4 votes

Constitutional Quandary

These are times when loyalty and adherence to the Constitution, upholding it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, affect the future of every American. I think things are heading out of the purview of Congress and Administration, and onto a monumental Supreme court decision. Looking at what's been going on, with “... Snowden engaged in unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information. ...” I offer these observations: Just like Bradly Manning, Edward Snowden broke his oath of secrecy, and then illegally disseminated classified information. As any American would, he has been accused and will be prosecuted in front of judge and jury. The same thing happened to Daniel Ellsberg. After breaking his oath and releasing classified information, he was tried through the American Judicial System. What happened? The Supreme Court exonerated him, based not on the obvious illegality of his actions, rather on proven illegal government access to his private papers! The court did not judge release of classified information. Back then Ellsberg did not leave American soil like Snowden now did. On the other hand, like Manning, would Snowden be open to spending a year in solitary, sometimes naked? That could be a decisive consideration in hightailing it. As it turned out, Ellsberg exposed secrets that were considered by many US citizens to be wrongly kept from public view in the first place, because their exposure enabled people to judge the necessity for war with Vietnam. At that time the Supreme Court avoided doing so. Now here we are again with exposed secrets, this time with the further challenge of defining an enemy. Under the Espionage Act, in 1918, it was clear which nation states were protagonists, in war against the USA, spying on military objectives. In 2013, looks like nation states are no longer easily defined enemies, while spying on military objectives has burgeoned into spying on every living creature in the world. This now defines the war on terror. The UCMJ will deal with Manning. With openly proclaimed wellsprings of support now surrounding Snowden, appeals up to the Supreme Court in his case, when it comes, seem inevitable. What the Supreme Court will do with the civilian US citizen Snowden, under the current circumstances then becomes The Question. Hopefully the government, in their zeal to prosecute, does not once again step over the line of legality, and nullify a decision in the case. Only so can the validity of digitally tracking everywhere on everyone, all the time, be decided. Such a Supreme Court decision would essentially condone or reject what is happening. Just like the hard decision they made choosing a president between Gore and Bush, the Supremes will have their work cut out for them. This time however, the decision they take will be, perhaps, their most vital work ever, in service to the Constitution of the United States.




Comment viewing options

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

Huh?

Just like Bradly Manning, Edward Snowden broke his oath of secrecy, and then illegally disseminated classified information. Huh? What they did was legal per the "highest law of the land" (ie. the constitution).

What about the fact that the

What about the fact that the NSA may be coercing and blackmailing people and groups in high places? What if they blackmail the Supreme Court justices to get the ruling they want? I'm beginning to believe now that blackmail has been going on for a while and many unconstitutional decisions and bills may have come about because of the NSA. I have lost complete faith and trust in about 98% of Congress, the Supreme Court, MSM and no faith in the "elected" presidents. After watching what happened to Ron Paul in both the 2008 and 2012 elections (along with the primaries and RNC), I believe there has been coercion going on for a long time. I have little faith right now that the right things will be done because of the NSA's actions.

Perhaps...

You might be interested in my related post here

http://www.dailypaul.com/290419/clear-violations

What bothers me about this argument:

People may take an oath to the government, but each citizen has taken an oath to the United States Constitution, to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. One is an oath to uphold the government, the other is an oath to uphold our republic. In my view, the two aren't the same. At all costs, citizens must uphold the Supreme law of the land first, the United States Constitution, secrecy oaths come somewhere down the line.

please consider the following:

1. I haven't taken an oath to the United States Constitution.

2. Most citizens haven't taken such an oath.

3. The United States Constitution is the document which claims to legitimize the creation of the United States government. There is no way to reconcile your view that an oath to uphold that constitution is anything but an oath to the government.

4. The main objective of the United States Constitution cannot be found in the amendments to it. Their purpose was to mask and mitigate the main objective, which was to legitimize the collection of taxes through the initiation of violence.

5. Whatever one can say about the United States Constitution, it has either created the government we have had, or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is not fit to exist.

6. At all costs, we citizens should create a peaceful alternative to the tyranny whose worst expressions are coming upon us and will surely fall upon our children and grandchildren if we continue down the current path.

Contract

1) Either oath or affirmation....most US citizens have affirmed the Constitution as the law of the land.
3) THE USC formed the central government and gave it powers. It was created by the PEOPLE themselves, through their sovereign State governments. The oath is to the people, their sovereign States and the limited power given to the central authority.
4) The main objective was to form a union to protect themselves from the empires of the day. The amendments are the same as the full body, otherwise they would be called addendums...the States already had taxing authority.
5) THE USC did not fail, the PEOPLE failed. The USC is a contract between the dead, the living and the unborn. The government did exactly what governments do, grow. Its the PEOPLE who violated the sacred trust between their ancestors and posterity....our founders warned us, if we get slothful and arrogant and demand security from our central authority we will lose both LIBERTY and security.

The people are not fit for self governance, especially when they grant themselves moral hazards and worship sinners as if they are Christ like. We, the people.....win or lose, not win or tie

Nope

1. Most citizens are not US citizens and have not affirmed the Constitution. I'm sorry, you are incorrect on that.

2. The USC had no authority to give the central government powers. Therefore, it could not and did not do so. I'm sorry, you are incorrect on that too.

Furthermore, it was not created by the people. It was created by a certain elite group. Where do you get this nonsense?

3. The amendments are not the same as the main body. That is why they are called amendments. There is no such thing as authority.

4. The main objective was the legitimization of taxation by the initiation of force at the federal level. They already had a confederacy to protect themselves.

5. A contract requires consent. I do not consent, much less have the unborn done so. Almost everything you have written is nonsense. You don't mean "We, the people," you mean "We, the psychopaths."

Nope

1) Most citizens are not citizens.....please clarify this. Most people who live under the jurisdiction of the USC are, in fact, citizens of the US. Most citizens of the US acknowledge or affirm the USC as the law of the land. Most non citizens living here affirm the USC as they seek protected "rights".
2) The power of the USC was derived from the people, who created the State and then created the USC. The central governments authority comes from the contract ratified by the people and their States. The convention that wrote the proposal that later was ratified by the people, through their states, did not give or take anything. They simply proposed a new contract.
3) Amendment - to change. An amendment changes the original text, it does not add to it. Authority is arrived by the people, the people have the authority to form a government. Just like the people have the authority to change and disband a government. Authority in government is founded on the concept of the consent of the governed.
4) The confederacy was failing at providing protection from the empires of the day. The articles of confederation was not up to the task of protecting the people from international economic and military empires who did not adhere to the basic premise of human rights and property rights. Taxation is a necessary evil to fighting the empires of the day. The Articles were not worth a Continental.......literally
5) We agree, the unborn has not consented to the future obligations we have dumped on them. The fact is the unborn has been saddled with debt because WE, you and I, have allowed our society to live beyond its means. My position is we should take responsibility, for if WE dont the unborn will have no advocates. Furthermore if WE, the people, do not take responsibility for our posterity, are we really standing on the self reliance moral high ground we claim ? If you and I do not accept responsibility, as those before has done, then the dead and the unborn have been violated and good men did nothing......is that your view of just, moral and sustainable ?

just and sustainable

Spewing more propaganda is not taking responsibility.

You write: Authority in government is founded on the concept of the consent of the governed.

Then there is no foundation for authority because I do not consent. It is as simple as that.

quitting is not taking responsibility...

To take the position you do not consent to the concept of Republicanism as outlined by the USC is to take the position you have no desire to correct the problem of saddling posterity with debt. It appears you have repudiated the debt, taking the position it is not yours to pay.

How do intend to pay your share of the debt incurred if you withdraw ?

posterity

I have neither quit, nor withdrawn, nor repudiated. Since I never gave my consent, it cannot be withdrawn. If debt has been incurred or if there is a problem with debt, I never had a share in it. Furthermore, just think of the unspeakable immorality of "saddling posterity" with debt. How do you intend to live with your consent to such evil? (And you sound surprised that I have never consented to the Republicanism as outlined by the USC which you yourself acknowledge either causes such problems or has been unable to prevent them?)

I ask you honestly: How can you live with yourself if you consent to such a thing?

Such a position reminds me of the woman sitting on the bus next to Michael Nystrom. "Yes, we've picked the pockets of our children and grandchildren. They will just have to find someone else's pockets to pick."

I live with humility......

How do I live, with myself ? With humility

I was born here, educated here. I volunteered in my governed community, while using some benefits. I volunteered to serve the nation after high school, then worked 30 years paying into the system. I even worked for the government, building contracts, and donated to parks. So yes, I have consented to a government that spends against my unborn grandsons future earnings.

So now we live beneath our means and practice humility.....while working to restore self reliance and individual responsibility. To that end I lead, I accept my role as responsible adult and humbly admit my mistakes.......and you ?

How does one work and provide for a family without consenting to the governed ?

Articles of Confederation

As soon as the Constitution was ratified and a whole new government created, the 'Antifederalist' philosophy was doomed. Even with the Bill of Rights, there is no effective outlet or remedy for a modern day Antifederalist.

Separation of powers and centralized federalism have failed. First, the federal government devoured all the real power and authority of the state and local governments, turning them into lackeys rather than a check or balance. Next, the executive branch took over the other two branches of the federal government. Once power was all concentrated and no longer distributed, checked, or balanced, it was a simple matter of taking over the executive branch. And I don't mean the office of the president, but the branch as a whole including all its agencies and departments.

Birds of a feather

I am glad to know I am not alone in my deep respect for the AoC ~ The more I think on it the more I think they should STILL be in effect

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Who are the militia?

It is we the people, every able-bodied man between the ages of 16 and 60, you can choose not to fight, many people did during the revolution as well, but you should consider it a mans job to fight for the freedom of everyone, especially now that we have a real understanding of freedom and liberty principles.

Lets us not also forget, complacency is what got us where we are today, and i understand your desire for peace, but lets not forget:

Men of peace, do not want war, or desire war, but it doesn't mean they will let brutal tyrants walk all over them either.

OK but not enough

The militia is all the people, and that is great, but you have not addressed the critical issue. A militia can fight in violation of the non-aggression principle or in self-defense. The former leads to no lasting gain. The latter is fine and sometimes necessary.

The question then becomes have you created a community and a connection to land which is defensible? My point is that it's not just complacency, but error that is the problem. We need to be thinking correctly about certain things before the bullets start flying, or we will end up in worse shape than we started.

No more Wacos...but no more Fort Sumters either.

My reference to a "peaceful alternative" above was not intended to suggest that the current tyranny will make a peaceful exit. Rather, we better have a fundamentally peaceful alternative (i.e., embracing the non-aggression principle) in place, at least philosophically, as a replacement.

Lies do what they do

The Constitution was a Usurpation of Liberty, so the concept of a quandary is therefore merely a fight among criminals over who controls the slaves.

This fact of The Constitution being a Usurpation of Liberty is well documented in historical records.

Not knowing the facts is called ignorance, refusing to acknowledge the facts is no longer merely ignorance.

Joe

How about a few examples

of the Constitution being a usurpation of Liberty...

In my own words?

I've sent in an earlier reply the sources whereby quotes from people who were there at the time, such as Robert Yates, or Luther Martin, explained how The Constitution was a Usurpation.

The most obvious usurpation is explained in the words I quoted from the Federalist Papers.

Before the Usurpation there was no such thing as "legal" National Debt Slavery, forced upon Blacks or Whites, since a Free Man, once Free, could vote with their feet from a Slave State to a Non-Slave State (Constitutionally Limited Republic).

They were Constitutionally Limited Republics working within a Free Market of Government, which is the intended design of a Democratic Federated Republic, or Confederation of Republics, so long as the BOND, or the UNION, is not "perfected" with the same old LIE that every extortionist claims to be true.

Obey.

Pay the protection money, or I will break your legs.

This is not that hard to conceptualize unless you are bogged down with lies to the point where there are no competitive options to anything, including the meaning of words.

Democracy was not MOB RULE.

Democracy was a systematic way to maintain voluntary association, and the idea came from long ago, with other words saying similar things, in Greek, for example, the word sortition (English translation) meant a system by which authority was randomly selected as a method of avoiding MONOPOLY of only one "CLASS" having power over everyone else.

So having brains filled up with mush, also known in modern terms as "garbage in - garbage out" is an investment in something.

Paying National Debt is an investment in having to pay more National Debt, so who are the dupes?

Who are the Usurpers?

Is this really that difficult to know?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The Masters and Slaves look at that official report made by the Masters and they think two types of thoughts:

1.
My investments in National Debt are not paying very well, so I think I should listen to my leadership, as they are demanding that I work harder to throw more money at that investment in the hope that this time we can make that investment pay better for me, I do the work, they get the commission for their good advice, and their good work.

Call that the War is good for the Economy investment group (Slaves).

2.
My investments in National Debt are paying better than ever at the moment, and therefore I had better hedge.

Call that the Business Psycho investment group (Masters).

Example:

The Business Psycho 3 Part Plan:

Part I
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FD...

Part II
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

Part III
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

So the example of the Usurpation is made to order, for you, or anyone caring to know better, precisely in the comparison of the same events played out before and after the Usurpation in those specific examples known as Shays's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion.

In my own words, but I can grab quotes as needed, the Central Banker (Monarchist/Consolidators/Nationalist/Monopolist/Money Masters/Slave Traders/Despots) groups, beside Hamilton were notable personalities such as Robert Morris, saw (realized) a very dangerous precedent set with Shays's Rebellion. What had happened in that case was contained within the Massachusetts Republic up until the fugitives escaped into Vermont, and then that threatened the Monopolists Power with the force of competition.

The Massachusetts Republic was run by the typical rats that so offended people like Patrick Henry, as those rats tried the same old Despotic Routine of investing in war for profit and then handing the tax payers the bills when the wars didn't pan out. Massachusetts "governors" purchased contracts to supply an army of aggression into Canada to "annex" lands up north, but the resistance to such usurpation was overpowering and therefore the investment didn't pan out as planned.

The Massachusetts "governors" then increased taxes in two ways, they created false paper called debt, and then they created false taxes to pay for the false debt, and that drove Gold out of circulation through Gresham's Law, as importers would not agree to be paid with the funny money called debt, and so imports were paid with the specie money, good things are imported for good things exported, and bad things stay internally enforced within the Usurped Republic of Massachusetts in the form of Monopoly Debt Money, or worthless, and getting worthless even faster, Paper Money, or edicts.

The people on the farms invented, as they often do, ways to make their own money at home, on the farm, and one way was to make whiskey and use whiskey as money.

So what do the "governors" do in those cases when the slaves don't obey the order to pay the taxes in the gold they don't have?

The idiot "governors" pass a new tax that says that whiskey must be taxed and anyone daring to make their own money (whiskey) must pay the new tax, and they must pay, they must pay, they must pay, in the gold that they don't have.

Well, some of the farmers where decorated veterans of The Revolutionary War so all this taxation without representation routine was a familiar story, so they merely decided to finish the job they started, so they went to the Massachusetts Armory to get enough arms to do what their duty was, according to The Declaration of Independence.

They lost the battle.

The Revolution was over in Massachusetts.

But, and this is where the Usurpation shows up as the actual thing that had to be Usurped, Liberty (Free Markets of government power had to be Usurped), since those Revolutionary War veterans ran from Massachusetts up to Vermont.

What does the "Federal" government do about runaway slaves?

Under The Articles of Confederation the precedent was set.

The "Federal" government does nothing about runaway slaves.

Vermont does nothing about runaway slaves.

That is the force of competition working to CHECK and BALANCE any moves from Liberty to Despotism as the Slaves tend to wander off, to find greener pastures.

There are many more examples, but that National Debt example is the main one.

It goes like this:

June 4th George Mason

George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788
______________________________________
Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
___________________________________________

My own words are powerless compared to whose words?

The Constitution was ratified because the False Federalists like Hamilton had power over Major Media at the time, sufficient power to convince the masses that his lies were promises that his ilk would keep.

Hamilton sent his Goon, this guy named George Washington into Pennsylvania to enforce National Debt by rubbing out The Spirit of Liberty which is the same spirit as competition in free markets.

You don't have to trust me, or anyone, but I offer two more sources.

1.
This comes from someone I have a love/hate relationship with, for his deeds. I love his offerings of accurate facts, I hate the lies he spreads.

I think the following is accurate:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html

Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
by Murray N. Rothbard

I won't quote from that source, rather, I can quote straight from the horses mouth here:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

_______________________________________
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
______________________________________

So the proof is in the pudding. In other words, if the question is to ask if the government was Usurped, and there is skepticism focused on the honorable governors own words, then that is the proof, is it not?

If there is an extremely high demand for liars, so much so that those demanding better and better lies are willing to pay trillions of dollars in Federal Reserve Notes (that they don't have) to those who will lie better, Federal Reserve Notes that are sold by the liars, at interest, sold to those who demand better lies from the liars, then, there is cause for concern, and inculpatory evidence exists, proof exists, in the form of that specific money, as that specific money is a fraud in progress, and merely following it to the source of it uncovers the Usurpers.

Why is that difficult at all to see clearly?

Joe

Comment

While we are relatively close to being on the same page, it occurs to me that the following (contrarian) comment might be helpful for you. I believe you have presented the same point of view elsewhere, and I was considering looking that up to comment there, but I'll do it here.

The problem with the notion of "walking with your feet" from state to state, or local government to local government is the importance of "connection to land."

The fertility of soil can be mined or it can be improved. This is actually really important to civilization. As a consequence those who are good stewards of the soil are important, and it is important for them to stay in the same place and be connected to the land which they nurture.

If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use. Of course, if you can only see the life of some kind of "itinerate corporate vandal" (terminology due to Wendell Berry), then you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model. I think that if you realize the importance of connection to land for the long term viability of society, then there is only one option left, in the sense that the majority of a local population (large enough to be self-sufficient and defensible) accepts the nonaggression principle. The exact details of that acceptance---and what else is necessary to defend the resulting community in a hostile environment---comprise the crucial things that need to be determined. Without this minimum, I don't think you have civilization---at least by my definition.

Getting facts established first?

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

Your viewpoint concerning my viewpoint may be a confusion that occurs in between our viewpoints.

It may be a good idea to find agreement as to what our viewpoints are, in fact, to establish those facts agreeably, so as not to continue working to make confusing things even more confusing, as if our agreement, although unsaid, is to confuse each other better.

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

If I take land from you, that is a crime.

If I am prevented from taking land from you, is that a solution to crime?

Who agrees that any portion of land is yours, or mine, or anyone on Earth who may happen to be, in fact, using any land in any way at all?

"The fertility of soil can be mined or it can be improved. This is actually really important to civilization. As a consequence those who are good stewards of the soil are important, and it is important for them to stay in the same place and be connected to the land which they nurture."

The power of which you speak is the power by which less power is made into more power, or I have your words confused in my mind.

It can be said, and agreed upon, that the power in question is exemplified by those who exemplify that power.

Facts submitted to anyone who may agree with these facts in this context:

1.
Farmer

2.
Gold miner

3.
Industrial factory

Bare land, virgin land, unoccupied land, produces natural resources such as oxygen, so that is self-evident power production useful for human life on earth.

Farmer shows up, works, and quantities of farming products now exist where none had existed.

That is an increase in economic power, actual calories, the power that is required for human life, a net gain of power, before there is less power, after there is more power.

Who says?

Those who equitably vote for the farmer to do what the farmer does say so, as the farmer exchanges powerful things for powerful things, all in agreement, without conflict, which is a powerful thing, since these agreements work as if they are miracles happening on Earth. More is made out of less because economies of scale, division of labor, and specialization, work to increase the power to produce more out of less exponentially more, not merely the addition of one farmer added to another farmer, not merely the addition of one season of crops to another season of crops, there are forces at work that work as if working miracles.

Less hours required each day, more output each day, higher standards of living each day, lower costs of living each day, on and on, into Utopia.

Do I understand the meaning of your words?

"The fertility of soil can be mined or it can be improved. This is actually really important to civilization. As a consequence those who are good stewards of the soil are important, and it is important for them to stay in the same place and be connected to the land which they nurture. "

Is that an established fact?

Where, then, is the confusion?

Your claim:

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

The cause of trouble happens to be the criminal. The criminal borrows from the victims. The criminal learns how to voluntarily associate with other criminals, creating a counterfeit form of honor, honor among thieves, and they too are performing miracles, they too access the leverage of economies of scale, division of labor, and specialization, and they too grow exponentially more powerful than merely the sum of their individual criminal acts of crime.

So your words appear to suggest to me that there is no use in shopping from experiment A, which is an effort to defend against crime, to experiment B, which is an effort to defend against crime.

Did I miss a beat, a step, going across a bridge that does not exist?

Do you mean, in fact, that there is no use in shopping between Legal Crime A and Legal Crime B, which are both examples of Legal Crime, and neither is an experiment in defense against crime of any kind?

If so, if I have found that bridge that spans the obvious gap, then I have a question to ask of you.

If Legal Crime A costs more and is of less benefit to any human being, and if Legal Crime B costs less and is of more benefit to any human being, then what is that human being inspired to do at that point?

You may not agree with my observation of obvious fact as the Despots, the Criminals, will move to the places where crime pays well, and the victims will move to the places where crime pays less well since they, the victims, or slaves, are the ones doing the paying.

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

If you speak of government as being something, something akin to a measurable fact, then establishing that fact could be the foundation that supports the side you are on. I can build my side on a foundation too, and then a span between these sides we are on could be built, if there is a will to do so.

Government is the process by which the victims effectively avoid any contact with criminals.

That is government on the side I am on.

Which side are you on?

What is government to you?

Government is not easy because criminals are good at lying, robbing, and murdering the victims.

"Of course, if you can only see the life of some kind of "itinerate corporate vandal" (terminology due to Wendell Berry), then you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model."

I am right here, and if there is an if about anything I can agree to such an open ended question.

"itinerate corporate vandal"

There isn't any way I can agree to such an idea that appears to me to be leaking falsehood profusely.

"you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model"

When the slaves run away from the criminals they run to places where there are less criminals. If they run to places where there are more criminals, that can hardly be called running away, can it?

The example of Daniel Shays's may be a fairy tale, having no meaning other than pure fantasy, if that is what you think, and that is fine by me, you will think as you please.

I see much evidence supporting the concept of Free Market, Voluntary Government, working as intended, when the idea behind government is, in fact, a shared, agreement, to avoid contact with criminals.

You see whatever you see, and to bring in a third viewpoint, and attach a third viewpoint to me, as if I somehow voluntarily share that third viewpoint, is called a Man of Straw argument, for some reason.

What would be that reason for attaching, loosely, or firmly, that third viewpoint to me?

"Of course, if you can only see the life of some kind of "itinerate corporate vandal" (terminology due to Wendell Berry), then you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model."

I can certainly be the one confused, but those words appear to me as me being guilty by your falsely associating me with some nebulous fairy tale.

At least your words afford to me the opportunity to reject that false association, as I see it.

No thanks.

"I think that if you realize the importance of connection to land for the long term viability of society, then there is only one option left, in the sense that the majority of a local population (large enough to be self-sufficient and defensible) accepts the nonaggression principle."

I think that you presume to know what I think, and I think that your presumption of authority over what I think is well off the mark.

Your words, written as quoted above, appear to suggest that I, not you of course, do not accept the nonaggression principle.

Again, by your words, apparently, I am guilty by your false association.

Who, exactly, are the criminals?

Who, exactly, are those who do not accept the nonaggression principle, and is it a good idea to trust in words, or are deeds more valuable as evidence proving or disproving guilt in any case whatsoever?

I am, by your words, apparently, already tried, sentenced, and punished, publicly as one who does not accept the nonaggression principle, so your actions confess something.

What?

I am allowed a defense after the fact of public damnation?

Are your charges true?

Is your public punishment of me justified?

Am I not, as your words indicate, someone who agrees with the nonaggression principle, in fact?

Might it be a good idea to establish at least one fact before executing punishment on the innocent person who is presumed to be guilty from the moment of birth?

"The exact details of that acceptance---and what else is necessary to defend the resulting community in a hostile environment---comprise the crucial things that need to be determined. Without this minimum, I don't think you have civilization---at least by my definition."

So you have a working definition of civilization.

Do you have a working definition of government?

If by your definition the word government means crime, having the same meaning as crime, as criminals define exactly what crime is, each crime they define according to their will exerted upon their targeted victims, each in turn, then I can know that too, if that is your definition of government.

If that is not my definition of government, then confusion on the subject of government, how it does work, how it does not work, is likely, or inevitable.

I don't know if these words will work to convey accurate information concerning my viewpoints. I can find out, to some degree, in time.

Joe

You got me.

I didn't mean to "punish" you. I was and am trying to be helpful.

I think you've got a good point that my statement about "shopping from government to government is not much use" is possibly overblown. Perhaps I should say "not much ultimate use" or make a less definitive assertion.

But my point (a point already made by Wendell Berry really) is that it takes a life invested in particular land to understand that place and actually nurture it. The overwhelming alternative option is to act on it with too much power and destroy it. Farming---being a steward of the land---is not just about power. It is about (for lack of a better word) sustainability, about passing along to future generations an enhanced life from the environment, or at least the option to participate in that life. Just producing yields, using petroleum based nitrogen for example, does not do this. It is using and gaining power to steal the resources of future generations---mining.

I still don't understand your position on this point.

Perhaps my definition of government will help: Government is the idea that certain people (those who govern) can legitimately do what it would be immoral for just regular people (the governed) to do. I believe that idea is a myth. There are no rituals like voting which can make immoral acts morally acceptable. If something is morally acceptable for any ordinary person to do, then there is no need for the designation of government to do it. The only function of government is to legitimize evil actions. I don't see that there's much way to get around that.

And your definition is that government is the means by which the slaves get away form the criminals? Perhaps we need a definition of criminals.

I'm sure I haven't addressed all your comments, and I'm sure I don't understand them all. I appreciate your observation (as I interpret it) that shopping from government to government might be useful in the process of eliminating the myth of government, because certain manifestations of the myth can be better than others.

No desire

I have no desire to get you, if by those words I am allowed some room to define the meaning of those words.

"I think you've got a good point that my statement about "shopping from government to government is not much use" is possibly overblown."

I have to comment at that point, in defense, against misunderstanding, before I read any further.

If you speak about shopping around for Crime made Legal, then that has to be understood as being what you are shopping around for, to invest in, to gain from, to bet on, or whatever, and that has to be separated from the opposite investments, whereby the shopper is seeking to invest in ways to avoid crime, prevent crime, to separate the criminals from the innocent victims, if possible.

That was my point, my question, my response, to clarify which process your words intended to focus attention upon, either/or, one or the other, and so as not to confuse the two as if only ONE MONOPOLY POWER Existed, and that one that exists is the criminal one.

1.
Shoppers shopping for the most powerful criminal organization which inevitably becomes the one that is a counterfeit version of the opposite organization.

2.
Shoppers shopping around for the most powerful defense against any criminal, anywhere, including criminals in gangs, and including criminals who claim to be the defenders against crime.

Your words again:

"I think you've got a good point that my statement about "shopping from government to government is not much use" is possibly overblown."

I will look further into your newest response and I will be specifically looking for your definition of "government" along these lines:

1.
Shoppers shopping for the most powerful criminal organization which inevitably becomes the one that is a counterfeit version of the opposite organization.

2.
Shoppers shopping around for the most powerful defense against any criminal, anywhere, including criminals in gangs, and including criminals who claim to be the defenders against crime.

3.
Shoppers who have no clue as to there being 2 opposite versions of government as the suppliers of one form of government are criminals by their thoughts, and by their actions, not by their words, as they define the meaning of crime, on the one hand, and on the other hand are the other guys, who by their thoughts, actions, and by their words, they supply the opposite of crime, so those shoppers having no clue as to there being 2 versions, not 1 version, are apt to buy the false version, since they are clueless shoppers, or worse, they may be brainwashed shoppers infected with a false belief in the need to pay the criminals more each day so as to then get more injury by those same criminals each day.

"Perhaps I should say "not much ultimate use" or make a less definitive assertion."

Perhaps I should ask for your definition of "government" and then I can know what you are talking about.

"...is not just about power..."

I see things differently, and I can condense my viewpoint into one workable sentence. If you don't see things as I do, that isn't a surprise to me. I could see things your way, but only if I ignore the way I see things, and that would be willful ignorance on my part.

"It is about (for lack of a better word) sustainability, about passing along to future generations an enhanced life from the environment, or at least the option to participate in that life."

Sustainability requires power, so how is it that it is not about power?

Here is my working sentence:

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Life form A no longer exists without the power required to sustain life form A.

What does Life form A do, if not gain more power out of less power?

The opposite can be called a word in human terms, a word in English, such as crime.

Life form B consumes more power resulting in less power.

Is that sustainable?

"I still don't understand your position on this point."

It has become a specific discovery, in detail, of mine, that English is problematic. I can explain in detail, but I have English to work with, and so far I'm finding problems in conveying simple things like the diametric opposite forms of government.

A.
Effective crime prevention.

B.
Effective crime made legal.

Confusing the two is a problem.

"Perhaps my definition of government will help: Government is the idea that certain people (those who govern) can legitimately do what it would be immoral for just regular people (the governed) to do."

How is that any different, in demonstrable fact, than any other crimes perpetrated upon any other innocent victims in human history?

If your definition of government is precisely the same thing as the way every criminal defines the meaning of crime, then my next question is to ask if you know of anything existing in human history that effectively opposes that which you call government?

"I believe that idea is a myth."

I believe that you fall into a trap of your own making, and then you trap yourself into it.

I can ask you why, while I feel little in the way of confidence as to getting from you an accurate answer.

I think my question is vital, so I ask it, and I think therefore that the accurate answer is demanded, as the false answer will mislead me away from reaching the intention behind the question.

Question:

Why do you define government in terms that are exactly the same thing as crime, and then you claim that government/crime is a myth?

You are in effect saying that crime does not exist.

You are, in that way, a self evident, self confessed, nihilist, or, competitively speaking, I merely miss the point.

I've been so often wrong that it would be wrong of me to be overly confident concerning the many possible answers to my question.

I can still ask.

Why do you define government in terms that are exactly the same thing as crime, and then you claim that government/crime is a myth?

I can ask:

Do you know of any methods by which crime, with or without false claims of authority, can be reduced?

"There are no rituals like voting which can make immoral acts morally acceptable."

I need to know this, as if the Sun was not bright?

If you know of no methods by which crime can be avoided, lessened, in any case whatsoever, then that can be known by me.

If you find one way, anyway, and it proves to be effective, and crime is thereby lessened, in that case, then I can ask you for a label for that method.

At the point at which you offer, if it happens, a method by which crime is lessened, and at the point at which you offer a label for that method, at that point I will offer a competitive label for your effective method of reducing crime.

I will call that competitive offer of a voluntary method of reducing crime by my competitive offer of a voluntary word and my word choice is government.

I have done so already.

Apparently, measurably, there is a power at work by which I say something, meaning something, and you read what I say, and you think I mean the opposite of what I say, as if English words have two meanings each, and the meanings are opposite, and the reader can choose, at will, the opposite intended meaning, and that is good enough for their government work, in any case whatsoever.

"The only function of government is to legitimize evil actions. I don't see that there's much way to get around that."

Around what?

You describe crime, you call crime with the label government, and now you "don't see that there's much way to get around that."

What is that?

Crime?

You don't see that there's much way to get around crime?

You don't see that there's much way to get around government?

If you define government to be crime, crime to be government, then it is ONE thing, not two things, so either you are confused as to what you don't see a way around, or I am.

I can ask.

Do you fail to see any effective way around crime?

Do you fail to see any effective way around government?

Do you fail to see that you are speaking about the same thing?

Am I the one who is confused as to your definition of government being exactly the definition of crime as defined by criminals when criminals perpetrate crimes?

"And your definition is that government is the means by which the slaves get away form the criminals? Perhaps we need a definition of criminals."

What?

"Perhaps we need a definition of criminals."

How twisted up can a mind get? My mind? I'm twisted here, sure, I am all twisted up in this case right here, and right now. Criminals define crime each time a criminal perpetrates a crime, each time, every time, and if you have any confusion concerning those definitions, then YOU, not WE, find a need for those definitions.

Criminals are predictable, if not nice.

Criminals lie.

Criminals threaten.

Criminals injure innocent people for fun and profit.

If the victims ask for it, demand it, love it, then they are not victims, and they are certainly not innocent, since they are feeding, paying for, investing in, encouraging, demanding, creating a need for someone to supply, increasing the pay rate for, enabling, supporting in a moral way, supporting in a material way, supporting in a willful psychological way, and supporting in a willful economic way, CRIME.

If the victims have been fooled, or threatened, or violently beaten into a condition of false love for crime made legal, then that is merely routine for criminals, and not at all a surprise to me, since I am already armed with a working definition of crime.

Your words (a voluntary competitive offer):

"Perhaps we need a definition of criminals."

My response less wordy (counter offer):

I don't.

"I'm sure I haven't addressed all your comments, and I'm sure I don't understand them all. I appreciate your observation (as I interpret it) that shopping from government to government might be useful in the process of eliminating the myth of government, because certain manifestations of the myth can be better than others."

Government as you define it is the same exact thing as crimes in progress defined by criminals.

I prefer not to feed it with any power at all. An example of government is, in demonstrable fact, reducing the flow of power to the criminals, reducing the aiding and abetting of the criminals just because the criminals reach for and use their favorite lie which is that they, the criminals, are anything but criminals.

1.
End the FED
2
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (look in the mirror)
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2013, start now, finish early.

Joe

one thing

I have not defined government as crime. You need to think about that and understand it before we have anything to discuss. This is an error upon which much of the rest of your commentary rests. Your error is to view my definition as equivalent to crime. It is not at all. Just read it.

All criminals make the same claim.

What on earth would make me believe that your definition of crime is not a definition of crime? You employing words to twist my mind so as to remove my power to discern the accurate difference between a legitimate, moral, justified, reasonable, equitable, authoritative action and the counterfeit versions?

"Perhaps my definition of government will help: Government is the idea that certain people (those who govern) can legitimately do what it would be immoral for just regular people (the governed) to do."

OK, I do speak before I think sometimes. All criminals don't make the same claim as the one you are now making, concerning the definition of crime you offer as a definition of government.

Some criminals don't care to hide their crimes.

Joe

please try

> What on earth would make me believe that your
> definition of crime is not a definition of crime?

This question doesn't make sense because it includes the assumption that my definition of government is a definition of crime. That is false.

In particular, my definition of government is that it is a certain idea rather than an action. A crime, as you've indicated above, is an action. Therefore, my definition can not be a definition of crime.

The idea of government is related to the action (which is crime), but it is not that action. It is the idea which determines the perception of the action.

Here are some examples:

A gangster sends a note to a store and demands money from the store owner for supposed protection. The gangster threatens to send his thugs to punish the store owner if he does not obey. In sum these actions are called extortion.

An IRS official sends a note to a store and demands money from a store owner because the store owner has made the money from working, and there is a law which says the IRS agent is entitled to make that demand. The IRS agent threatens to send law enforcement officers to punish the store owner if he does not obey. This is called taxation. It is the same as extortion, except that because of the idea of government it is renamed taxation and considered legitimate.

Government is the idea according to which this legitimization of that which is evil can take place. If any normal person (or more generally any non-governing person, like a gangster) extorts someone, it's considered illigitimate or criminal. If someone is viewed as part of the government, the same action is considered legitimate (and renamed taxation). It is the same action, but the function of government is to make that (criminal) action appear legitimate.

You'll notice that even the federalist shill above refers to taxation as a "necessary evil." That is because he is laboring under the myth of government according to which evil is viewed as legitimate. It is a myth that some kind of ritual, costume, or office can turn evil actions into good and legitimate actions. The next example is related to this:

A police officer is sitting in the back of a Waffle House (eating a doughnut) and a guy comes in with a gun, points it at the manager, and threatens to shoot him if he does not empty the register into a bag provided. The police officer draws his pistol and empties a magazine putting 14 rounds into the robber, killing him. This is called law enforcement which is a supposed function of government.

An armed citizen (a regular guy) is sitting in the back of a Waffle House and a guy comes in with a gun, points it at the manager, and threatens to shoot him if he does not empty the register into a bag provided. The guy sitting in the back draws his pistol and empties a magazine putting 11 rounds into the robber, killing him. This is called legitimately stopping a crime.

Both were legitimate actions (or at least are considered as such by most people), but government has no actual function in this case. The only function of government is to legitimize evil actions. If someone's actions are already legitimate, there is no function for government. In this way, you can see the true nature of government, and it is this alarming true nature which is unavoidable. This is what I meant, when I said you can't get around it. The assumption that government has something to do with stopping crime is also a related myth, but the function of government is only and always to legitimize evil actions.

Finally, if I may attempt to cut through your double talk, it seems that you have defined government as an action of a different sort. That action is simply having a certain perception. In particular, you'd like to define government as the means by which people separate themselves from crime. What you are suggesting is not a definition, but merely a perception of government. You can't make a perception or a perceived means into a definition. It's like saying that cloud up there looks like an elephant to you, so it's an elephant. You have to get at the fundamental nature (at least to some degree) to have a definition. A cloud is a visible collection of water suspended in the atmosphere. Saying it's an elephant because you perceive it to be an elephant is not useful.

In the same way, saying that government is the means by which victims seperate themselves from criminals because you perceive it that way is not useful.

Will power

Look, whoever you are, and I don't care what your motive is for twisting words around, and I don't even care if you are aware of what you are doing.

If now you are making a claim that government, according to your definition, your words, is nothing, or "a certain idea rather than an action" then again the claims is precisely the same claims made by criminals.

If you want to speak to someone about an idea, and nothing but an idea, and the idea that you want to speak about has nothing to do with any actions by anyone, then your question to find someone to speak about nothing is nothing for me to have any interest in, and my guess is that if you find someone who shares your interest in speaking about nothing of consequence, or "a certain idea" RATHER "than an action," then that person may wink while he, or she, plays along with the charade you are on, of your design, or merely parroted by you for lack of reason applied by you.

What, if I bend way over backwards in assuming that you have a motive, what is the point of speaking about this "certain idea rather than an action"?

I know how the lie works for criminals, while the targets are distracted by the suggestion to focus attention on this "certain idea rather than an action," the victims are acted upon in such as way as the victims are rendered powerless to defend against those actions which are driven by "a certain idea."

"Therefore, my definition can not be a definition of crime."

If your point is to point out things that are not crimes, then why not speak of an idea such as any other idea of no consequence, such as, I don't know, the relative colors of dog crap?

What is the point of pointing out this idea rather than an action that is by your definition not a crime?

I see by looking ahead, but not yet reading, you offer examples.

While on that concept of exemplifying Crime made Legal, or False Government, in action, based upon the lie, here are 5 examples:

1. Unlawful Authorities at Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4QMbTvj3H8

2. Dangerous Criminals at Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btatzG-S2bY

3. Adoption by the finest Evil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuu-cfnIlk

4. Drug Wars for Profit and Fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rFWDHQcIG8

5. The Final Solution coming to a Theater Near You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1b-PHdFZU

On to your claim that is a claim of "an idea rather than an action" whereby this idea "can not be a definition of crime," and examples?

"A gangster sends a note to a store and demands money from the store owner for supposed protection. The gangster threatens to send his thugs to punish the store owner if he does not obey. In sum these actions are called extortion."

Now you are reporting on how a criminal defines a specific crime that you call extortion, and I can agree, or I can not agree, generally, but having no specifics, no names, no dates, no evidence whatsoever of an actual victim, then I'm reserving judgement in that specific case. I can reserve judgment on my own, and I sure don't need your help in this specific case.

"An IRS official..."

I'm cutting that claim off before it wanders on into colors of dog crap.

An IRS official is a crime in progress, it is a false, fraudulent, label, it, the name, is inculpatory evidence documenting a crime in progress, so what is the point of aiding and abetting such a crime by using the false name?

The crime of extortion, in my case, has been well documented, as every unit of honest earnings I ever made, whereby my earnings went to the criminals running The Internal Revenue Service, is, in fact, inculpatory evidence of my injury by those criminals, and again I don't need your help to know dog crap when I see it, or crime when it is perpetrated upon me by criminals.

"and there is a law which says the IRS agent is entitled to make that demand"

What happened to "a certain idea rather than an action"?

You exemplify a general report on specific crimes in progress perpetrated upon unnamed victims by unnamed criminals, and now you claim that such crimes are entitlements according to "a law" in your words?

The victims in question have names, my name is Joe Kelley, I am one of the victims of this specific crime in progress, and your claims of "a certain idea rather than an action" are just so much noise to me, noise covering up the crimes, by you, and therefore in my opinion you are aiding, you are abetting, you are lending moral support, you are lending material support to, you are transferring power to their idea, you are transferring power to their actions, and for what, what do you gain?

Why are you helping the criminals perpetrate their crimes upon me and everyone else who are, in fact, victims to this crime that you are now speaking about as an example of what, "an idea rather than an action" and therefore it "can not be a definition of crime"?

Entitlements?

"This is called taxation."

If the criminals call it dog crap do you then start obeying that order without question too?

I call crime crime because it is crime, not because some criminal has this idea that it is "an idea rather than an action" and therefore it "can not be a definition of crime."

"It is the same as extortion, except that because of the idea of government it is renamed taxation and considered legitimate."

By who, you, is it considered legitimate?

It is crime because there are criminals perpetrating crimes upon innocent victims, even when it is claimed to be "an idea rather than an actions" and therefore it "can not be a definition of crime."

An idea can be invented by someone, dreamed up by someone, or parroted by someone, and an idea can be a willful distortion of the facts, whereby the person inventing the idea, or parroting the idea, is either the inventor of lies, or just borrowing the idea of lying from the inventor, and the inventor, or the parrots, who lie, willfully, are lying willfully, and those who merely regurgitate the lie, not knowing that the lie is a lie, are merely regurgitating the lie, despite their ignorance as to the lie being a lie.

The inventor of the idea of lying passed on awhile ago, long dead, perhaps some place on Earth renamed, here lies the inventor of lies, at some time way back in human history, before anyone had any USE, for the idea of lying.

"This question doesn't make sense because it includes the assumption that my definition of government is a definition of crime. That is false."

If you point at people who call themselves government, which you just did again, with your finger pointing at criminals who hide behind the false label of The Internal Revenue Service, ha, ha, ha, what a JOKE on the FOOLS that one is, "service," if YOU point at those criminals as an example of "government" then YOU do that, and now you are claiming that I am speaking falsely?

"This question doesn't make sense because it includes the assumption that my definition of government is a definition of crime. That is false."

I'm getting so tired of this crap, this dog crap, I'm dreaming of the days when Duels decided the fate of those who spread such lies.

So now, rather than that idea, now there are more civilized ways to deal with libelers?

Why am I asking you? You are now claiming that I am speaking words "That is false."

Go take a long walk on a short peer.

How is that for a sentence?

"It is the same as extortion, except that because of the idea of government it is renamed taxation and considered legitimate."

What?

So now your claim is that the cause ("because") of some thing happening, is "the idea"?

I think that I can often be wrong, as in this case, my idea here is that you are seeking, you are letting other people know about a demand of yours, seeking a supply, and what you want is company, you want company to share in your twisted ideas of crime and government.

I can't supply that demand.

I'll have none of it.

Crime is defined by the criminals and they often claim that their crimes are just "an idea" or the gun did it, or the government did it, or the public did it, or the mob did it, or the idea did it, or "because of the idea of government" he did it, or she did it, and so who benefits under that idea of false accountability?

What is the point?

Who benefits?

"Government is the idea according to which this legitimization of that which is evil can take place."

How many definitions do you offer before you find one that does not change like the wind direction or ambient temperature?

"If any normal person (or more generally any non-governing person, like a gangster) extorts someone, it's considered illigitimate or criminal."

Well, now you have access to a criminal brain, I suppose, and a competitive one at that, since that specific criminal does what that specific criminals does because that criminal desires to do what that criminals desires not to do, or some other such twist of reason?

Society made me do it?

I've spoken with criminals. I want to find out why they do what they do, and often has been the case that they claim, at least to me, if not to themselves, that the victims deserve what they get, and that they, the criminals, are helping the victims, ever so generously helping them, because that is what the criminals say, to me, if not to themselves.

But you know, I guess, better than I do, as to what you mean when you define government, or crime, or whatever you think is legitimate, or illegitimate, or law, or whatnot, but I certainly do not agree with your ambiguous, fluctuating, definitions. How could I agree, when you change your definitions on a whim, at your pleasure, and therefore the only way I can agree is to ask you what the latest definition is, as if you were the authority over what is, or is not, crime according to me, or what is, or is not, government according to me.

I, on the other hand, know that criminals define crime as they invent new ways, or borrow old ways, to injure innocent victims.

I, on the other hand, know that government is the way in which criminals are overpowered.

I, on the other hand, know that one of the crimes perpetrated by criminals is the claim made by the criminals whereby the criminals claim that their crimes are examples of government.

You made a similar claim when you claimed that "there is a law which says the IRS agent is entitled to make that demand."

What demand?

Hi, I am a criminal, and I demand that your earnings are now my earnings, a crime I perpetrate, and I do so because you are powerless to stop me.

That demand?

If there existed a power to stop crime, then there is government in that case, when that crime is no longer being perpetrated in that way.

So, according to you, I suppose, there is government, or crime, or government, or crime, or government, or crime, or you are confused as to what you think, or I am confused as to what you think, while I know that criminals define the meaning of crime and former victims who overpower criminals define the meaning of government in each case when those definitions are defined by those people who are not confused at all.

"It is the same action, but the function of government is to make that (criminal) action appear legitimate."

Yea, same message, confusion, it is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, and you don't have to keep repeating it to convince me of your confusion.

I am not fooled.

Crime is crime.

In any case where crime is prevented, that is the definition of government in that case.

The specifics are defined by the people who either perpetrate crime, specifically upon an innocent victim, or a specific employer of government prevents a crime upon a specific innocent victim, in time, and in place, in reality, which is based upon an idea either way.

The criminal idea is whatever the criminal may dream up at any moment to explain, to himself, or herself, or to explain to whomever cares to know, the reasons for targeting, and injuring, the innocent victim targeted by, and injured by, the criminal.

The government idea is based upon the idea that it is wrong to allow criminals to injure innocent victims, and it is right to prevent criminals from injuring innocent victims, and it is wrong, by that reasoning, or it is a lie by that idea, to BE A CRIMINAL while claiming that some innocent victim is being injured by YOU.

Call me, in so many words, a liar, keep it up, and you merely confess to me, that you are driven by the criminal idea, and your crimes upon me, as I am innocent of your charges, and I am in no way deserving of your punishments, those lies exist as inculpatory evidence proving the fact.

"This question doesn't make sense because it includes the assumption that my definition of government is a definition of crime. That is false."

It is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, which is it, where is this false stuff you are accurately identifying with your finger of blame?

"What you are suggesting is not a definition, but merely a perception of government."

Now you claim to know what I am suggesting?

I am doing no such thing. I know how to prevent crime, there are many ways, and the most obvious, effective, reasonable, just, affordable, legitimate, workable, understandable, logical, effective, economical, moral, productive, and least destructive way, even to the criminals, is to stop paying the criminals so well for each lie they tell.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (You are the Troops)
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2013, start now, finish early.

I can go into great detail concerning step by step, competitive, methods, by which government IS the step by step way to stop paying criminals for their perpetration of crimes.

As to your claims of what I am suggesting, as far as I can tell, you miss the point.

Wow!

You wrote this:

"You can't make a perception or a perceived means into a definition."

Presumably your words are targeting me for some reason.

Earlier you wrote this:

__________________________________________
This question doesn't make sense because it includes the assumption that my definition of government is a definition of crime. That is false.

In particular, my definition of government is that it is a certain idea rather than an action. A crime, as you've indicated above, is an action. Therefore, my definition can not be a definition of crime.
___________________________________________

Just poking at this idea, that is of no consequence?

"The assumption that government has something to do with stopping crime is also a related myth, but the function of government is only and always to legitimize evil actions."

It is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime.

Government did it.

No, government is only an idea,

No, government did it.

Crime is, but government cannot be anything other than crime, so therefore, I guess by this reasoning, there can never be any defense against crime, and if there is, by some miracle, that defense against crime can't be, by definition, called government.

Government can't be defense against crime, by definition, because government is an idea, not an action, so either there is no such thing as defense against crime, or at least there is no way, ever, to call defense against crime a word that already means what I say government means, which is just an idea, not an action, and defense against crime would be action, so defense against crime can't be government, and government is defined by me as I say it is, always, and forever, or at least government is defined by other people, people I call governors, as I say government is defined, forever, the way they, those governors, not me, as they define it, and I merely relay the definition that they say is the definition of government, which can't ever be any action in defense against crime.

So, I suppose, there is a question worth asking, at obvious risk, but none-the-less worth it in my judgment, what is the word used to label the process by which crime is no longer so profitable for the criminals at the expense of the victims?

I know that the criminals don't want the accurate answer to the question known by the victims, there is no money in the answer being known by the victims, which is reasonable of me to know this fact.

The criminals have no interest in finding a word that works to label the process by which the criminals are no longer paid so well.

But I can ask anyway, just in case an answer might arise from out of the blue.

What is the label used by people driven by the idea of Liberty, whereby these people work cooperatively, agreeably, effectively, and economically, toward reducing the pay rate paid to the criminals by the victims?

"if I may attempt to cut through your double talk"

You may make as many false claims, libel, upon me as you can get away with, absent a process by which I can defend myself against your libel.

"It's like saying that cloud up there looks like an elephant to you, so it's an elephant."

I can offer a competitive word for one of the many competitive processes by which people work effectively to reduce the injury to innocent people by criminals.

Accountability.

I can account for my own words, without your claims of libel upon me.

Your libel targeting me:

"It's like saying that cloud up there looks like an elephant to you, so it's an elephant."

I said no such thing. In fact, what I said, was that criminals define crime as they define it, as they perpetrate crime upon their victims, even as they may call what they are doing just, right, or whatnot. The crime of libel is defined by you now.

There is a process by which libelers can be prevented from accomplishing their injury upon their targeted victim.

I can account for my own words, I can be accountable.

I did not say anything having to do with a cloud looking like an elephant.

An IRS agent is a willful criminal, knowing that an IRS agent is perpetrating a crime, or an IRS agent is unknowingly perpetrating a crime, in any case whatsoever, not a cloud, not a cloud that looks like an elephant, but an IRS agent, a criminal, perpetrating a crime.

Some claim entitlement. Who believes those lies?

A competitive process by which a victim of an IRS Agent perpetrating a crime is no longer victim to the IRS Agent perpetrating the crime, is a competitive process by which a victim of an IRS Agent perpetrating a crime, and those events, driven by the idea of avoiding criminals, can be called something, a label, a name, a name for that process.

This might help (not you) but it helps me avoid any credit afforded to your libel upon me:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"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, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Being targeted by a libeler is costly. There are many forms of government available to any victim. One is accountability.

I can account for my own words and my own words are thereby offered in defense against the libelous attack being made upon me.

"if I may attempt to cut through your double talk"

If the attacker can show where my words are examples of "double talk," rather than a function of a combination of problems associated with communication, then I can know what "double talk" is, by that example provided by my own words.

Absent any inculpatory evidence, proving the case of "double talk," the charge is false, and the event is an example of libel.

"Saying it's an elephant because you perceive it to be an elephant is not useful."

The author of the speech involving clouds and elephants is not me, the author is self-evidently the actual person publishing those words, or his Man of Straw.

"In the same way, saying that government is the means by which victims seperate themselves from criminals because you perceive it that way is not useful."

Criminals have no use for any process by which the victims exemplify effective defense.

Here are a few examples of competitive efforts to effectively defend against criminals hiding behind a false front of authority:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B3no...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvEK7iMHdM

The most promising example of competitive government I see is that developing process of having a network of defenders ready to help someone during an attack by the criminals who are hiding behind a false front of authority; the process being developed in the first link.

Carl Miller offers much in the way of effective use of government as a power of defense against crime committed by criminals hiding behind the false front of authority.

The false authority over me, the one claiming that I have written "double talk" can prove the case, or continue attacking me with libel, as this case may be a process seeking an accurate label.

Discussion?

Joe

Ideas have consequences.

I'll leave it at that.

Here's an example:

Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes.

Translation: We have the right to rob you.

Here's my Motto!

It's my Constitution, right or wrong, it's mine and I will defend it, and advocate for it. You have to have a foundation. That's mine.

It is true if you repeat a lie often enough, you think it's a fact. Refusing to keep in mind the difference is regrettable.

A record being historical never proved "the Constitution was a Usurpation of Liberty." If you are referring to specific writings, I would gladly review such, and form my opinion of their factual actuality.