to act for these imaginary entities: to leave children's presents under the tree; to hide the eggs; to take the teeth and leave the money.
Government is also an imaginary entity. Just like the previously listed imaginary entities, it has no will to act, nor hands to do the action.
Government never started a war, fought a war, nor taxed anybody. Government never kicked anybody out of their homes to take their homes for back taxes.
Government is imaginary and doesn't exist. Humans acting as if they are government do exist. To help you remember this, just replace the word government with Santa Claus whenever you see it.
What Government Does
Well... I can't write about what government does can I... Because government doesn't do anything.
What I can write about is what humans do while pretending to be government. Following my own advice at the end of the prior section: What I can write about is what humans do while pretending to be (Santa).
Humans do vile acts but the imaginary entity called (Santa) gets the blame.
What humans pretending to be (Santa) do... is lie about (Santa).
The first lie can be found in the Declaration of Independence, the first organic document of the United States. The lie, specifically and to wit, is:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, [...]
Clearly, this document states that the purpose of (Santa) is to secure rights. Any (Santa) that abstains from protecting these rights is a (Santa) that is ignoring its raison d'être. Or, in more precise words, the humans acting as and for (Santa) are ignoring the reason their (Santa) jobs exist in the first place.
You get the idea. The entities of Government, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa, are all just reified concepts.
The next lie from humans claiming to be government is that to protect those rights, it, and they, have to do those very things the purpose is to prevent.
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the government, the City of New London, asked itself, the Supreme Court, to allow itself to take the real estate property of Susan Kelo and several other property owner's property via Eminent Domain. The government allowed itself to take those properties.
Civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. The government takes people's property without due process. Without due process, just like a robber robbing you of your money.
Government protecting life? Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. The truth is out, yet the murderer, the human working as and for government who pulled the trigger has never been punished. Look deeper than the main stream presstitute's stories if you click the links.
Above, I have already presented you with evidence that the humans acting as government have exempted government and themselves from having any duty to protect you.
Back to the lies of the humans acting as government. Quoting the hidden in plain sight blatant lie:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Can you actually give consent if you've never been given a choice to consent?
I'm going to repeat that question. I want you to think about the logical answer. Can you actually give consent if you've never been given a choice to consent?
Slave owners are instituted among slaves, deriving their just powers from the consent of the slaves. Did a slave consent to being a slave if the slave was not given a choice to not be enslaved?
Ask the humans acting as your government, your human rulers, to provide a certified copy of the consent forms with your consenting signature to prove that you actually consented to their ruling you.
As to you EEG flat-liners that believe the CONstitution (sic) is how your rulers were given your consent, Sorry, You are wrong. Your rulers, the humans calling themselves government, lied to you there also.
The CON of the CONstitution
A close reading of the CONstitution is how I started along my path of becoming a YDOMist.
A critical examination of the alleged right to rule of humans acting as your government, will of necessity be an examination of where this alleged right to rule 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 a right to rule, else they are non binding opinions.
Since “All humans are created with the same lack of a right to rule 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?
As the above examination shows, none of "We the People", then or now, ever had a right to rule me. Therefor, none of "We the People", then or now, can or could give to the CONstitution and the fictitious government it purports to create, any right to rule me.
A school is a place where humans learn things.
By this simplistic definition, every book I have ever read was a school, every book was a place where I learned things.
Public Government School
At the same time, a school is also an imaginary entity like the previously explained imaginary government entity. A school has no will to act, nor hands to do the action. A school requires humans acting as the school.
Humans without a right to rule, erroneously called government, make rules that children must submit to other humans, called teachers and principals, who are also without a right to rule.
These humans without a right to rule then rule the children by telling them what they must read and what they must do. Unpaid overtime anyone? A.k.a. homework.
As a YDOMist, I see public schools as government indoctrination centers. Paraphrasing, The only difference between the Mafia and the government is the Mafia doesn't force you to be indoctrinated for twelve years to make you believe what they do is honest and right.
When the rulers make rules about what others should read, that's clearly an attempt to make you think and believe what they want inculcated in your mind. In a word, Brainwashing. You've not been taught how to think. You've been taught what to think.
How could you know that what you've been indoctrinated to believe is bad logic or lies if you've never observed good logic and truth for comparison.
Some of you might wonder and ask, Without public school how will the youth learn the things they need to know to succeed as adults? I'll put "an" answer below.
Public schools are doing that so well that they graduate students who hate reading and can't read.
My text editor doesn't have a font for "dripping sarcasm".
These students have had their future ability to learn stolen from them.
By reading a book, I learned how to shingle a roof. By reading a book, I learned how to repair my own vehicles.
I learned about federal tax laws by reading the tax code. I learned that the humans in government are prolific liars because I read the tax code and it didn't say what the liars in government claimed.
Because I know how to read, I know the intent of the Prussian Model of Schooling is to make good automaton submitizens (sic). Smart enough to follow orders and run factory machines, but not smart enough to question whether those orders should be followed. No different than Pavlov's dogs and dinner bells.
Think Germans loading humans into gondola cars to transport them to Auschwitz.
Might this Pavlovian Conditioning have started with only being allowed to use a toilet on the school's schedule? Or needing to get special permission from an instructor to use the toilet during unapproved times?
Private School is "an" answer to the question, Without public school how will the youth learn the things they need to know to succeed as adults?
I write from personal experience, I learned the things I was interested in because my curiosity was my motivation. And since I liked to read, and I read about things because of my curiosity.
My curiosity had almost been burned out during my incarceration in a government school. The paycheck collecting English instructor I had, almost screwed me out of my future of knowledge. Because of that expletive redacted, it was a year before I picked up another book to read.
Ask any parent what makes the Terrible Twos so terrible and I'm sure they'll tell you the child gets into everything because they have an innate, intense curiosity.
A curious and smart young human asking why? is not an unquestioning submitizen.
"Because I said so," is not a valid answer. Saying "Because I said so" to a YDOMist is the same as saying, "I own you. Believe what I told you. Do what I told you."
A private school would be offering education services to the community based on what members of the community want to learn and are willing to pay for.
A government school is paid for by funds extorted from the tax victims in its territory. Whether the tax victims have children in the government indoctrination center or not.
In thinking about what I wanted to write for this next part, I needed some data on actual costs of government funded education.
Quoting Cato Education Analyst Adam B. Schaeffer's words in this video:
It's impossible to have an honest debate about education policy if the public schools can't be straight forward about their spending.
An imaginary entity lying? One that lies and calls it education?
Again, my text editor doesn't have a font for "dripping sarcasm".
With the above in mind, I wonder how accurate the numbers from a quick look on the internet actually are:
- Governments spend between $8,000 to $38,000 per student annually with an average around $15,000.
- A home in my area can be leased for $18,000 per year.
- A 1,200 square foot store front can be leased for the same amount.
- A teacher's annual salary is $54,000 per year.
The teacher's salary and the cost of leasing a place to be a school is $72,000 per year.
Just 5 pupils at $15K per year meets this expense. 10 students drops the price to $7,200 per year.
Without government extorting school funds via taxation, parents would have more money to purchase schooling for their children.
I present "an" answer to the question of schooling the youth only, not "the" answer. My answer is provided as a starting point for others to think about the concept of a market place of schooling.
The market place of schooling already exists. Parents who pay to send their children to private schools are still robbed via taxation to pay for crappy government indoctrination centers.
If teaching youth is really important to people in a community, people will step up and find ways to make community private schools happen.
Those that like to teach, that like to share what they know, like myself, would pass it forward for larger reasons than a fat paycheck. However, a government school would never hire me because I don't have their "credentials".
Teach what government schools don't. Teach equality as something meaningful and actionable. Teach YDOM. Teach Don't be a slave.