6 votes

Statist Secession vs Individualist Secession

Because there is a difference.

Define It

Statist Secession: Our "betters" are not the Federal Gov't; our betters are the state-gov't.

---Rule of the Few over the Many

Individualist Secession: The Individual "betters" himself.

---Rule of One over One (self)
---Short-run Champion of the willing and needy

How do we get into a State-run Society: We vote and lobby (same as how we get into a federal-run society)

---A union always begins with a vote (abdication of self-rule) and to get an "edge" you bribe the leaders (lobbying)

How do we get into an Individualist Society: Stop Voting and Lobbying -- Refuse to participate (carefully choose which battles to fight until the tide rises high enough to end ALL participation).




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The real choice is self-governance or lawlessness

The truth is, i am a very "law abiding" person. I do not abide them because they are laws, I abide them because I look out for myself - I self govern. I don't want to hit oncoming cars, so I drive on the right side of the road. I do not want to rear end cars, so I observe the posted speed limits. I want harmony with my neighbors, so I do not steal from them or gossip about them. You get the idea....
ALL of us self govern, unless we have a personal "keeper." If the only reason people obeyed laws was fear of punishment, we would need a personal cop each. (Please don't take that as a suggestion!)
It is when we place mere, fallible (and very bribe-able) men in places of power that lawlessness takes hold.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Agreed!

"when we place...." emphasis on "we"

The implied fallacy, however, is that "if" we found "good" men then everything would be right -- it's not that we found only the bribe-able ones, it's that all men who seek power (wherein the power profit-bursts on abdicated authority) through force-agencies they are by necessity bribe-able.

Ron Paul is an exception (of course) but he seeks power for another reason -- to use his office as a pulpit.

There is no value in being RP-like -- You need a district like the 14th Texas to win 11 elections -- he will have no career in lobbying (at least not like other politicians do), so young politicians will only be %'s of RP not the full-deal.

Questions of Logic from a Neophyte

(...which might be of use given many of our problems stem from the fact that the masses are for the most part neophytes...some love status quo and a smaller number want to grow. Most are educationally deprived right now.)

Would you carry the fallacy of "we" to the extent that The Bill of Rights and the Constitution imply that all are created equal, even that this is self-evident, and, yet, this will never be true unless we are cloned and therefore have little opportunity for individualism (Brave New World). In such a situation we are by nature designed and enslaved to certain tasks. Hardly free.

On the other hand, if we have "true" liberty and free-markets operating in a free society, the idea that everyone must be given equal opportunity takes away the potential and rightful gains from those who work harder and are more talented. It also takes away opportunity from those fortunate enough geographically and biologically to be provided with more opportunity. Society as a whole suffers.

So is a prerequisite to a truly free market with liberty for all dropping the "equality" mind-set (except perhaps for the faith-based, recognizing that all are created equally from a Creator's purpose with free will and opportunity to advance spiritually if not materially.)

And, finally, if the transition required a group of the more forward thinking and wise to make decisions in the interim, even draw up a new Constitution, what would prevent such a group from being viewed as the elite, whether they were "good men" or not.

fonta

Yes and Nothing

Yes -- We must drop the equality for all mindset, but only those who actually think-vote-lobby-unionize-meditate on it -- I've never thought about equality and when I've been discriminated against I've always thought "I don't want to work for a place where the people hate or dislike me"

Nothing -- stops people from doing a thing (be it legal, illegal, ethical, or unethical) except death (unless they die in a no-dying zone).

Ther Meritocracy I'm talking about operates in the Open-Source -- Their "rationale" for voting the way they did would be a matter of public record.

Besides the "voting" is more like Bid-Contract Analysis and completely different than Political-Process Voting today.

There is no value in lobbying in "my" society as the "teams" only get one-term in office -- The teams are comprised of "experts" in their fields -- their job-spec is very limited in scope.

There would be a Naval Meritocracy -- A Tax-n-Accounting Meritocracy -- An Army-Air Guard Meritocracy.....The rest is left up to Cities and Counties.

If that is too rough -- people need a softer transition then a few more an Emergency Meritocracy and a Health Meritocracy.

Remember this is uber-simplistic and generalized.

Next to Impossible for

...someone "of virtue" to be elected or, if by a fluke they are, they won't be re-elected? ( Never mind how difficult it is to not lose one's virginity in Washington.)

So that kicks it back to "we" and it would seem that we en mass may have little more virtue than the politicians. Guess that is a case for the transitional decision makers Octobox alluded to on another thread. A counsel of elders to serve in the interim until "we" was capable of self-rule.

It may well be that there is no value in being Ron Paul-like in today's Political Theater; however, there is always value in being Ron Paul-like as far as integrity.

The scary thing is that the very successful in most fields have fallen into corruptness not so unlike tht of the politicians. Would it be difficult to even find such an interim counsel?

fonta

I really dig

how you put this. Self-governance is compatible with natural law, common law and all that good stuff. However, coercion leads to discontent, which breeds lawlessness and produces chaos. Things really are backward eh.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

The Criminal Element

Voting and Lobbying can be defined in any way the individual cares to define it in time and place.

If the individual "votes" and "lobbying" while resorting to willful deception, threats of violence, and violence upon the innocent then "voting" and "lobbying" are words covering up the criminal element (deceit, threat, violence upon the innocent), so confusing crime with anything else does what - exactly?

1.
Criminals perpetrate crime with impunity since the victims, not the criminals, are confused.

2.
Victims suffer from victimization perpetually since the victims are too confused to do anything effective to remedy the situation.

So why confuse crime with "voting" or "lobbying"?

Without the criminal element can there be forms of self government whereby no law excuses any criminal act?

If not, what examples of self government serve to exemplify the best possible example that minimizes the lawful support of crime?

How about the time between 1776 and 1788?

How about Confederated State governments in competition with each other for voting tax payers within the security of an organized defensive force limited to only defense and not making offense legal or quasi-legal, how about an honest self government that includes Trial by Jury based upon sortition, and no laws supporting the punishing, and crushing, of innocent money competitors for that so-called crime of making higher quality and lower cost money?

Joe

Voting is the Circumvention of someone elses Consumer-Will

---it is "always" a crime (it is force - it conflates prices - it causes boom-bust cycle - it destroys asset value).

State-Authority was TYRANNICAL in the South -- the owner-class put taxes on the non-owner class by fiat; King Cotton was deep into Fractorage Debt (to Banks of England and France). They wanted slavery to expand westward. Secession meant the continuance of rape-sodomoy, forced abortion, sex trade, murder, selling off of one's family etc etc.

State-Authority is no different than National-Authority -- In fact you cannot have National-Authority without State-Authority; the further power is centralized away from the "local setting" the more impotent it is.

City-Authority might work -- it would be very easy to vote-with-your-feet.

Individualism (oddly and humorously) requires No-Authority.

How much of your value do you want to possess and control? The rest, the amount you don't want, goes to the state.

Dictation

"---it is "always" a crime (it is force - it conflates prices - it causes boom-bust cycle - it destroys asset value)."

When you, alone, define the meaning of a word, then that is the only meaning of that word according to you?

A vote can be a customer buying something, voting with their purchase, and the concept of voting can be strictly voluntary, so when you narrow down the meaning of voting to be a synonym for crime, or a sub-set of crime, then why not just call it crime?

Why sugar coat crime with false fronts like the word "vote"?

I have my guesses.

"State-Authority was TYRANNICAL in the South -- the owner-class put taxes on the non-owner class by fiat; King Cotton was deep into Fractorage Debt (to Banks of England and France). They wanted slavery to expand westward. Secession meant the continuance of rape-sodomoy, forced abortion, sex trade, murder, selling off of one's family etc etc."

Tyrants, a subset of criminals, are tyrannical, "State-Authority" is a legal fiction, an idea, or a set of actions performed by a set of people, actual actions, actual people with names.

Why confuse the criminals with anything other than criminals?

I can guess, if you care not to answer for your own words.

"State-Authority is no different than National-Authority -- In fact you cannot have National-Authority without State-Authority; the further power is centralized away from the "local setting" the more impotent it is."

So, by your words, there is no other valid, competitive, viewpoint other than your own?

So what is the point of publishing your total authority over the subject being viewed?

"City-Authority might work -- it would be very easy to vote-with-your-feet."

Cities have no authority, if by "cities" the word means a Legal Fiction, or Corporation, or Place on Earth within a boundary marked on the ground, but if the work means the set of people within the city whereby those people think and act as authorities, then either their authority is authority or their authority is not authority.

What do you think "authority" means?

"Individualism (oddly and humorously) requires No-Authority."

You appear to be confusing authority with external control, or some other measurable occurrence, not authority if the word authority means something along the lines of the highest quality and lowest cost, or best, viewpoint.

As in:

The leader was leading the group because the leader commanded the higher quality and lowest cost, authoritative, and best, viewpoint as to how best to deal with the situation.

Not as in:

The criminal convinced the victims of a false belief in the criminals supposedly authority.

Why confuse crime with anything but crime?

I can still guess.

"How much of your value do you want to possess and control? The rest, the amount you don't want, goes to the state."

What do you think is a State - exactly?

Your words appear to attribute accountability to this thing you call a State, which is a very big part of the trouble that currently plagues the human species - each one.

I've been wrong often, but in this case it appears as if your viewpoint is full of holes.

Joe

I won't get into a game of absolutism -- If you do not

understand what I'm saying then ask -- but don't create a false argument.

I'm not "confusing" anything -- you are being too literal for casual conversation. If I was in front of a debate committee and competing for a trophy then I would adhere to the prescribed lexicon.

I never said I had authority to control a subject being viewed, people can and do do whatever they want. That's Anarchy. Then the state comes in behind and "corrects" prices (or terms jail sentences, or steals assets, or all of the above).

State-Authority is a predatory pretender -- for the individual they can only react, after the fact. For a corporation they circumvent the consumptive-choice (thus freeing the corporation from being ruled solely by consumers) before and after the purchase.

When I said "city-authority" it might have been better (for the exact-minded types) if I said "city-level authority" -- just to make my point that it might be possible to have a very nice society if the only taxes we ever paid were local -- be a lot easier to control politics than from 3000 miles away, AND then further clarified (again for the perfectionistic) "regardless, I would rather have a true free-market (no authority)"

The latter would take an expert transition but it could be done.

Narrowing down the variables?

"I never said I had authority to control a subject being viewed, people can and do do whatever they want. That's Anarchy. Then the state comes in behind and "corrects" prices (or terms jail sentences, or steals assets, or all of the above)."

You can contradict yourself, and I can ask if you know that you are contradicting yourself, but why waste time?

You can say that I am being too...

Too what?

Too accurate?

And then you blame me for the misunderstanding because you are not too...

Too what?

Accurate?

You use the word anarchy now?

You say that "The State" can do something?

Your version of anarchy is "people can do whatever they want"?

I can torture and murder millions and say that it is good for the economy and claim to have a license to do so, and that is anarchy to you?

I think that you use language inaccurately for a reason, it provides you with unlimited power to construct whatever meaning you care to mean one minute, and then the opposite meaning the next minute.

If you don't know that, then you can blame me for you failure to know that, and if you prefer not to be inaccurate with your word, then how can you claim that I am wrong for, what are your words...

"you are being too literal for casual conversation"

"but don't create a false argument"

I know this game, it is common "casual conversation", whereby the creator of the false argument blames the target for the false argument created.

So...be more accurate.

No?

"you are being too literal for casual conversation"

Next is a Parthian Shot?

For intents and purposes on the path of accurate communication, if you dare to do so, the following are workable definitions for both Anarchy and The State

Anarchy is Individual Sovereignty whereby the individuals decide individually, each one in anarchy, to do no harm to anyone else, including, if needed, self defense so as to stop someone intending to do harm.

A State is a Legal Fiction, not a being, not a living responsible being, not an accountable entity, and as a Legal Fiction it is merely a convenient method by which people can identify all the people, a list of names, who share the same ideas and actions that constitute that Legal Fiction or that State.

California, for example, is a satellite of The State known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), so it isn't as many people claim a Sovereign State or separate State from the ONE MONOPOLY STATE known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC).

If the idea is to communicate accurately, then the people on the list who share that idea, won't willfully resort to deception, since that would be counter productive, or against, the STATED goal.

"very nice society if the only taxes we ever paid were local"

Are those taxes in question, in your mind, voluntary or involuntary taxes?

Please, if the shared idea is to communicate accurately, then do so, and if the idea of communicating accurately is not shared, then continue to resort to deception - as you please.

_________________________________________________
"regardless, I would rather have a true free-market (no authority)"
_________________________________________________

For my intentions and purposes (to communicate accurately) the term authority requires a nailed down, unmoving, unchanging, NONconstructable, meaning of a fixed nature, not a goal post to be dug up and moved constantly.

Authority is the highest quality and lowest cost, best, viewpoint in any case where there is a demand for the highest quality and lowest cost viewpoint.

If I were of a more spiritual nature, but God didn't make ME that way, then I'd say that God is the only true authority.

I don't say that, so I say that it is up to each Individual, as Sovereign Beings, to decide what is, or is not the true authority, in any case whatsoever.

So what happens when there is this "utopian dream" (I suppose) of "no authority"?

Please be accurate in your answer, or be deceptive as you may please instead.

Stepping back:

"competing for a trophy then I would adhere to the prescribed lexicon"

The subject matter on this web site and even the subject matter in this topic is not a trophy race, unless your chosen Title was meant to be deceptive.

The last attempt by a considerable number of people to pack up and un-join the Consolidated (Criminal) National Government was called (falsely) The Civil War, and it was serious business - not a race to get a Trophy.

If you speak of these things then it may be a good idea for you to expect critical reviews of your word choices.

"State-Authority is a predatory pretender -- for the individual they can only react, after the fact. For a corporation they circumvent the consumptive-choice (thus freeing the corporation from being ruled solely by consumers) before and after the purchase."

A State is a Legal Fiction, and "predatory pretender", which is an interesting word choice, sounds to me like criminal, so why not call whoever you are accusing, a name on the person, a suspected criminal?

Why confuse a criminal with anything but a criminal and if you think someone is guilty of perpetrating a crime, then why do you misdirect any defensive effort at all?

Cui Bono?

"For a corporation they circumvent the consumptive-choice..."

What is the crime in question, if that is what you are doing now, again (I suppose) accusing someone of a crime, committed, and who are these victims, these people referred to (vaguely) in "consumptive-choice"?

The State is no longer held to account and now the Corporations are held to account instead?

Meanwhile the actual criminals, when the heat rises, just change the name on the False Front, the door, and the stationary, returning to crime without cost to themselves, other than the need to change the names?

"For a corporation they circumvent the consumptive-choice (thus freeing the corporation from being ruled solely by consumers) before and after the purchase."

Consumers, a list of names of actual people, RULE, and therefore constitute an AUTHORITY, over "corporations"?

Expert transition?

I'm on the edge of my seat. Please do.

Joe

I don't think you can jump right into the utopian free-market

that I'm talking about.

There are too many people dependent on the current system (from the rich down to the poor).

The transition also has to have an auto-reduction (automatically reducing the size of gov't after each term) feature (clause) -- The new "contract" (constitution) must be written with very clear language; so when we say that the size and scope of gov't lessens after each term of office there are no loopholes -- such as: The Amount Taxed (must reduce - either literally or as a percentage of GDP by "

The transition must give enough time to clear two generations of seniors off the books -- so at least 30 years (the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers) -- Gen X (my generation) and forward must adapt.

Read the links in the footer of any of my posts to get a "rough" idea of what I'm talking about.

I ignored the rest of what you wrote because I value my time -- if people "truly" don't "get me" that's one thing, but I think you understand what I'm saying so I will not argue semantics.

I will do what is in my power to do.

And if you plan on forcing me to jump to your tune, my suggestion to you is to work on a plan B.

" The new "contract""

You can aid and abet whomever you choose, with your contract law, as if your contract law distresses actual sovereign people. Maritime, Admiralty wanabe?

Do you actually have access to that power?

Are you one of them?

Really?

Now I have you to threaten me too?

Meanwhile there are actual sovereign people who recognize the meaning of being alive, so bring your worst, and we can see what happens.

"Gen X (my generation) and forward must adapt."

So your indoctrination into involuntary association DOGMA occurred where: television?

"Read the links in the footer of any of my posts to get a "rough" idea of what I'm talking about."

How about principles instead?

Can a thing be accountable for actions of a person?

Is any involuntary association justified by both sovereign people involved?

OK, so, you have information worth knowing?

How about a trade then.

Competition.

Spell out this supposed information worth knowing and I'll do the same and then see which information offers higher quality and lower cost to whom.

Does that sound dictatorial, or is that more along the lines of a Free Market example of a Free Market?

" but I think you understand what I'm saying so I will not argue semantics."

I don't argue so whatever it is you want to do or not, obviously has nothing to do with me.

As to the counterfeit topic, apparently, it is just that.

Joe