24 votes

The Difference between Voluntary Collectivism and Forced Collectivism

Wikipedia explains, "Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture). Collectivist orientations stress the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an 'in-group', in what specific context it is defined) and in some cases, the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists often focus on community, society, nation or country."

There is a difference between voluntary collectivism and forced collectivism. The argument that libertarians and/or voluntaryists don't believe in and advocate for the better good of society and our communities is generally wrong in my opinion. We LOVE our communities. We love helping society. We just don't like your community or your society telling our society how to organize ourselves, and we really hate your society forcing us to fund your society....the collective "your."

The difference is that voluntarily organizing into groups is natural and necessary, and all human beings generally want to be part of some community. We want to live in societies that reinforce our beliefs and values, keep us safe from outside forces, and foster growth and development of our children.

Forced collectivism is not natural and requires that you abide by rules and laws created by outside groups, groups with dissimilar interests...a one size fits all approach that doesn't fill all. Experimental societal structures are disallowed, disapproved, and stifled.

___




Comment viewing options

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

Wouldn't all collectivism eventually become forced?

The collective will always eventually impose on the individual.

So, how do you change

So, how do you change people's comprehension and behavior?

http://www.dailypaul.com/299633/can-you-free-yourself-and-ot...

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

great post

As an example, there is nothing wrong with communism from a libertarian perspective, as long as everyone is participating voluntarily. There is a commune in central Virginia that has been operating there since 1967. They practice communism and everyone is participating voluntarily. I say good for them, they are not hurting anyone. The problem is that these same people would probably object to a free market anarchism community next town over.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Mike Lee, Liberty Conservative calls for community

I think Senator Mike Lee of Utah who has been fighting the good fight for liberty, captures the distinction well. Libertarians and conservatives talk too much about self reliance, individualism, and freedom and not enough about community and relationships.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/UTD

"While it may seem counterintuitive for a conservative to speak positively of community — after all, President Barack Obama has been noted for his work as a “community organizer” — Lee explained that conservatives have “abandoned words like “together,” “compassion,” and “community”… as if their only possible meanings were as a secret code for statism.”

“Collective action doesn’t only – or even usually – mean government action,” Lee noted. “Conservatives cannot surrender the idea of community to the Left, when it is the vitality of our communities upon which our entire philosophy depends. Nor can we allow one politician’s occasional conflation of ‘compassion’ and ‘bigger government’ to discourage us from emphasizing the moral core of our worldview."

Every statist "argument" goes like this ...

...

(1) Problem X exists, it is bad, and we must solve it.

(2) ONLY government can solve Problem X.

(3) Therefore, we need a law to solve Problem X.

It's that damn #2 that is the real problem.

Or

To add to 3) make a law or a tax! Or both.

Wikipedia's definition of collectivism sucks!

Wikipedia's definition of collectivism sucks!

Collectivism is NOT cooperation between and among individuals. Cooperation is a natural activity among sovereign beings who voluntarily work together to accomplish things no single individual could achieve on their own.

Collectivism is an ancient, primitive, superstitious way of thinking about and interacting with other human beings that subjugates the interests of the individual to the interests of the group. However, a few individuals always manage to exploit the collectivist imperative for their own benefit in the name of the common good.

Collectivism is a dehumanizing way of thinking about other human beings that reduces all individuals to members of various groups and ignores the inherent sovereignty of each and every human being. Our governments are thoroughly collectivist because no one of us is considered to have any individual sovereignty and government officials interact with us exclusively as members of various groups - all carefully and extensively recorded in massive databases - and never ever as individuals. Our federal, state and local governments consider our identity to be nothing more or less than the sum of all the database groups to which we belong.

The politician's work is balancing the interests of various groups against each other for the purpose of accumulating more and more personal power and wealth. To all politicians, you exist only as a member of some group or other, which in turn determines how much attention to give you.

Collectivism always shows itself in the end to be a highly successful strategy for advancing individual self interest of the leaders at the expense of all the rest. Individuals who rise to power by cynically promoting collectivism always end up being the most extreme examples of selfishness, perfect embodiments of the individualism so decried by collectivism. This is true even when clever leaders create the illusion of compassion and self sacrifice as a cover for their accumulation of enormous wealth and influence. The vast majority of individuals, who actually believe the collectivist lies, suffer a declining overall well being, while the leaders, who never did actually believe in collectivism, benefit spectacularly at the expense of the rest. A successful collectivist is the perfect refutation of collectivism.

Ruin is always the end result for an individual who believes the collectivist lies. The individual who survives or thrives within a collectivist society is the one who only pays lip service to the lies and actually practices individualism. Instead of subordinating their desires and ambitions to an imaginary, non-existent common identity they ignore the collectivist propaganda and concentrate attention on removing their own unease and seek always to increase their own well being.

Exclusive Privileges = Privileged Trade & Privileged Contracts

Much of the corruption in our government(s) comes from government granting exclusive privileges;

Something the founders never intended to exist.

Read more on this in -

Privileges and Contracts:

http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

The right to assemble (or not).

-

Free includes debt-free!

I don't think there is voluntary collectivism

The point of collectivism is to be a justification for some men to trample the rights of other men in the name of the greater good or collective.

I understand your point, but I use the term collective action to describe what you want to call 'voluntary' collectivism.

I have never seen anyone who called themselves a collectivist that didn't want to be the one who had the authority of the collective, which is by their definition greater than that of the individual.

Individualism isn't about saying the individual is greater than all of society, it's the recognition that ultimately that anyone who claims to speak for the collective, is really just an individual who wishes greater privilege than his fellow man.

There really isn't a collective, there's just some guy with a costume hat who claims privilege.

If the point of collectivism isn't to trample the individual, then why do you need it? What does it mean?

Individuals can act cooperatively perfectly fine without the addition of an ideology that only adds one thing to the equation, a justification for predation on fellow humans.

Without the concept of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, (or the needs of whites outweighing the needs of blacks, or the needs of non jews outweighing the needs of jews or the needs of men outweighing the needs of women, all forms of collectivism) people can cooperate perfectly well, and we think better, than the implied or realized threat of collective coercion.

Individualism results in what I would consider real human collectivism, which would be the collective acting without some individuals forcing some other individuals at the point of a gun.

Spontaneous order.

What people do when they aren't brandishing weapons at each other. That's the sort of 'collectivism' I can get behind.

The fact that no collectivist would ever reject the possibility of using guns against their fellow men tells me this is not the sort of 'collectivism' they really mean. In fact they positively lust for the guns

What they really mean is they want the guns and to order others about. Some men with guns and threats. That's all it is.

Ditto: but, the proper terms of distinction should be between

collectivISM vs. voluntary collectIVE.

When it comes to these things, defining the terms properly, should be the first order of things. Then, its practically accepted usage, be it right or bastardized form of its original definition, etc.

To wit:

A "collectIVE" is just a group of individuals with shared values. But the term itself is wholly neutral: it doesn't dictate forcibly enforceable 'group values.' It's wholly voluntary.

For instance: the R3VOLution is a collective, in a broad sense. But is there some R3VOL dictator or committee that hands out membership card or force a 'council of R3VOL Elders' dictates?

Nope.

On the other hand, "collectivISM"/"collectivIST" is defined as having a group of individuals (ie, a collective), whom, INTERDEPENDENTLY stick together for the sake of perceived common values where the harmony of the group supersedes the needs of any one individual within that group.

But, in reality, a collective based on collectivISM in its manifestation can only exist to equalize everyone's 'rights' forcibly, and assumes that the arbitrary group 'values' are more important than the individual. Worse, politically it means exerting the collective will (majority vote mob rule) not only over their particular collective, but over other collectives as well as individuals who don't share their values, nor may even want to be in their group.

So, yes: you CAN have a voluntary collective.

But, as soon as that collective chooses to exercise power while rationalizing 'it's for the greater good,' and that their collective by default, due to the perceived nature of the values that the 'group' hold, each member of that group derives certain power or more powers than those outside of their group, worse exert said perceived powers over others?

Then, that collective just became collectivists.

So to be simple, yes, you CAN have a voluntary collective, because it just means a group of individuals who share similar values or traits, got together to do something together, voluntarily.

But, no: in the political vernacular sense, as defined, "collectivism" CANNOT be "voluntary" in the strict definitional sense, because that 'philosophical' belief system assumes that it has "group rights," and that one derives certain 'right' simply by the virtue of being a member of that group.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Great stuff there

You are describing voluntarist communitarianism. There is a recognition that each of us is born into a group or one sort or another and as one enters adulthood he maintains those familial/cultural ties or he chooses different affiliations. The goal of adolescence is to master individuation, then affiliation.

I believe the concept of sovereign man is the misnoner - no such animal exists. They key is choice and the level of abstraction. Does a person seek identity and cohesion close to home, on the internet, or does he see himself as part of a larger whole?

Our rugged American individualists built successful interdependent communities all over this great country.

Psychologically speaking, can a person tolerate the intimacy and compromise that is required to maintain relationships? Or, does he assault anyone else that comes too close to him in his sandbox? Conversely, is he a codependent animal that can only function if his own ego is subsumed or buttressed by others? Life is a balance. Communities prosper under the same dynamic equilibrium.

I speak about it here in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LepgD5fRyBY

Oh but

Reading what you said again, no. We are not a collective.

We just aren't. Not in the vague or specific sense. Have you talked to us much?;)

We do agree for starters:

* : Our particular rulers are jacked up.

further most of us think

* : We're pretty much tired of rulers period and want to go back to the rule of law as codified in the Constitution.

some of us in turn think

* : We're SERIOUSLY tired of ruleERS and want all law to be consensual.

I can love you whichever way you land, but I will certainly be more fond of you if you wish all relationships to be voluntary:D

Precisely: that's why I specifically stated "..in a BROAD sense"

"For instance: the R3VOLution is a collective, in a broad sense."

I'd ask you to revisit the definition portion. The dictionary definition of a collective is just a group of individuals identified by shared traits, interests, values, who come together, sometimes for an enterprise, other times just a collaborative effort. That's all.

A collective does NOT mean those who voluntarily join believe that by mere virtue of being member of that group necessitates that they now have special status or power, or are deserved a special set of powers solely reserved to them.

However, a collectiVIST on the other hand, by definition, believes that for the sake of the group (whether you're part of his/her group or not), that he/she or his/her select group of cohorts can arbitrarily deem that they solely have the power to decide what is good for the whole, and the obnoxiously nebulous nonexistent and unicorny "greater good," and any action taken to uphold that said nonexistent arbitrary "greater good"/whatever artificially designated idea of what that group supposedly stands for, can and should be sanctioned.

None of that is going on here. no?

For simplicity, people should simply swap the word "collective" with "group," then it's a lot easier to understand. A "group" is a neutral word, that just means 'a collection of individuals with an identifiable trait(s),' tis all.

We do agree for starters:

* : Our particular rulers are jacked up.

further most of us think

* : We're pretty much tired of rulers period and want to go back to the rule of law as codified in the Constitution.

some of us in turn think

* : We're SERIOUSLY tired of ruleERS and want all law to be consensual.

Agree with most of it, except I never saw/see anyone as my "rulers" or "leaders"; even in the strict minarchist Constitutionalist paradigm: they're public SERVANTS, not "rulers."

LOL. frankly if anyone agreed with just one of your cited criteria, and likes Ron Paul, and made an account here at Daily Paul, you've just become a r3VOL!

Besides, last I checked I don't think anyone's handing out r3VOLution membership card xD

Plus, just because you can be identified with a group, doesn't mean you hold a membership-card, or somehow you MUST go along with the predominant direction that a majority in within that given group is moving in.

However, you are already certainly part of one collective already: frankly, the fact that anyone is commenting here, makes them all part of the DailyPaul collective!

Does that mean we all have to do everything together or agree on everything?

LOL! obviously not.D

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Who has the power?

I belong to no voluntary group whenever some individual, or whenever many individuals sharing the same ACTION, demands my participation against my knowledge or against my will, or by active fraud, threat, or violence.

For someone else to claim to have the power to make me belong to whatever they claim I belong to, including a claim that says one word, such as collectivism, means what they say it means, despite what I say it means, is someone, or many people doing the same thing, making a claim of having power over me as I define words myself.

Collectivism imposed by fraud, threat, and violence is a synonym for crime, and calling it involuntary is merely repeating the facts of the case of crime in progress.

That is my way of communicating the facts, despite anyone else claiming otherwise, and when someone else claims that my effort to define the meanings of words is false, then they resort to Involuntary Collectivism, since I know, in fact, that I still have the power to define the meaning of the words I intend to employ for the purposes I decide to accomplish with words.

There is no way one person can negotiate with another person honestly if one person usurps the other persons power to agree to the meaning of words. Dictatorship is a process employed by dictators. There is one born every minute?

Joe

I frankly would agree with most of what you wrote above.

That said, you would only be correct to write:

I belong to no voluntary group whenever some individual, or whenever many individuals sharing the same ACTION, demands my participation against my knowledge or against my will, or by active fraud, threat, or violence.

IF the point you think you're rebutting, is what I actually said or asserted against, in the previous reply box.

No such thing happened.

Now, your above line of reasoning, along with the rest of your above reply, is only possible and apt, only if you honestly believe that I said, or in the abstract, generally believe that a "collect-ive" is the same thing as "collect-ivism."

They are not.

I'd ask that you re-visit ACTUAL definitions of those two terms; a "collect-ive" is NOT a group of individuals who AUTOMATICALLY believe in or subscribe to "collect-ivism."

That, would be "collect-ivists."

The terms "collect-IVE" and "collect-IVISM"/"collect-IVIST" (someone who subscribes to collect-ivism)" are NOT the same.

Plus, my above reply to Faithkills was on my slightly joking point that r3VOL and DailyPaul membership CAN be BROADLY described as a collective.

Again, a collective, BY DEFINITION, just means a group of individuals coming together who share common/similar traits or values, to do something or collaborate.

For example, when you VOLUNTARILY JOIN, or you and your buddies get together to start a punk-rock band, you just became part of a VOLUNTARY collective.

In that example, what you DIDN'T become part of, is some super duper high-art govt or corporatist 'cultural ministry' which decides what laughably constitutes 'proper' punk-rock, establish checklist to determine so, or what it should be and declare yourself a Punk-rock Committee/Politburo who take votes to dictate the criteria for the rest of the music industry or society, and do something even worse: enforce fiat dictat via armed thugs.

A Punk-Rock Police?

Yes, an anti-establishment po-po! yay??

LOL!!!

For reference, please read my first reply to Faithkills:

Ditto: but, the proper terms of distinction should be between

A "collectIVE" is just a group of individuals with shared values. But the term itself is wholly neutral: it doesn't dictate forcibly enforceable 'group values.' It's wholly voluntary.

For instance: the R3VOLution is a collective, in a broad sense. But is there some R3VOL dictator or committee that hands out membership card or force a 'council of R3VOL Elders' dictates?

Nope.

On the other hand, "collectivISM"/"collectivIST" is defined as having a group of individuals (ie, a collective), whom, INTERDEPENDENTLY stick together for the sake of perceived common values where the harmony of the group supersedes the needs of any one individual within that group.

But, in reality, a collective based on collectivISM in its manifestation can only exist to equalize everyone's 'rights' forcibly, and assumes that the arbitrary group 'values' are more important than the individual. Worse, politically it means exerting the collective will (majority vote mob rule) not only over their particular collective, but over other collectives as well as individuals who don't share their values, nor may even want to be in their group.

So, yes: you CAN have a voluntary collective.

But, as soon as that collective chooses to exercise power while rationalizing 'it's for the greater good,' and that their collective by default, due to the perceived nature of the values that the 'group' hold, each member of that group derives certain power or more powers than those outside of their group, worse exert said perceived powers over others?

Then, that collective just became collectivists.

So to be simple, yes, you CAN have a voluntary collective, because it just means a group of individuals who share similar values or traits, got together to do something together, voluntarily.

I think these days, especially with rise in visibility of constructionist Constitutionalism to libertarian to voluntaryist thought within the public political discourse spheres, you can observe a lot of words being thrown about w/bastardized meaning: ie "classical liberal" vs. liberal, to the point now that where we almost HAVE to say it's "libertarian."

Likewise, the term "collect-ive" because it's obviously similar-sounding to "collectiv-IST," that to many, the two terms have erroneously become synonymous, and/or are wrongly considered: interchangeable.

They are NOT.

Here's where it gets worse. To be truly be specific, the term "cooperative" is more commonly understood to be VOLUNTARY. But in bastardized modern political context it's predominantly ONLY seen as some commie-commune, when all that means is people VOLUNTARILY coming together to do something.

But here's the thing, both collective and co-ops ARE voluntary. Unfortunately, contemporarily speaking, in practical political discourse: they're just spoken differently in political context. However, they both mean a group of individuals who VOLUNTARILY came together based on common/similar shared values, to do something, or simply be together to share ideas.

They're all just fancy words to describe a "group," a neutral term to describe more than one person who can be identified by a certain trait or values.

To clarify further: if something didn't exist before, and no one forced you to join, when you and your friends get together to start a co-op or a collective, by definition, there is NO WAY in hell you can do that, WITHOUT doing it voluntarily.

Because when something didn't exist before, it by definition cannot exist without voluntary active participatory action to form something; a group of individuals physically, consciously, actively HAVE TO DECIDE to come together TO form something. And that 'coming together?' Can only inherently BE voluntary.

Can I leave freely?

Now, what later generations do with that initial voluntary compact or social associations, is wholly another matter: ie. the Constitution. Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States (Lysander Spooner's critique of the obvious aside, for the sake of conversation, speaking strictly within minarchist constructionist Constitutionalist confines). Now, the statists claim you can't leave, ie secede.

Apropos of previous Punk-rock band example, essentially, Lincoln's aggression ended up murdering 850,000+ souls (most recent estimate) to forcibly prevent you from leaving the 'punk rock band,' so to speak. Which again addresses my previous point; how do you determine whether something's truly voluntary?

Now, as for your following statement:

That is my way of communicating the facts, despite anyone else claiming otherwise, and when someone else claims that my effort to define the meanings of words is false, then they resort to Involuntary Collectivism, since I know, in fact, that I still have the power to define the meaning of the words I intend to employ for the purposes I decide to accomplish with words.

There is no way one person can negotiate with another person honestly if one person usurps the other persons power to agree to the meaning of words.

Yes, I agree completely!

And yet, there's nothing more ironic than someone demanding to stick to word definitions, who is not aware of actual word definitions.

Now assuming you read all my words up to this point, and even after reading/at the least perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness, if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles.

But, other than to highly recommend that one avoids commenting 'in medias res'? No bigs, though. C'est la vie .0)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

No argument

What would be the point?

My response was in agreement with the concept of words being a voluntary agreement to share the meaning of the word that is thereby employed for the purpose or reaching the goal of accurate communication.

My favorite example of the opposite is the word Federalist.

There were these criminals, Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams to name just three. They were covertly and overtly working to enforce a Monopoly of Force or Dictatorship, and to do so they called themselves Federalists and they promised a Free Market of Government arrangement known then as a Confederation. It was proven to work as a voluntary free market version of government, proven in the case that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

So the Usurpers called themselves Federalists, but they were actually the despots, monarchists, consolidated government monopolists, seeking the power of legal extortion and the legal money monopoly power. They gave themselves the false front label of Federalist.

That was quite a feat, but the real magic done by these criminals, again the 3 notable names being Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams, managed, somehow, to make the opposition gain the false label of Anti-Federalist, when in fact, the opposition to the false Federalists were those people promoting the actual free market government design known as Federalism.

Is that not a prime example of how words are dictated into being and they are false on purpose?

"Because when something didn't exist before, it by definition cannot exist without voluntary active participatory action to form something; a group of individuals physically, consciously, actively HAVE TO DECIDE to come together TO form something. And that 'coming together?' Can only inherently BE voluntary."

I see a competitive viewpoint, but again argument is not the point to me. The goal is a free market of ideas, and let the higher quality one, and the lower cost one, be accepted or rejected in any case.

People forced into spending time defending against the criminals, and especially those criminals with false badges, false licenses, and real aggressive violence, are not gathering together in the strict sense of voluntary cooperation. The defenders cooperate voluntarily, but the cause of the action is driven by fraud, threat, or violence from an involuntary source.

"Can I leave freely?"

If you do then there is one less defender, you are certainly free to go, and if the attackers are very present dangers, you may likely be caught up and enslaved, having freely gone away from the defenders, and then you can ask your company of criminals if you are free to go at that point.

I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
—Samuel Adams

"Now, what later generations do with that initial voluntary compact or social associations, is wholly another matter: ie. the Constitution. Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States..."

That is false in fact. The concept of Consolidating the voluntary association into an involuntary one was well known at the time as proven by those who attended those Secret Proceedings (later to be re-branded as The Constitutional Convention or Con (Job) Con) and furthermore there were many opponents (George Mason, Patrick Henry to name just two) who were blowing the whistle on the Usurpation of out with the voluntary and in with the involuntary con job.

Lysansder Spooner merely broke down the absurdity of Usurpation later on.

"Lincoln's aggression..."

In entertaining conversation that line of thinking may be fun, but to me it misses the point. The Dirty Compromise done during the Usurpation leading to the Involuntary Association take over of the former voluntary association, or The Constitution Fraud, almost made certain that there would be a so called Civil War because soon enough the Slave Traders of the South would realize that they were as duped by the Usurpation as were any other idiot not able to see past the true intentions, the true goal, which was a working Monopoly Extortion Cabal hidden behind a Monopoly Money Fraud.

"And yet, there's nothing more ironic than someone demanding to stick to word definitions, who is not aware of actual word definitions."

Ok, speaking of ironic occurrences. Who claims authority over a so called "actual" word definition?

Many words are claimed by many authorities whereby often is the case that those "actual" words have more than one meaning and often separate meanings are opposite,or contradictory when compared side by side.

Who now is claiming, (for my benifit?) what is or is not an "actual" word, and if I see no benefit, rejecting the quality of actuality, or actualness, of the word having this supposed quality, then is an army going to be referred to whereby this army forces me to accept this quality of accualness or actuality, despite any effort on my part to have nothing to do with the supposed word?

Who, and what army, is offering actualness of which word?

I may accept it, having a use for it, or I may not. What is the point of the offer of actualness, or is it not an offer?

If it is not an offer of some quality of actualness then might it be more along the lines of a dictate?

"Now assuming you read all my words up to this point, and even after reading/at the least perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness, if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles."

Reading does not often reach the goal of accurate communication, in my experience.

I have, and I can again, use the word Collective to convey, accurately, a group of people comprising an entity as such.

I have, and I can again, point to a bee hive, for example, and I can say to someone, look at where I am pointing, do you see that, and the person I intend to accurately communicate to looks past or around where I am pointing.

Suppose we are walking and the intended focus of my effort to communicate is alined where his head may contact the swarm of bees in the bee hive.

I say, look at the collective. Right there, and I get closer and I point more accurately.

In this fictional example I can invent any outcome, but the principle intended to be communicated to you is real, it happens, so your help here is not needed, if you think you are going to help me realize some nebulous "actual" meaning of some word.

I can use the word collective as I please to accomplish the goals I set, and in the example case, if the intended target of may accurate communication is able to get the message intact, as I intend the message to be delivered, then the goal is reached,and the word used serves the purpose.

"if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles."

We will do no such thing. If the words I offer appear to reach a point of diminishing returns, as if my estimate is that there is no use in further efforts to communicate accurately with you, then I will find competitive things to do with my time.

Your experiences with other people do not automatically apply to me, if that is your reasoning for attaching me into your collectivized group of "we," as in "we simply are gonna talk in circles."

If that is what you are doing, collecting me up into some nebulous group of people who, in your experience, "talk in circles," then such an offer is hereby rejected.

No thanks.

Joe

Gee Josf, that's actually a pretty sweet verbal concoction of

a whole lot of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs.0)

Very well stated, nonetheless.

I think you and I both agree on the essential concepts being discussed here: Voluntary vs. Coercive.

But sticking to the initial point of contention is the definition of the terms "collect-ivism" and VOLUNTARY "collect-ive."

That said, indeed what is the point if you and I can't even agree on word definitions?

A Collective does not automatically mean that a member of that group is a collect-ivist.

So...the whole punk rock band example didn't take, eh?

C'est la vie.

Now, I wouldn't ask anyone to 'look at what I was discussing with someone else, before you reply on that particular matter.' That said, seeing as how you decided to bring it up, I'd direct you to this previous comment I stated with another member, to illustrate the point that you're expending words on points not made nor promoted by me:

Can I leave freely?" was obviously a rhetorical point, if you read down further and found the following:

Yes, you CAN fully expatriate (on paper),

As for me, personally? I CHOOSE NOT to leave America, because I want to be/see the change while I and my loved ones are here.

It's commendable that you see yourself distantly included in the broad philosophic sphere of the Sons of Liberty archetype, but considering what I actually stated, makes your following point moot:

If you do then there is one less defender, you are certainly free to go, and if the attackers are very present dangers, you may likely be caught up and enslaved, having freely gone away from the defenders, and then you can ask your company of criminals if you are free to go at that point.

I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
—Samuel Adams

It's actually kinda sweet, your whole 'stay here or else, the following bad shiit may happen to you, and you're coward, and I'm gonna tell your mommy! meh!'-guilt trip.

LOL

But seeing as how you took the time to reply with elegant-ish deployment of classical literary devices and lyrical structure, I feel almost compelled to oblige.

So, let us go forth, shall we?

1. As I've stated before, I frankly agree with a lot of what you have to say; I think you're actually taking this a little more personally than I am, judging by your highly elegant, yet still very much verbally forceful response.

So if you will, just keep the following in mind: I questioned your response in context of previous on going discussion about the proper word definition of voluntary-"collective" vs. coercive "collectivism/collectivist" and how it's used in 'accepted' political context (however bastardized it maybe) vs. its original definition/application.

NOT about fundamentals of voluntary vs. coercive (funny how you don't have a problem clearly defining and distinguishing between those two simple concepts), nor whether I'll be staying here in America, or not.

2. Considering a few of the past comments made by you that I've had a chance to read, I would honestly say that you and I are pretty much philosophically in alignment, on core individual sovereignty principles.

3. I wholly agree with you, about variable subjective range of somewhat arbitrary nature of almost every single terms that humans use.

4. I agree with you about what Federalists actually WERE, versus what the term actually means: derived from Latin "foedus," as in contract, a compact, or covenant.

So in point of fact, in some ways, the "Anti-Federalists" of the day were actual "federalists" who understood and abided by the concept of federalism.

5. I agree with you about Washington et al & Shay's Rebellion.

6. I also understand the point you are making by invoking the bastardization of the term "federalist" vs, what it actually was, vs. how those who ran with that banner perverted it, and how historically the bastardized version and actors come to actually represent the term, by and large.

Is that not a prime example of how words are dictated into being and they are false on purpose?

Yes, it is a prime example. Yet, bad actors falsely claiming a political banner still does not change the fundamental definition of a term, now does it?

Assuming you and I don't bicker over arcane cultural etymological origins of how a term come to be, definitions of words we use to communicate should be clear.

I say that to illustrate and agree with you that humans are subjective inherently, so frankly it's a lie to ever claim "objectively speaking...", especially when uttered by us humans.

So, more accurately, it should be: "as objective as humanly possible," or the more 'esoteric:' "as objectively subjective as possible."

My response was in agreement with the concept of words being a voluntary agreement to share the meaning of the word that is thereby employed for the purpose or reaching the goal of accurate communication.

And, yes I too agree: considering the long unwritten nature of human communication to pictograms/hieroglyph to written words, common cultural usage and contextually broad origins of various words, does in fact make 100% accuracy in word definitions to be problematic.

Besides, like every other field, those who write the book, literally, often get to dictate what 'facts' are.

Who's to say that the 'committee' that ended up deciding the finalized each entry in a printed/bound dictionaries of yore were truly the language autho-ri-teh, let alone the modern Oxford English Dictionary's annual committee?

That said, setting the more philosophical point of contentions aside, for any conversation over a word definition to move forth, participants would have to agree on each individual's understanding of these terms, and that they must first be made clear, to each other. No?

In some ways, you invoking Federalists of yore, to be more or less historically defined by the actions of the notable militant actors runs into the same 'select individuals who claim to represent ____, mar the image of the group as a whole, as far as outside observers not members of that said group are concerned'-meme.

So, obviously, those who currently claim to be Federalists in the year 2013, ie members of the Federalist Society while maybe actually closer to those who claimed to be 'Federalists' of the Founders' era, in point of fact, definitionally-speaking, they are NOT "federalists," of the original Latin root word "foedus"-origin.

Just as how someone assumes that just because his mom's store's been robbed by a black teen, he then goes on to assume utterly ignorantly that 'all black teens are thieves' and word of mouth anecdotes spread and that becomes an accepted racist 'cultural' stereotype-'norm.'

Now, your example of invoking Federalists runs into the same problem: the erroneous stereotype come to de facto define the term, itself (observing history), regardless of the fact that the definition itself didn't change, but enough number of people's misunderstandings of the term did.

To wit, as you've stated:

The goal is a free market of ideas, and let the higher quality one, and the lower cost one, be accepted or rejected in any case.

Then, again, I agree with you, because what words mean, have ALWAYS been culturally determined, frankly how and what critical mass of people accept and use the term is, in fact more important, in practical terms, even if they all use it wrong, like the modern day "federalism," liberalism, and apropos of current discussion: "collective" vs. "collectivism."

But, if sticking to your above assertion, guess even if the "lower quality" one seems to be the prevailing one, you believe if enough people accept it, it should be so, because even wrong definitions accepted by enough idiots mean market forces just won, so those who know the actual definitions of the terms should deal?

Personally? I'd submit: NO.

You have such command of diction, yet, you've clearly failed to understand the following point you were rebutting, when I wrote

Because when something didn't exist before, it by definition cannot exist without voluntary active participatory action to form something; a group of individuals physically, consciously, actively HAVE TO DECIDE to come together TO form something. And that 'coming together?' Can only inherently BE voluntary.

I was clearly referring to the conscious human decision process involved in how a group of individuals DECIDE to come together to form or join a group, NOT the process in which HOW word definitions come to be accepted, as your reply suggests you think you're answering.

It should've been pretty 'a - b - c' clear as I stated the above AFTER I ALREADY first laid out a simple example of IF you and your buddies were to start or join a punk-rock band, that would be the most unmistakable example of a VOLUNTARY collective, for those who obviously are still confusing and assuming that A member of A "collect-ive," automatically means that they're somehow collect-IVISTS.

For example, when you VOLUNTARILY JOIN, or you and your buddies get together to start a punk-rock band, you just became part of a VOLUNTARY collective.

But as you state, "but again argument is not the point to me."

So, if the "argument is not the point" to you, then why are you even bothering to rebut someone's statement, when you're gonna only answer your own point unrelated to it, anyway?

As exemplified in your proceeding sentence, that I actually addressed in the above portion distinguishing how and why word definitions come to be:

I see a competitive viewpoint, but again argument is not the point to me. The goal is a free market of ideas, and let the higher quality one, and the lower cost one, be accepted or rejected in any case.

So, as you may imagine, how puzzled I would be that you'd equate my continuing example of using 'you and your buds VOLUNTARILY starting/joining a punk-rock band' as the most simplest example of a voluntary collective, can be twisted into, AS IF I promoted the following assertions you're making/rebutting a point that I NEVER made, nor asserted:

People forced into spending time defending against the criminals, and especially those criminals with false badges, false licenses, and real aggressive violence, are not gathering together in the strict sense of voluntary cooperation. The defenders cooperate voluntarily, but the cause of the action is driven by fraud, threat, or violence from an involuntary source.

LOL.

I'm all like Huh??

I never claimed that, even though, I agree with your explanation of what a coercive entity would do. But again, your voluntarily formed punk-rock band? NOT coercive. And your punk-rock band's fans & groupies?? NOT automatic statist apologists whose actions are "driven by fraud, threat, or violence from an involuntary source."

No?

LOL.

I understand you cut off the following for space & convenience, but the point I was trying to make is clearer, with it:

"Now, what later generations do with that initial voluntary compact or social associations, is wholly another matter: ie. the Constitution. Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States..."

That is false in fact. The concept of Consolidating the voluntary association into an involuntary one was well known at the time as proven by those who attended those Secret Proceedings (later to be re-branded as The Constitutional Convention or Con (Job) Con) and furthermore there were many opponents (George Mason, Patrick Henry to name just two) who were blowing the whistle on the Usurpation of out with the voluntary and in with the involuntary con job.

What I ACTUALLY WROTE:

Now, what later generations do with that initial voluntary compact or social associations, is wholly another matter: ie. the Constitution. Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States (Lysander Spooner's critique of the obvious aside, for the sake of conversation, speaking strictly within minarchist constructionist Constitutionalist confines). Now, the statists claim you can't leave, ie secede.

That doesn't say whether I know or believe whether men of the Founders generations were aware or unaware of "Consolidating the voluntary association into an involuntary one" (yeah, it's called irregular/unitary contracts).

Regardless, is any of that what I said or alluded to in that paragraph?

No.

But, yes, I AM however in agreement with you that the Const. Convention was a con job.

But again, you arguing and rebutting things I didn't, but I'm glad it added to the points that you THINK you disagree with me on, and can state with misplaced confidence, things like: "That is false in fact."

LOL. But that's okay, because I actually agree with you on those points, even though I've never refuted them, even though you replied LIKE I did xD

"Lincoln's aggression..."

In entertaining conversation that line of thinking may be fun, but to me it misses the point. The Dirty Compromise done during the Usurpation leading to the Involuntary Association take over of the former voluntary association, or The Constitution Fraud, almost made certain that there would be a so called Civil War because soon enough the Slave Traders of the South would realize that they were as duped by the Usurpation as were any other idiot not able to see past the true intentions, the true goal, which was a working Monopoly Extortion Cabal hidden behind a Monopoly Money Fraud.

Entertaining non sequiturs: proceeding to elaborate on non-disagreeable points to air them disagreeable, is always a bemusing literary past time, but sadly, need not apply here.

LOL =) I kid, 'cause I love.D

As for the following, it's just a repeat of my above statement on me actually agreeing with you on the subjective nature of humans and how words and languages come to be; just a rehash of what I already said.

That said, now, I've already stated what my understanding of these word definitions are with links to references, regardless of whether you want to wholly reject any and all modern dictionaries or not.

Then, shouldn't you actually state WHAT your understanding of the terms "collective" vs. "collectivism" is, or whether you still believe they refers to coercive entities?

"And yet, there's nothing more ironic than someone demanding to stick to word definitions, who is not aware of actual word definitions."

Ok, speaking of ironic occurrences. Who claims authority over a so called "actual" word definition?

Many words are claimed by many authorities whereby often is the case that those "actual" words have more than one meaning and often separate meanings are opposite,or contradictory when compared side by side.

Who now is claiming, (for my benifit?) what is or is not an "actual" word, and if I see no benefit, rejecting the quality of actuality, or actualness, of the word having this supposed quality, then is an army going to be referred to whereby this army forces me to accept this quality of accualness or actuality, despite any effort on my part to have nothing to do with the supposed word?

Who, and what army, is offering actualness of which word?

I may accept it, having a use for it, or I may not. What is the point of the offer of actualness, or is it not an offer?

If it is not an offer of some quality of actualness then might it be more along the lines of a dictate?

But, reading that, it's clear that you still seem to think that a Collect-ive automatically means it's a coercive collect-IVIST combine.

It is not.

Suppose you're beyond reproach and damn all the modern or arcane dictionaries. Even though most reputable ones from Oxford to Webster's Dictionary, and to certain extent, the aggregated 'dictionary,' aka. Wiki, all essentially state the same thing: a "collective" just means a group of individuals who voluntarily come together to do something, or discuss something; the definition doesn't intimate automatically that they're "collectivists," who believe they derive special rights and privileges by the mere virtue of being a member of that group. And worse, they believe that due to the interdependent nature and the emphasis on the 'harmony of the group' to be more important than any individual's needs, and the fact that they believe that everyone must participate for their group to function, they would not think twice before coercing such participation.

So my question to you, dear Good Sir, is:

Thouest speaketh thine own logos? If so, why art thou bloweth thine lyre, at all?

Now, I like to speak in my own personal rendition of the English language as anyone who loves words/wordplay. That said, if you're gonna simply reject not-your-own word definitions for terms that's already long been in political spheres of discourse, why bother debating these topics, if your final conclusion is always going to be, something along the lines of: 'all word definitions are arbitrary (agreed, though some are less arbitrary than others) so I'm simply gonna stick to my own, regardless of dictionary definitions!' ??

And plus, come on Josf. Brother, really:

"Who, and what army, is offering actualness of" YOUR word, again?

Yes, that sounded equally rhetorically ridiculous to me, too.

As for:

I say, look at the collective. Right there, and I get closer and I point more accurately.

In this fictional example I can invent any outcome, but the principle intended to be communicated to you is real, it happens, so your help here is not needed, if you think you are going to help me realize some nebulous "actual" meaning of some word.

I can use the word collective as I please to accomplish the goals I set, and in the example case, if the intended target of may accurate communication is able to get the message intact, as I intend the message to be delivered, then the goal is reached,and the word used serves the purpose.

I've literally never read anyone who took that long and went to such non-elaborate elaborate length to say, that you simply do not accept a word definition (even though a language by nature is only commonly communicable if enough people have common understanding of specific terms, within a culture of its initial origin), and you'll simply continue to choose to believe what you believe, and no one can tell you otherwise, meh!

LOL.

But again, I AGREE with you: I don't want to, nor have to convince you of anything, nor do I expect you to believe in something different than what you obviously already a-priori believed in, as exemplified with the length and conviction with which you chose to rebut.

Which again, brings me to inquire, then WhyTF are you even bothering to reply to me, let alone anyone?

In closing:

"if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles."

We will do no such thing. If the words I offer appear to reach a point of diminishing returns, as if my estimate is that there is no use in further efforts to communicate accurately with you, then I will find competitive things to do with my time.

"We will do no such thing."???

LOL, talk about a collectivist.

No: YOU will do no such thing, young man! ;0)

I, on the other hand: may, or may not choose to do such thing xD

Okay, okay, so to be fair, "we" in those contexts are 'drive-by' heuristic rhetorical literary devices, that really don't mean "we," but more like 'we' in the hypothetical, but really: a single solitary actor.

Now, seeing as how it's obvious that you have a pretty good command of diction, I find it unfathomable that you'd actually not 'get' the obviousness of the following rhetorically anticipatory statement, considering the sentence-flow of my reply that you've already been replying pretty well, so far (however disagreeably, on your part):

"Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles,"

It should be pretty obvious that, basically it's simply saying that beyond a certain point, both parties who have already aired their statements to each other obviously now know that they will be at a point of firm disagreement. As such, it's an expression of outward thinking that basically says: 'hey, you and I both know you're gonna say one thing, and I'm gonna say another, and I think it's pretty obvious by now that this conversation, at least on this particular topic, isn't going to go anywhere, so I offer this as a cordial closing.'

LOL. Yet what do you do, with that?

You go on about how beyond a pt. of "diminishing returns" it's pointless.

.o/ and I had so much plans planned ahead for us...

xD

Well, the fact that you replied in such length, makes me question your understanding of the concept of "diminishing returns," let alone the fact that you non-sarcastically state it rhetorically, as if you're actually feigning not expecting an answer back?

Come on, Josf, really?

But let's be factual, if you're pre-determining that it will already not likely to yield an acceptable level of return, it's not diminishing, it's long been expended.

Come on! Oh the drama. I can't stand it!

Ohhhh, but I truly truly love this: "then I will find competitive things to do with my time"

Sounds vaguely like an empty non-threat-threat-ish??

I actually don't know how to take that.

I know I'm not gonna be feeling guilty, but somehow I feel I should feel guilty that you actually had to tell me that you have better things to do than take a long ass time to rebut in a long ass verbiage, all to say that basically: "I ain't got time for this shiit." When you've obviously shown that you do have plenty-o-time.D

Though, I do like the 'I'm an uber capitalist'-garnish by invoking "competitive things to do."

No joke: I F'ng LOVE that!

Bravo. No seriously. I really like that!

I actually never come across anyone who talks like that before. So for that, I'd like to thank you for introducing me to Josf-speak.D

Now, as for this:

Your experiences with other people do not automatically apply to me, if that is your reasoning for attaching me into your collectivized group of "we," as in "we simply are gonna talk in circles."

If that is what you are doing, collecting me up into some nebulous group of people who, in your experience, "talk in circles," then such an offer is hereby rejected.

LOL! What movie script are you talking to me about again?

I don't remember EVER attaching experiences with other people to you, though if you are being honest, every single encounter you have with another human goes into honing your people reading skills. Unless, you're honestly alluding that we should ignore past experiences and interactions with others in the past as an initial point of holistic reference for future encounters. Which, I highly doubt that that is actually what you inferred.

Also, I never pulled you into a "we" of any kind. Which again, makes me truly wonder, beyond the cut & paste job, whether you actually even read my reply, nor the one I was previously replying, to before YOU decided to reply.

I distinctly remember this whole conversation (if I can even call it that) began with a discussion on word definitions between voluntary "collect-ive" vs. coercive "collect-ivist/collectivism".

And somehow we're now talking about how you determine word definitions, how you accept or don't accept other people's definitions (even though speaking in A language kinda means that various words are understood by more than just Josf), to you accusing me of pulling you into a non-existent 'we' that I never invoked nor made you an unproud member of, nor an offer I never proffered.

Like whoa. That was quite a neurotic roller-coaster I never signed up for, but thanks. It's been fun.D

Oh, what was the point again? What would be the point?

right.

LOL

Na, na na. I kid. I kid.

If you read it all up to this point, you'd realize that I've stated "I agree" with you, far more times than not.

So, be that as it may, Josf. No bigs. Stick to your own non-coercive 'dictionary,' my man. It's all good.)

It still doesn't change the word definitions, but no one's stoppin' ya: least of all me. Though I may still point it out, from time to time xD

Cheerio, with Philly Love.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

World choices?

"lot of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs"

My intention is to convey that which I agree to and that which I reject in response to your words. I do not choose to invent and employ a non-sequitur. If one exists in my writing then that one would serve as an example of a non-sequitur. If you do not offer an example of a non-sequitur, then your word choice could be nothing more than an attempt on your part to insult me.

"I think you and I both agree on the essential concepts being discussed here: Voluntary vs. Coercive."

I do not see much use in the word coercive because the word bottles up to much within the boundaries of crime, so what is the point in using that word choice?

I prefer to communicate the full measure of a problem I see in human action as a power struggle between Liberty and Legal Crime.

I choose those words for reasons that I can explain in detail.

I do not agree that the essential concepts are either/or voluntary or coercive. I can ask, if by way of my ignorance concerning what you mean to convey with the word coercive I can then know in your answer, if included in the word coercive is the power of lies working upon the victims by those using lies to gain at the expense of their targeted victims.

I won't waste my time hunting down an official definition while the user of the word is apparently able to answer the question directly.

Do you include the power of lies told by criminals upon their targeted victims as a part of the definition of coercion?

"That said, indeed what is the point if you and I can't even agree on word definitions?"

The point I was making did not have to do with my failure to agree to a specific definition of a specific word that you have in mind when you use a word you choose. Asking honest questions and gaining honest answers can easily make know the specific meaning intended in any case of doubt. On the other hand: I was in no position to agree to you defining the meaning of the words I choose to use in the context of the messages I intend to convey accurately, especially when your usurpation of my power to define the meaning of the words I use is a nebulous authority that you call "actual".

That makes no sense to me. When I use a definition of a word and the person I intend to communicate to understands that meaning, then that is, in that case, the actual meaning of the word, even if you claim otherwise.

"A Collective does not automatically mean that a member of that group is a collect-ivist."

I get that message, as far as I can tell, intact. That sentence conveys to me clear and unambiguous meaning, as far as I can tell.

The meaning is such that a false association, or prejudice, can happen when someone "automatically" assumes that a person is, or is not, what they are, or are not, based upon incomplete, or false, information.

Here may be a person who does this or that, and an observer categorizes what that person does based upon false, and even misleading, information, and then the observer attributes false associations upon the person being observed.

Collectivist could be a brand name of some registered trade mark, patents pending, whereby the label can only be officially used by those having that license, according to those who enforce such things, and yet someone collecting payments with a collection plate in church could falsely be accused of using the trade mark name of Collectivist (tm), whereby the innocent victim is punished for stealing the brand name.

The innocent victim can claim as much as he wishes that he never used the word Collectivist himself, that someone else fingered him with that word, to no avail, if the automatic response to charges of stealing the brand name is to torture the accused (found guilty by false association or prejudice) and then burn the Collectivist alive, at least the one without the license.

"So...the whole punk rock band example didn't take, eh?"

I had fun with the punk rock band example, thanks, why would you assume, automatically, that it did not take, if that is what you are now doing, figuratively burning me at the stake?

Your words are more and more appearing to me as thinly veiled insults.

"I stated with another member, to illustrate the point that you're expending words on points not made nor promoted by me"

The point earlier conveyed to you as Diminishing Returns is reached with those words above, as your words appear to convey a prejudice you are aiming at me, a false association that you are automatically placing upon me.

If by chance it is merely a case of my failure to understand the words and if by chance it is my own automatic false association at work, I can press past that measure of that point at which there is from here on a lack of return on investment declining into nothingness, on the chance that I am wrong.

So I can read on, with figurative trepidation: sicks and stones...

"your following point moot"

That which is moot in your eyes is not automatically moot in my eyes. If you see no mootness connecting those competitive words, for whatever reason, that is, in my opinion, less important compared to the fact that now those words by Sam Adams are gaining currency; the more people repeating them in print or in reading or speaking, the better as far as I can see - currently.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's actually kinda sweet, your whole 'stay here or else, the following bad shiit may happen to you, and you're coward, and I'm gonna tell your mommy! meh!'-guilt trip.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For those reading this other than this individual who obviously resorts to insults as a means of communicating I can convey some information as to where I am coming from and where I am going with the concept of defending Liberty.

During the Waco televised sacrifice by burning alive people including pregnant mothers I had had enough of people telling me how wrong I am, concerning my present (at that time) inspiration to defend Liberty.

I tried to join the armed march on Washington started (but did not go far) by Linda Thomson. I made the phone call to join up, despite trepidations expressed by my wife, having 2 children left without my help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1b-PHdFZU
I have my own original VHS copies from Linda Thomson

Then I took the steps required to get my name on the National Ballot in 1996 as a congressional Candidate.

Since then I have been relentlessly, persistently, looking for effective methods to counter the crimes perpetrated "in my name" with my earnings stolen from me.

I was part of the effort to serve every congressmen in every district in these United States (so called) legal notices of redress. Those legal notices were delivered in almost every district and they were ignored.

I have written to the kidnapped Adam Kokesh, he has responded, and I add this because I think that it is important to credit those who risk so much for Liberty even when their actions may not be the wisest or most effective actions imaginable. Who is to say what works and what does not work in defense of Liberty: the kidnappers who burn pregnant women alive?

Currently there is a group being formed Nation wide called the National Liberty Alliance.

I plan on attending my second meetup next Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66DY0rVoG00

Where I am coming from the person who is now resorting to insults upon me, as a means of communicating, is identified as such by me.

Here is the evidence:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's actually kinda sweet, your whole 'stay here or else, the following bad shiit may happen to you, and you're coward, and I'm gonna tell your mommy! meh!'-guilt trip.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That is an opinion concerning this:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
—Samuel Adams

If I have the evidence understood, then it is the opinion of this forum member that someone, somewhere, is guilty of this:

"stay here or else, the following bad shiit may happen to you, and you're coward, and I'm gonna tell your mommy! meh!'-guilt trip"

The accusation is clearly aimed at me.

"your whole 'stay here..."

If I could find a place on this Earth where people like this forum member are no longer attacking innocent people for fun and profit, or whatever reason imaginable, and if I could afford to go there, and if my loved ones would go there with me, and they could afford to go there too, then I might consider moving.

Defense of Liberty makes more sense to me, compared to moving.

That is the message offered by Sam Adams, in my competitive opinion.

So now there are two competitive opinions offered in this "discussion" between myself and the forum member who resorts to insult.

The meaning of the words from Sam Adams is:

1.
It's actually kinda sweet, your whole 'stay here or else, the following bad shiit may happen to you, and you're coward, and I'm gonna tell your mommy! meh!'-guilt trip.

LOL

2.
Defensive of Liberty is not for everyone, so go voluntarily on your way the other way, as you please, and what happens to you on your way is the bed you make so you will lie in it.

I can't speak for Sam Adams, the words written by Sam Adams were chosen by Sam Adams, and well chosen words in my opinion.

The words chosen by the forum member resorting to insult as a means of communicating are well chosen too; perhaps.

The concept of a Jury is such that criminals will perpetrate worse crimes as time goes by if criminals are paid very well for each crime, paid by their targeted victims, and a Jury is formed so as to place a defensive power in between the criminal and the victim, so as to avoid the abandonment of victims who are currently being victimized, sometimes even burned alive, by those criminals, and furthermore, and in stark contrast to unlimited government (legal crime), a Jury must avoid becoming criminals as innocent people may be accused of perpetrating crimes.

Presumption of innocence is a method by which a Jurist can avoid false claims of guilt.

A willful claim of guilt upon someone who is innocent, for example, can be an example of a verbal crime.

Example:
The Sinful Messiah false propaganda campaign perpetrated by those at the Media Companies producing those false condemnations of people in a church in Waco Texas in 1992.

The concept of a Common Law Grand Jury is such that regular (unlicensed) people can elect among themselves members of a watchdog group that works to accurately identify criminals and victims and then these Juries have the Common Law Power, recognized by The Supreme Court of the (false) United States, in their own legal, documented, opinions.

So, in short, a Common Law Grand Jury is a means of redress by which regular people can license themselves as legal Grand Juries according to National Law Enforcement.

That may be difficult to understand, and it is not often resorted to, but a possible example of a "citizen" Grand Jury having actually worked is a case involving the Judge in the resent Zimmerman Case whereby a Grand Jury of this type was formed and used to hold the Judge to account for crimes perpetrated by the Judge against Zimmerman.

Some people are working diligently to hide evidence that may exist whereby the evidence proves how regular people can legally defend Liberty and do so without any resort to lies, threats, or violence.

So why do people work effectively at hiding such information? What is their pay off, what is the point, the inspiration?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But seeing as how you took the time to reply with elegant-ish deployment of classical literary devices and lyrical structure, I feel almost compelled to oblige.

So, let us go forth, shall we?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Note the twisting of words in this case, and as far as I am concerned all reasonable doubt as to the intent to insult is gone, whereby the aggressive attacker is "almost compelled to oblige," and then continues. So why twist words? If you are almost compelled to reply then that means that you are not compelled to reply. If the reference has to do with some nebulous fault (elegant-ish) and the "obligation" is to "almost" resort to tit for tat, eye for an eye, and then be "elegant-ish" in return for my supposed "elegant-ish" choice of words, then I can be misunderstanding the "obligation" as being not an "obligation" to reply, but instead an "obligation" to stoop to my level of being "elegant-ish," and in that case the intent to resort to insult is made even more obvious.

Either:

1. Not inspired to reply but replies anyway.
2. Not inspired to stoop to my level of pretentious elegance according to the person doing the insulting of me, for some unstated reason.

____________________________________________________
NOT about fundamentals of voluntary vs. coercive (funny how you don't have a problem clearly defining and distinguishing between those two simple concepts), nor whether I'll be staying here in America, or not.
______________________________________________________

That which is funny to one person may be very serious business to another. As to where anyone may or may not be staying the quote offered by Sam Adams is offered to those whose shoes they fit, and if there is anyone trying on the shoe, finding the shoe unfit, then the words offered by Sam Adams does not apply to that person.

There was no intent upon my part to force fit the shoe onto anyone specific, if that is what is being claimed at this point, that is false.

Skipping past the points of agreement (wasting no time, in my opinion, with that which can be (is) judged as "preaching to the choir") and finding cause to reconsider my judgement of the malice factor concerning the resort to insult, there is a point of obvious miscommunication here:

_____________________________________________________
Yes, it is a prime example. Yet, bad actors falsely claiming a political banner still does not change the fundamental definition of a term, now does it?
______________________________________________________

Now I can say that having moved past destructive word choices there is here a move back into competitive (free market) offerings of contentious ideas/perceptions/judgements of that which is before us in real time and space.

Out goes the word choice "actual" and in goes the word choice "fundamental" and in my competitive view the principle is the same thing, the words are merely switched, and there is no end to the number of new words that can be used to convey the same message.

1. Actual
2. Licensed
3. Authoritative
4. Fundamental
5. Enforced
6. Dictatorial
7. Involuntary
8. Monopolistic
9. Real
10. Official

My viewpoint is earned though careful study of sources that include the works done by Josiah Warren.

An apt response here, in my opinion, is a quote:

"496. Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/...

Meaning: Failure to seek and find and confirm and agree without error, the intended meanings of words, nullifies any claims of having done so.

What is the point?

To miss-communicate or to communicate accurately? If the intent to communicate accurately is the true motive, then any evidence of failure offered in return by the target of the communication nullifies any claim of having reached that goal by the dictator making such claims.

Example:

Person A says: "Do you understand the official meaning of the word?"

Person B responds: "I reject the quality of the word being "official."

Person A responds: "Take out official and put in place the word actual and then answer the question concerning your understanding of the actual meaning of the word in question."

Person B responds: "The point I am trying to make has to do with the quality of the word in question. It, the word itself, has no power to be the one and only, the official, or the real, or the actual, or the sanctioned, or the licensed, or the patented, or the whatever other word you want to use to turn those symbols into something it is not, something the word can never be, if I do not accept that new quality of that word that you offer as a quality attached to that word."

Person A: "Now you are talking in circles."

Person B: "If you remove the attachment of a quality that does not exist, then I can comment on my understanding of the word in question. In other words, if focus is focused on the intended meaning of the word, and focus is not longer focused on a supposed POWER attached to the word, then I can focus attention on the meaning of the word, instead of focusing attention on some nebulous POWER that supposed resides inside the word in question."

Person A: "You are stupid."

Person B: "That may be the case, but there is no quality of "actuality" in that word, so why claim such a thing? If the definition of a word is offered, and agreed upon by me, then that word serves us two for the purpose of communicating accurately, if on the other hand you are claiming that THE definition of THE WORD is in some way POWERFUL in and of itself, as if the word can conjure up some secret magic consequence at the mere utterance of the word, where music is heard, horns are blown, and people are set to the knees a the mention of the word, due to this quality of "authority" contained within the word, then my focus is no longer focused on the offer you offer concerning any misunderstanding that my yet exist as to the intended meaning of the word in question.

Why so many words in response to words? The creation of authority over words is false, and falsehoods require 2 more falsehoods covering each original one.

If instead of focusing on the nebulous authority contained in the first falsehood, there is merely a shared focus of attention on arriving at a mutual understanding of the definition of the word in question, there is, in that change of focus from authority toward agreement, is it possible, in that way, to reduce the word count?

The word was Collectivist? I can accept whatever definition you offer for that word. I cannot accept, because it does not exist, your authority claiming that your definition is in some way overpowering my ability to refuse to accept your offer of the meaning of that word.

Practical Example A:

Judge: You are JOSEPH THOMAS KELLEY?

Joe: "No, I am not a corporate fiction for you, and your army of Legal Criminals, to exploit that PERSON by some nebulous magic of false authority. No thanks, whatever your name is, since you certainly are not qualified as a judge of right and wrong, if that is what you are also claiming through this charade."

Moving on:

"Yes, it is a prime example. Yet, bad actors falsely claiming a political banner still does not change the fundamental definition of a term, now does it?"

I lost my place in the discussion - if that is what we are doing?

For my part, in a discussion, my intention is to offer my perspective in the hope of having another perspective offered in return, so as then to view life in general, or the specific thing in view in particular, from more angles than my single angle of view, and in that way the thing in view is built upon a competitive comparison of multiple dimensions, all of which, honestly, intend to view the thing in view more accurately.

Dispensing with inaccurate viewpoints and utilizing more accurate viewpoints, to me, is the purpose, the point, of honest, mutually beneficial, voluntary, discussion, free from intentional falsehoods and insults.

"Assuming you and I don't bicker over arcane cultural etymological origins of how a term come to be, definitions of words we use to communicate should be clear."

The quality attached to the word by another word such as "actual" or "fundamental" was my objection offered, and my objection offered was merely that, and nothing more than that attachment of that nebulous "quality" of "fundamental-ness." I did not object to the definition of the word (collectivist) in the context used. I objected to the fictional authority of the word - which does not exist.

"I say that to illustrate and agree with you that humans are subjective inherently, so frankly it's a lie to ever claim "objectively speaking...", especially when uttered by us humans."

I do not see things that way. Perhaps I could, but competitively speaking the fact that two people manage to communicate accurately can be proven as fact in many ways, which removes any claims of subjectivity concerning the words having been used, agreed upon, and the prove is realized in time. Here is where I can offer the example of Math as a form of communication that tends to be less confusing to those who agree to use it in a mutually agreeable manner.

I see that the response to which I am now responding is much longer, and as things started to appear to be getting past a close point of no return, as things were appearing to be more interesting, less insulting, my time runs out, and I can return to edit, or to continue, or that may not be possible. I intend to return to this exchange.

Returning (not editing above):

So...math is an example of an attempt at communicating from one individual to another individual so as to remove as much imprecise data as possible. So, objectively speaking, the team member doing the measuring of the piece of material needed to build the thing produced speaks the following offer:

Team member A: "The part must be 1 inch in length, plus or minus 20 thousands of an inch."

Team member B: "I can make that part within half a thousands, easily, so which would you prefer, a little too big or a little too small?"

Team Member A: "Anywhere in between 20 thousands of an inch larger or smaller than 1 inch is as good as the other, so in that sense, in that range, the part will be a perfect fit. If you go over that acceptable range of "subjectivity," then a hammer will be needed to make the part fit "subjectively," so the object is to avoid exceeding those objective boundaries spelled out in fact."

"Besides, like every other field, those who write the book, literally, often get to dictate what 'facts' are."

I do not agree here, or I do not accept this viewpoint at being competitive compared to a viewpoint whereby no one gets to dictate what are facts or what are not facts.

If the team member who measures wrong in the first place dictates to the team member who produces the part according to the agreed upon standard of measure, then it is very easy to find out where the error is, in fact, without the wrong one resorting to the powers of a dictator in enforcing wrong things upon innocent people.

Rather than the quality of ONE dictatorial "official" fact, there can be, as the mathematical measure intends to show, an agreed upon standard of measure, agreed upon at the beginning of negotiations.

Revisiting the example offered before any measuring is done.

Team Member A: I will be using the standard measure standardized with this devise called a Jo block. Here: http://www.northerndtool.com/gage-bloc

Team Member B: I agree, so as to remove "subjectivity" in measures of facts those physical records of a standard measure works for me too, and in that way we can be objectively on the same page.

"Who's to say that the 'committee' that ended up deciding the finalized each entry in a printed/bound dictionaries of yore were truly the language autho-ri-teh, let alone the modern Oxford English Dictionary's annual committee?"

By some mysterious force, or by mere persistent effort on my part, or by chance, I have stumbled upon information that you may want to consider along these lines concerning the intended purpose behind the invention, production, and "gaining currency" of The English Language (so called):

http://one-heaven.org/canons/sovereign_law/article/161.html

Quote:

"English is a late 15th Century CE artificially formed phonological language created by Dutch and Venetian language and printing experts at the Palace of Westminster with the authority of King Henry VII Tudor of England (1457-1509) for commercial and political purposes in introducing a unified language for the Island of Britain and reduce the long term influence of Gaelic, Norse and Anglaise (falsely listed as Old French)."

Not coincidentally, it seems to me, the invention, creation, and enforcement of crime made legal of a specific form, that could be called Admiralty Law, began, or had roots in this English Language stuff.

If that is a fact, not my words "being" fact, but if it is a fact, an establish-able fact, that English was intended to be a misinformation tool, or a device employed so as to cause deception, so as then to perpetrated "legal" fraud, then that can be established, with or without my words adding to, or subtracting from, the goal stated with my word choices.

Goal: establishing facts.

Which goal?

What is the point?

"That said, setting the more philosophical point of contentions aside, for any conversation over a word definition to move forth, participants would have to agree on each individual's understanding of these terms, and that they must first be made clear, to each other. No?"

That was my point, even as my point may have been misunderstood due to many reasons not limited to the real possibility that our common language was produced as a means by which the targeted victims would be using a very dull tool (The Kings English) compared to a very sharp tool such as math.

"In some ways, you invoking Federalists of yore, to be more or less historically defined by the actions of the notable militant actors runs into the same 'select individuals who claim to represent ____, mar the image of the group as a whole, as far as outside observers not members of that said group are concerned'-meme."

That is a routine practice no differing in principle compared to a thief perpetrating a theft by pointing his finger and yelling "thief" and as all potential defenders against theft are looking elsewhere for the fictional "thief" the actual thief steals with impunity. False Flag is the modern version of the routine.

Imagine the difficulty when the word thief (Robin Hood?) becomes a word that means both good guy and bad guy at once?

"So, obviously, those who currently claim to be Federalists in the year 2013, ie members of the Federalist Society while maybe actually closer to those who claimed to be 'Federalists' of the Founders' era, in point of fact, definitionally-speaking, they are NOT "federalists," of the original Latin root word "foedus"-origin."

As attempted to offer above, I am currently dealing with an organized group of people who would be happy to be associated with the likes of Hamilton, Washington, and John Adams, all Federalists (so called) while, at the same time, these contemporary Federalists fail to realize that Hamilton is the founder of "our" Central Banking Fraud, Washington is the founder of "our" modern Standing (criminal) Armies, and John Adams (Alien and Sedition Acts) is the founder of "our" modern Whistle Blowers tortured by Extraordinary Rendition for the crime of being Terrorists since they perpetrated the crime of exposing the established (or establish able) facts of crimes perpetrated by the people in the Federal Government (so called).

It is not a Federal Government (as compared to the much more Free Market example offered in The Articles of Confederation example), rather, it is a Consolidated Monopoly Criminal Cabal, if English can convey accurate meaning.

So how difficult is it for me to help move Common Law Grand Jury proceedings, honestly, honorably, while I find evidence that established the fact that my peers have been duped, are still duped, by those past false Federalists?

Long post, so my plan at this point is to cut this one short unedited, and continue this as a response to my own response (working within the limitations of the medium of exchange).

Joe

TL;DR Gee Josf, again, the initial point of contention was over

word definitions, collective vs. collectivism.

Not: whether you can articulate back to me Common Law remedies, which frankly I DON'T disagree with you on, while taking up bulk of your replies to me...on topics not raised or relevant to the initial point of this on-going Josf-ACM back and flourish.

And, YES, I actually READ BOTH of your above and below replies: moi = speed-reader; but apropos of the actual discussion on this thread, I'm intentionally limiting the focus of my reply, only to the relevant extent in regards to original word definition question, and your accusations of "insult," and your use of Common Law Grand Jury.

So, after actually having read your treatise, to me, it's simply a long ass, albeit, pretty lyrically crafty way of saying that you STILL don't agree what definition of the terms are, because of the arbitrary nature of how word definitions come to be.

Which, as you've articulated before, and to which I generally AGREED to your description of the process in which how words come to be, in the abstract, but NOT in regards to "Collectivism vs. collective"-discussion.

Which, I believe, we've pretty much fleshed out, by now, at least to my satisfaction.

And, I'm fine with that, again, as I've stated in the previous reply.

Having stated such, so now you shouldn't be surprised when I ask you: so...WTF's your point, again, with this reply?

Now Josf, I respect some of your writings and your ability to reference Constitutional heritage/history/common laws. And, as I've stated numerous times, I AGREE with MOST of the points NOT related to "collectivism vs. collective"-discussion, that you've cited, so far.

So excuse me, when I ask you sincerely: WTF are you trying to accomplish here?

You and I already essentially settled on the fact that we both agree as to the arbitrary nature of how words come to be, and yet, you and I STILL differ on "collectivism vs. collective." And that regardless, outside those two word definitions, I agree with A LOT of what you've stated so far, especially when you referenced those historical markers (as a standalone discussion) that you thought was relevant and even though I didn't, though I do however WHOLLY AGREE with your limited, specific example of using how "federalist" come be be so bastardized, as an apt example, apropos of how word definitions are not immutable in regard to the "collectivism vs. collective" definitional origin discussion.

We're pretty much in agreement on ALL that.

And, as I've reiterated numerous times, I'm perfectly fine with the things that we've basically settled on points that you and I seem to both agree on, as well as the fact that I'm fine with the points that you STILL disagree with me on.

I'm cool with ALL that, too.

So, again, the "non sequitur:" why are you expending bulk of your reply to me, on Common Law remedies?

And worse, proceeding to accuse me of insulting you, when you've spoken with light conveyances of tonal condescension peppered throughout your series of replies?

So, when I had no problems with your tone, so far, but now you're gonna feign indignant sanctimony at the prospect of a minor literary joshing at no higher negative parity than the ones you've thrown at me?

As the kids would say: puhleeze. xD

I'm NOT the one who 'insulted' you, first.

In my earlier reply to you, the ONLY portion in which I address you directly, mulling possible outcome, a characterization which was the only paragraph that you MAY, if you didn't understand the reply as intended, would take 'offense' was this:

And yet, there's nothing more ironic than someone demanding to stick to word definitions, who is not aware of actual word definitions

Now, considering, how from my POV, you were basically doing the same thing you've been doing all along (discarding word definitions), so I felt justified in reminding you the "irony" of (as you've laid out your case; which I obviously disagreed) how you essentially accept word definitions for your own consumption, but not ones from others:

There is no way one person can negotiate with another person honestly if one person usurps the other persons power to agree to the meaning of words. Dictatorship is a process employed by dictators. There is one born every minute?

Yeah, but WHERE in my previous reply did I ever invoke coercive enforcement of a word definition?

To another person, mainly me, reading that? The fact that I've never asserted coercive enforcement, yet you answered AS IF that were the case, in context of my original point of discussion in how a member of voluntary collective is NOT same as a collectivist, that clearly communicates to me that it could only mean one thing: you STILL don't understand the difference between collectivsm vs. collective.

Yet, your rather articulate explanation of what a coercive entity would do (even though that wasn't my point), thus "someone demanding to stick to word definitions," was an apt, fitting answer, IMO (AT THE TIME, before you and I expended further back and forth on now agreed to reality as we both seem to accept it: arbitrary nature of how word definitions come to be).

As for the rest:

Now assuming you read all my words up to this point, and even after reading/at the least perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness, if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles.

All that says is basically:

'Josf, I've laid out my case, now even after you read that, and if you STILL disagree, we're gonna come to a point of equal immutable point of contention, whereby thereafter, it becomes moot, as you'll say one thing, and I'll say another and we won't see eye to eye.'

Then, I closed with:

But, other than to highly recommend that one avoids commenting 'in medias res'? No bigs, though. C'est la vie .0)

Which, basically says:

'Josf, I was already responding to others on this topic; perhaps you jumped in the middle of the conversation (as per "in medias res" reference) without tracking all past discussion above and below this reply-box: because in my mind, seeing as how I personally see no controversy in the actual dictionary definition of the terms "collectivism" and "collective," especially when I've also cited where in, other sources to bolster the case. And who knows: perhaps you didn't see that, and that MAYBE why you still seem to disagree with me, by replying in length on HOW you communicate your own understanding of word definitions (as explained, your process is one by which I generally accept, except on already established definitions)??'

Then, I closed with:

'No biggie. If we disagree? Such is life + a smiley face.'

So from that (what I thought was) cordial closing, came your 'tude reply, which frankly I initially had no problems with, until you wanted to pretend that I'm the one who initially vaguely insulted you; so let's make this fact abundantly clear : you spoke in condescending manner, which in anyone's mind would qualify as 'insulting,' first. To wit:

What would be the point?

...

"Can I leave freely?"

If you do then there is one less defender, you are certainly free to go, and if the attackers are very present dangers, you may likely be caught up and enslaved, having freely gone away from the defenders, and then you can ask your company of criminals if you are free to go at that point.

I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
—Samuel Adams

[** You're really going to tell me that your Samuel Adams addendum, wasn't meant to be lightly insulting, when you yourself state: "I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:" just before that, considering the content? Stop insulting conversational flow & common sense, Josf! lol.]

In entertaining conversation that line of thinking may be fun, but to me it misses the point.

...

Who, and what army, is offering actualness of which word?

...

Reading does not often reach the goal of accurate communication, in my experience.

...

We will do no such thing. If the words I offer appear to reach a point of diminishing returns, as if my estimate is that there is no use in further efforts to communicate accurately with you, then I will find competitive things to do with my time.

...

If that is what you are doing, collecting me up into some nebulous group of people who, in your experience, "talk in circles," then such an offer is hereby rejected.

No thanks.

Nope, no light conveyances of condescension whatsoever!

But I never really considered that 'insulting,' though I 'get' that it was borderline MEANT to be. And, if you don't know that, or think that's how you came across, then you know less and have even less command of literary communications devices and tonal choice in your diction, than I previously gave you credit for.

Unless, you actually are unaware of the fact that in most polite circles, condescending tone IS equally considered insulting; unless you want to tell me that definitions of "condescension" and "insult," are also arbitrarily derived. LOL xD

That said, frankly these 'insulting' tonal ranges go on all the time in online replies, so I literally have NO PROBLEMS with them...that is until, one party decides somehow his sensitive self is more insulted, than mine should've been.

LOL.

That said, I do respect your aim to pursue Common Law Grand Jury, for what that may yield, regardless of the current paradigm. And I DO 'get' that you were also using that in the similar rationale basis for argument as you've used "federalist" previously, to further bolster your point. No, I DO 'get' that.

More power to you.

I commend your efforts in pursuing the use of actual Common Laws, amidst the bastardized status quo 'judicial' paradigm; come what that may be.

Which makes you taking the time to focus 80% of the reply on that, essentially, is even more commendable. And yet, again makes the case that it's a "concoction of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs."

"Apt," because you DID explain your basis for your reply.

And yet, you STILL are of the mind that "collective" & "collectivism" don't mean what they mean, because you deem the arrival of their definitions to be more arbitrary than others. (As I've stated numerous times, that I 'get' your rationale and reasoning for WHY you still disagree)

Which is fine, but equally, I don't need to accept your stance (again, as we both seem to have fleshed out, by now).

That said, as for "non sequitur"?

Um...don't know: should we define that first?

Shall I invoke the 'dictionary' definition and you reply with another treatise in condescending tone and pretend it's not, and me being appreciator of words, read it with joy, however disagreeable, but impressed by your patience and your logical absurdity, especially, when from the 1st contact to now, has still barely addressed the original topic of contention?

LOL

No, really. What would you do, if you were me, observing your line of reasoning and replies?

If you honestly don't think that from my point of view, when all your replies to me have been about (aside from some 10%-ish relevant answer to the two initial terms discussed), it's been anything but the initial topic?

Yeah. Non-sequitur, as in "it does NOT follow."

Or... is there a different definition in Josf-speak dictionary? .o)

Unless Josf, you honestly, honestly think that "Common Law Grand Jury" has ANYTHING to do with the initial point (NOT what direction you chose all by yourself to veer off onto) of discussing how a "collective" is NOT the same as "collectivism"/"collectivist"??

No, honestly.

Does that make it clear, WHY your replies have been both "apt and irrelevant non-sequiturs," to me, now?

Seriously, is this how you 'normally' discuss things with those you do know or choose to associate with?

I'm seriously curious.

Because I don't have such buddies, whom, when I ask to borrow a socket wrench from, then she/he gives me a Philips screw driver, and tries to convince me because they're fundamentally based on the act of torquing, to a less or large degree, it'll do the job.

So, arguendo: if you asked me about a Tandoori chicken recipe, and I replied to you not anecdotally interweaving Constitutional history to answer you in between pause as I'm replying to you about de-boning, seasoning, or marinating, but in fact, ignore your original question altogether and delve into original penalty for the violation of the 1792 Coinage Act, and the disastrously individual sovereignty destroying responses in Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion, in such scenario, what would I have accomplished?

You see my dilemma, Josf?

Plus, you do 'get' that ignoring someone's question and going off on tangent that you fail to draw back into the point, in itself can be considered 'rude' thus 'insulting,' right?

But, I never said that I was "insulted" by you, when you did that. So, what do you exactly think you're accomplishing by accusing me of things that I equally could've accused you of, but chose not to because I saw absolutely zero point in doing so?

I'm secure in my understanding of the world; I don't equate length of reply, nor elaborate explanation of tangential subject matters to mean that, that person automatically knows more or has proper command of the subject matter that they're speaking of.

So, excuse me as I call your BS on your selective philosophical purity on some words and not others; frankly anyone reading your replies would not be wrong to be prompted to inquire: 'So...basically Josf thinks some words just mean what he wants it to mean, and others, not?'

Indeed: "what would be the point?"

LOL ;0)

But, I do appreciate your replies, Josf, sincerely.

I think I've pretty much fleshed out my position, and you on yours, too.

My original point of discussion has always been about "collective" vs. "collectivism" and how they're not the same. Everything after that, indeed, have been all "non-sequiturs."

But seeing as how I actually AGREE with a lot of what you have to say, if you're open to it, we'll talk again in depth, on other matters, as topics present themselves, here.

And, I truly, sincerely wish you luck with your Common Law Grand Jury efforts. Let me know how it goes.

So with that said: I bid you adieu on this topic, and to you Josf, for now.

It's been fun, and enlightening. And no worries .D

Cheerio.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

:)

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

welps, my bucket-o-popcorn was full of

GMO con, but by the time I saw the bottom of the bucket, it was too late; I was enticed by its initial aroma, that reminded me of childhood, hanging out with friends, sneakin' in to see a second show, then the reality hit me soon enough, that I ate fake food imagining it to be real lathered up with fake butter, in a place where they make fantasy seem like reality last for 90min~3hrs, even though you've always known it's fake, all in a quixotic pursuit of a momentary respite in one's day.

Then my throne & number two came a calling, and I had to let nature exit and recycle through its prerequisite course befit all GMO crap: filter thine intake of toxins disguised as melodious lyrical glory, for what exudes will be no less regretful than what you just took in.

Lessons learned .D

#Addicted2Words ,0)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Gee, no thanks.

According to you the initial contention was defined by you, and I have not seen my actual interest in this discussion accurately defined by you, not then, not now, and based upon past experience there is little in the way of evidence to judge that you will ever understand my interests in this discussion.

Again, tell my what you think I am supposed to say and I can sign on the bottom?

"...the initial point of [your exclusive] contention was [as you dictate it was to me despite my repeated objection],...[whatever you say it was regardless of what my actual intent, interest, offer, is, in fact]"

"...you STILL don't agree what definition of the terms are..."

I have no interest in agreeing or disagreeing so how would you know if I agree or do not agree if I have not even decided myself as to any such agreements?

That is clearly a case of you claiming to know what I think despite the obvious fact that your claim is false.

"Having stated such, so now you shouldn't be surprised when I ask you: so...WTF's your point, again, with this reply?"

My point is to offer my viewpoints (such as your repeated false claims as to your supposed knowledge of what I think) and then find out if anyone offers a competitive viewpoint, to which yours does measure up, in spades, despite the occasional resort to insult, and therefore my goal, my point, is reached, and to further establish evidence as to reaching my goal, as it happens, there is yet another opinion offered to that same goal, albeit in other words.

Link and quote:

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3203000

"I really want you to know how much I appreciate your comments and dialog. It's really helping me to move off square one! Please keep it going!"

It is obviously noteworthy that the expressed offer of a competitive viewpoint in that case does not specifically apply to our discussion here, but the idea there is to highlight the principle point of discussion which is to attack a problem, or to perceive a thing, from many angles instead of one angle, and from many angles the object can be made of more dimensions, intending to make the object observed more accurately.

Does that now answer your question concerning my point as I see it, and as I see it without you tell me what my point is?

"So excuse me, when I ask you sincerely: WTF are you trying to accomplish here?"

Many perspectives are desired from where I sit, and one perspective that I am particularly interested in is the perspective that is associated with the concept of pricing something according to that which the market will bear, or this stuff that can be called capitalism, but few, or no one, is willing to actually discuss that angle of view, in my experience, as the rule has been, without exception, that there won't be a discussion, instead there will be an argument for the sake of argument, including resort to insults, and all too often a resort to deceit.

So my hope is that discussion with a so called capitalist, at least once, may actually occur, and then be documented as part of my personal experience, and who knows, I might even turn such a discussion into another book project. Miracles have been known to happen? <-------- note the question mark.

"....you and I STILL differ on "collectivism vs. collective..."

That may or may not be the case, and if I have not felt any need to judge the matter, how can you claim to know my thoughts on that matter, or, if you can show me where I have expressed said difference then I can speak on that specific point, rather than having no clue as to what is your precise concern now being expressed in an ambiguous manner (as far as I can see)?

Does speed reading actually work, or do you end up having a conversation with the someone built out of the spaces between the lines, instead of the actual person who wrote what you are speed reading? My asking is in no way a conclusion on my part. An accurate answer is requested.

"So, again, the "non sequitur:" why are you expending bulk of your reply to me, on Common Law remedies?"

Perhaps in that I have made an error, but my reasoning (even if I am misled) is such that our discussions are not private in the sense that everyone except us two are excluded from the data stream, so I tend to use the occasion to report on my own personal experiences. As further defense (the error exists and the error is unjustified, if there is error) I think that as far as my part in this discussion my personal experiences offered as part of the discussion are appropriate considering the general purpose of the Forum and this Topic, if not your specific concerns (or argument).

"And worse, proceeding to accuse me of insulting you, when you've spoken with light conveyances of tonal condescension peppered throughout your series of replies?"

My intention was not to make a specious accusation, rather the evidence as far as I am concerned is conclusive, without any reasonable doubt, again on my part, your obvious intention is to insult me. Right or wrong, that is my viewpoint, and again I offered what I consider to be inculpatory evidence proving the fact. If wrong, and shown to be wrong, I can apologize. My guess is that no such thing will be possible; again based upon my current viewpoint, which is based upon the current evidence.

"I'm NOT the one who 'insulted' you, first."

It has been quite some time since I have had to deal with this concept of who shot first, and perhaps I have grown careless in making damn sure that I do not willfully seek to insult anyone. If you can show me where I have insulted you first (rather than a case of me merely pointing out a fact) then I can recognize where I did so, and then I can not only apologize for doing so, I can thank you for once again offering to me those acts done by me, where I have made errors.

"Yeah, but WHERE in my previous reply did I ever invoke coercive enforcement of a word definition?"

That could have been answered following my question, and now that can be answered following your question. Why was it not answered following my question? Why wait until now to focus on that point?

I am curious, so I asked the question, and now you are also curious?

"...you STILL don't understand the difference between collectivsm vs. collective..."

May I point out again that I have no interest in the matter concerning what you may find interesting in those word definitions as you intend to use them?

"...perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness..." The point at which my conclusion is that you intend to insult me has passed, and this is merely another example of inculpatory evidence as far as I am concerned. If in fact it is my error in shooting first, as your words may communicate, as an as yet difficult thing for me to, so far, understand, at all, let alone to understand precisely, the evidence here, to me, is clear.

Word choice "verbose," as far as I am concerned is willful intent to insult me. I can certainly be wrong, I am wrong most of the time.

Failing (miserably) at knowing precisely when I am wrong adds to the measure significantly; hence the point of discussion. Show me, please, where I am wrong.

I can show you, with the word choice "verbose" where, in my reasoning, you are willfully working to insult me.

I am not claiming injury; by the way. Insults go with the territory, like water goes with swimming.

I lost my place. Going back I found this:

"...feign indignant sanctimony..."

I'm swimming in insults?

"...you wanted to pretend that I'm the one who initially vaguely insulted you..."

I have a long experience of dealing with those whose method is to insult, and so my HIDE is THICK to a point of determined effort to avoid glossing over examples of obvious insult, and instead I've developed a routine to highlight those cases so as to avoid the often claim, late into the raining of insults, that in some way I started the green flag on open warfare of insults.

I can apologize, but for what, precisely?

At no time, from my view, did I ever pretend (now my honesty is discredited) that there was ever a "vague" case of insult.

My method is to quote the actual words that constitute an insult.

I can be wrong, but my experience is such that word choices such as "verbose" are chosen for a reason, and word choices such as "pretend" are on the same ocean.

"What would be the point?"

That is, by your words, an example of condescension. I can ask as a measure of defense against the charge, if you please, how can I find out what the point is if I do not ask?

I sent a link to information on that specific topic concerning what can happen when the point is not well understood, or agreed upon, whereby Josiah Warren clearly zeros in on that specific point. Does that not offer any credit to my sincerity, without any ulterior motives, as to my intent to merely find out what the point is in fact?

If not, then I can apologize for failing to find better words that can be used to find out the point without communicating any sense of insult. What else can I do at this point?

As to the offer of explaining the context of the quotes by Sam Adams, I fail to see (there too) where you find my words to be evidence of my intent to insult you.

[** You're really going to tell me that your Samuel Adams addendum, wasn't meant to be lightly insulting, when you yourself state: "I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:" just before that, considering the content? Stop insulting conversational flow & common sense, Josf! lol.]

The intent there was to offer a possible situation whereby the test of freedom "can I leave" is proven to be a good idea, a good test, whereby someone like Sam Adams says, sure, you can go, we here are those who maintain voluntary associations, but your test of freedom here is not the same test once you wander, if by chance, into the Dogs of War that have been unleashed upon anyone who may be testing the waters of freedom.

If somehow you take that as an insult, rather than agreement (in part) then I am again at a loss as to what to do at this point other than to oppologize for failing to remove all words that could possibly be taken as an insult.

I did not use the word "verbose" nor did I use the word "pretend" nor did I use other word you have used that target my personal character directly.

It has been a method of mine, in such cases as this, to start the list of insulting words aimed at my personal character. Is that warranted, useful, at this point?

"Nope, no light conveyances of condescension whatsoever!"

Here I most certainly can apologize along the lines of having built up methods of defense that are unwarranted in fact, in your case.

How can I find out if I am dealing with a reasonable person without asking?

I do make errors. Please accept my apology. I can now see precisely my error in your case.

I apologize. What can I do at this point, by way of restitution?

I also see an opportunity to point out that my actual intent, with those ill constructed words, was not to insult you personally, as that method, as ill conceived as it may be, has been my "if the shoe fits, then wear the shoe" volley.

If you are claiming that the words (any words) in question have powers of authority, which was what I thought you were claiming with your word choices such as "actual," then my "shoe fitting" was done to anyone who does make such claims. If you make no such claims of "authority" over the meaning of words, as in EXCLUSIVE authority over the meaning of words, then the shoe does not fit in your case.

"But I never really considered that 'insulting,' though I 'get' that it was borderline MEANT to be."

Here again is an observable fact of error on your part. There was no insult intended to anyone, not you, and not to those who wear the shoe of false authority over the meaning of words EXCLUSIVELY, since, in fact, there are no culprits raising their hands confessing to that fact.

Does that make sense?

I can elaborate, but my guess is that you can speed read (no insult) and still get the message intended. If I am wrong, and you return words that report another miss-identification of my true intent, then that will be that which happens in the future.

"Unless, you actually are unaware of the fact that in most polite circles, condescending tone IS equally considered insulting; unless you want to tell me that definitions of "condescension" and "insult," are also arbitrarily derived."

Actually my writing "style" if you will is by comparison to my verbal, as in face to face, "style" void of emotion. So, that may explain part of my error, since I am often asking why people tell me to calm down, lower my voice, and "I can't take you anywhere," whereby my viewpoint is such that I've done no wrong. What is the problem with being emotional about impending doom by criminals with badges running amok torturing and mass murdering with the earnings we could be using to defend ourselves against such evil?

So, knowing how toned down my writing is, compared to my speaking, and not real having any idea, any reason, for toning my emotions down, at all, how is it that I can reason toning down my writing, when from my view my writing lacks any emotion whatsoever?

I do not, repeat, I DO NOT, intend to insult anyone, other than, perhaps, those who volunteer to wear the Dictator shoes, and then, in my opinion, they insult themselves. I am merely the messenger boy.

I carry the glass slippers, the Cinderellas try them on, some find the perfect fit, you do not, or have I missed something?

Note that I am asking a question. How can I claim to have any idea as to what your precise thinking is, in fact, while current experience amply suggests measures of failures to communicate, on my part?

1. I do not intend to insult.
2. The message you read communicated to you an intention on my part to insult you.

What should that tell me about my ability to communicate?

Should ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions?

Have I missed something along the lines of those people who claim that they have an EXCLUSIVE power to dictate the "actual" meaning of words?

No hands are raised? No perfect fittings of that shoe?

No Cinderellas on this Forum?

LOL.

Me too. It is refreshing, at times, to be able to laugh.

Your feet are way too big?

"More power to you."

Funny (not laughing) you should say that because my understanding is such that more power to everyone turns out to be less relative power to the criminals, which is, in real terms, a state of Liberty.

Earn as much as you can, it will be required.

"it's a "concoction of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs."

I get that, sure, in context of your estimate of what is relevant to our discussion. I can offer, and not as an insult, merely as a way of offering my viewpoint in response to your viewpoint, that at some point I can ask if you would please just write my responses to you, and then I will never wander off the topic the least bit.

____________________________________________________
And yet, you STILL are of the mind that "collective" & "collectivism" don't mean what they mean, because you deem the arrival of their definitions to be more arbitrary than others. (As I've stated numerous times, that I 'get' your rationale and reasoning for WHY you still disagree)
_____________________________________________________

Here may be the POINT of contention in clear FOCUS without wandering at all. So, again without insult, tell me what I can write that addresses this viewpoint precisely, and I can then either sign at the bottom or not.

"Um...don't know: should we define that first?"

I see now that the use of non-sequitur, by you, is not meant as an insult. Or that is my current viewpoint offered to you. I can't claim honesty, what would that do other than clue you in that I was lying? I can offer. Then the ball is in your court.

The resort to insult can be set aside, or no longer played up, interaction on my part, sure, at this point.

It has been fun, rewarding, worth the effort, informative, so far, and it is very refreshing to find those who have a hard time with the shoe fitting. I can chalk it up to lessons learned on my part, good lessens, leading to thinner skin, or wiser judgment?

Probably not wiser judgment in my case. It takes a lot of repetition of the same errors before I can really bear down and learn something.

"...still barely addressed the original topic of contention?"

Yes, from your view I am missing something, and I agree that that is your view, so from this point I again offer the possible cluing me in of what I am missing, in a sure fire way, whereby that which you expect me to write is written by you, and then I can put my voice to those words, then I can be on that page at that point; meanwhile I am clueless.

"No, really. What would you do, if you were me, observing your line of reasoning and replies?"

I've tried that, and it does not work. Have you ever played chess on both sides? Have you ever played 3 way chess with 6 people?

"If you honestly don't think that from my point of view, when all your replies to me have been about (aside from some 10%-ish relevant answer to the two initial terms discussed), it's been anything but the initial topic?"

Perhaps I jumped into this Topic at the wrong spot. I could have jumped in with my own original response that was not in reply to your response. I might have said the same things, but to who?

Your version of what is or is not The Topic can be easily understood by me, at this point, without insult, just tell me what I need to write to get right back onto that specific topic without any moving off of it on my part.

________________________________________________

"how a "collective" is NOT the same as "collectivism"/"collectivist"??
_________________________________________________

There is precise point at which I can ask, without insult, write my part in how I should respond to those words, so as to remove any room for any claim of me wandering off of that topic, and I can then comment with a one word response such as Agree or Disagree.

Is that a possible method of resolving my clue-less-ness at this point?

"Does that make it clear, WHY your replies have been both "apt and irrelevant non-sequiturs," to me, now?"

No, but there may be a way to clue me in, I offer a way. Perhaps you have a better way. My thinking is that I covered that topic, and my thinking goes further to a point where I think you misunderstood my responses to that topic. So much for my participation in that topic goes, I remain powerless.

If you can allow to more power to me, then it could be you writing an apt response by me where I return to that topic of your concern, and I return precisely where I should return, according to you, because you place me at that very point of focus.

"I'm seriously curious."

Me too. That to me is the beauty of discussion. I can't guess what you may offer in response.

"Because I don't have such buddies, whom, when I ask to borrow a socket wrench from, then she/he gives me a Philips screw driver, and tries to convince me because they're fundamentally based on the act of torquing, to a less or large degree, it'll do the job."

To me that analogy works to point at the point of focus, and to me the idea of you writing exactly what you think I should write to hand you the right tool, instead of the wrong tool, fits as a possible, curious, resolve to my poor ability to hand you the right tool.

You can even avoid any problems associated with the socket required for the nut or bolt size needed. I can know exactly which socket size you want, a deep socket, or not a deep one. I have a very nice long handled 1/2 Snap-on ratchet, all my other Snap-on tools were stolen, twice, they are pricey. Or do you want an a box end wrench? Do you want a box end ratchet wrench?

Metric?

...for the sake of argument...

I prefer not to do things for the sake of argument.

I think that the wrench analogy was well said, and I can actually cook, but the fix is the same, from my view, clue me in on what I can write, and then I will know precisely how I can get on topic according to you.

"...what would I have accomplished?"

In my case, as stated, my goal is to compared, competitively, viewpoints, so as to build a more accurate viewpoint in that manner.

I understand, I think, the concern illustrated by the two analogies, and so the concept of having you spell out exactly which ingredients, or tools, you seek, and then I can sign at the bottom as to my ability to produce those supplies.

You see my dilemma, Josf?

If my offer of a remedy to that dilemma does not work, then I am at a loss in seeing your dilemma.

"Plus, you do 'get' that ignoring someone's question and going off on tangent that you fail to draw back into the point, in itself can be considered 'rude' thus 'insulting,' right?"

If that is the case, then I am not aware of that being the case, since my viewpoint is such that I addressed concerns over the topic of what you desire to be the definition of the words you desire to use.

If I am mistaken, then my offer of a remedy has been offered enough times to make it pointless to repeat the method offered, at this point.

"...I call your BS on your selective philosophical purity..."

One more insult and I won't make a list, rather, the point of no return will be reached at that point of my finding another naked insult.

At this point:

"'So...basically Josf thinks some words just mean what he wants it to mean, and others, not?'"

I see error. I have no thoughts in my head resembling the thoughts attributed to me, personally, so the same fix, in this instance, works, tell me what I think, tell me what I should write, and I can offer back to you a yes, that is what I think, or a no, that is not what I think.

Which words, in your estimate of my thinking, "just mean what he [does not] wants it to mean?

If I want some words to mean something, which is true, then that is agreed upon by me, without resistance on my part, whatsoever, on the other hand there are words, supposedly attributed to me, that "just mean" what I don't want them to mean?

How is that even possible?

I don't want some words to mean just what I don't want them to mean?

I don't even understand what you mean, at that point.

I understand, clearly, that all words, without exception, mean what I want them to mean, every time in intend to use words to convey accurate messages.

Why would I have any interest in not wanting a word to mean something, what would be the point of such a wanting on my part?

"Cheerio."

Yes, it has been worth the effort on my end. I will certainly be requesting more competitive viewpoints on the Natural Law (Common Law has serious errors built into the process) Grand Jury front, and I hope you find a connection at some point in that struggle.

Joe

Continuing World choices

The discussion included this:

"Just as how someone assumes that just because his mom's store's been robbed by a black teen, he then goes on to assume utterly ignorantly that 'all black teens are thieves' and word of mouth anecdotes spread and that becomes an accepted racist 'cultural' stereotype-'norm.'"

Here is another example of that hidden force by which those who are infected with a belief in a lie can hardly be considered as someone acting willfully in the perpetration of a crime. This may be more, and even much more, dangerous than a person who knows better as to the full nature of the crime in progress, in this case the term "prejudice" or "collective punishment" can convey the process in a competitive manner.

The do good soul, being infected, sets out to save the children from harm and the net effect is harming them to save them; whereby the cure is worse, and often much worse, than the false, fabricated, fictional, ailment.

"Then, again, I agree with you, because what words mean, have ALWAYS been culturally determined, frankly how and what critical mass of people accept and use the term is, in fact more important, in practical terms, even if they all use it wrong, like the modern day "federalism," liberalism, and apropos of current discussion: "collective" vs. "collectivism."'

I do not expect that you have time to go through the Grand Jury Orientation page, nor read my notes written in response to it, nor do I expect that you will read, or understand fully, my words up to this point, but there is a real world example of what your words convey (if I understand your words as you intend them to be understood) contained within that Grand Jury Orientation and my notes commenting on those packets of information on that page.

I can offer:

Grand Jury Orientation:
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/pages/private.html

My notes to date (I am struggling through the information currently):
http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=96...

Example of my notes:

____________________________________________________
"I do solemnly swear that I will obey the constitution for the United States of America, and all the directives and prohibitions, and that I will faithfully serve justice and discharge the duties of the office of Grand Juror honorably, according to the best of my ability; so help me God”

The group demanding said Oath as a requirement for participation in defense of Liberty, holding the employees accountable for their crimes while the employees are hired to apply due process to everyone without exception, claim that honor, justice, and mercy are also required.

Here is my problem with an obvious contradiction. I cannot be honorable if I claim to be obeying an ongoing fraud that started in 1787; which is that so called constitution.

I can either be honorable or I can do the opposite.

I can either be honorable and expose the ongoing fraud that is that so called constitution or I can falsely claim an oath that I won't obey since the constitution is a fraud in progress, or I can be honorable and join the criminals who are perpetrating that crime in progress.

Honor among thieves?

Now, as may be claimed, by those who fail to recognize a crime in progress while it is in progress, there can be an exercise done immediately concerning this concept of assembling Jurors to judge a case.

I am claiming that the constitution is a crime in progress and my injury has been every dime stolen from me and then that legal power to purchase was then used to finance further theft, further fraud, and crimes too numerous to list in one sentence but the crimes include child sex slavery, torture, mass murder, and mega murder.

The charge is not specious, and the evidence I alone can provide is more than enough to remove any doubt from any moral, reasonable, human mind, in my opinion, and absent evidence to the contrary, the case is closed as far as I am concerned at this point.

Exhibit A is a docuemnt assembled by those few who were attending the secret proceedings that later became known as The Constitution Convention.
_____________________________________________________

The remedy for that problem was already in place as the Oath was reworded and the one I had at hand was being discarded but currently left on the Web Page while I downloaded the old one.

Back to your words:

"...you believe if enough people accept it, it should be so,..."

My comment here is to offer my opinion as being such that I can speak for myself without your "help".

"Personally? I'd submit: NO."

As far as I can tell I am in agreement, not disagreement, on that point.

"... as your reply suggests..."

Again, to me, we are on the same page and somewhere, somehow, through the medium of exchange, your opinion appears to be that we are not on the same page, on that point.

What is the point at this point?

I can read on to find out.

"...automatically means that they're somehow collect-IVISTS..."

In cases where I have automatically arrive at a false perception my preference is in knowing that fact. In cases where someone thinks I think something and the words I read are clearly opposite of what I actually think, there are many possible ways to resolve the measurable contradictions. I can leave that there, again the word count is already excessive.

"So, if the "argument is not the point" to you, then why are you even bothering to rebut someone's statement, when you're gonna only answer your own point unrelated to it, anyway?"

In cases where I may have been attempted "rebut," it helps me of my words are quoted where I do this thing, and then I can answer to that charge of having done that thing. Without the required information I am left with guesses as to what exactly you mean by your use of the word "rebut".

"I'm all like Huh??"

I'm like: I have no idea what you are claiming I did, since as far as I know I did no such thing. Where I agree I agree. Where I do not I do not, and if there is confusion as to what I agree to, or what I do not agree to, there are ways of finding out, in fact. The cause of your "I'm all like Huh??" appears to be a confusion on your part as to what I wrote, why I wrote what I wrote, and to which inspiration was my inspiration to write what I wrote.

Back to Josiah Warren for me:

"509. One of the greatest sources of confusion in controversies or disputes is, that the disputants do not confine themselves to the one individual thing in which the dispute originated, till that is settled and disposed of, but they draw in new points just as disputable, one after another, till the whole becomes conglomerated confusion. The remedy can be found only in discussing one individual thing or point at a time."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/warren/...

If the one thing in view is now my error according to you, the error that inspires this: "I'm all like Huh??," then I am going to have to have "that" spelled out more clearly to me, and I am all for it, because I do not appreciate my own errors, so I want help in finding them, and therefore I can avoid repeating my errors.

Is that the point?

---------------------------------------------------
I never claimed that, even though, I agree with your explanation of what a coercive entity would do. But again, your voluntarily formed punk-rock band? NOT coercive. And your punk-rock band's fans & groupies?? NOT automatic statist apologists whose actions are "driven by fraud, threat, or violence from an involuntary source."

No?

LOL.
------------------------------------------------------

If possible, my error, if it exists, can be a easily communicated to me, so that even I can see my own error.

If the words you quote of mine are in contradiction with the words you repeated of yours, then I don't see it. The sets of words appear to be unrelated to me.

If the point is to zero in and focus upon that error of mine, if I did make an error, then that can happen from this point onward. In that case, at this point, I am honestly confused as to where my error can be seen by me.

"But again, you arguing and rebutting things I didn't..."

Confusion again?

I took words of yours that to me are stand alone words, with or without the context, and my reply was inspired by those stand alone words, no more, and no less.

These words:

"Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States"

It was possibly understood by some people as such, but my comment was not intending to be an argument, my comment was intending to convey the fact that many people knew, in fact, that it was not, in fact, a voluntary compact between the State, and examples abound:

time ran out again

Back:

"I've never refuted them, even though you replied LIKE I did..."

From my view there was no intent on my part to refute, my intention was to stick to the point, and that was why I chose the words "it misses the point," which is not necessarily you personally missing the point, rather the idea is to identify a divergence from a point, you go one way, I go another.

Confusion here may then be accurately identified as a misunderstanding concerning my motives, where you think I "relied LIKE I (refuted them) did..." when from my view my intent was to keep focus onto the previous point.

So, what is the point? If that can be established, then divergences off of the point can be identified just like the case where one cooperator asks for a 1 inch part and the other person does not cooperate since a 2 inch part is returned.

If there is no point in cooperating, then what is the point?

"Entertaining non sequiturs: proceeding to elaborate on non-disagreeable points to air them disagreeable, is always a bemusing literary past time, but sadly, need not apply here."

To me that is wander back into insult mode, and if that is the point then the point of diminishing returns is well past that point.

"As for the following, it's just a repeat of my above statement on me actually agreeing with you on the subjective nature of humans and how words and languages come to be; just a rehash of what I already said."

That is, to me, the point of this discussion, and to that end I have offered above a study as to the original purpose of the creation of the English language which may or may not be as accurate as can possible be studied, documented, and conveyed while using English.

"That said, now, I've already stated what my understanding of these word definitions are with links to references, regardless of whether you want to wholly reject any and all modern dictionaries or not."

That is a return to the point of me not agreeing to your estimate of me concerning a nebulous quality of "authority" or "actual-ness' attached to a word. I think, myself, that a dictionary is a good place to begin standardizing useful words, however as is often the case those dictionaries, in English, offer no standard at all, as the words are often defined with many conflicting definitions for each word. Comparing English to Math, again, that "quality" of that non-standers of English definitions would be illustrated mathematically as cooperator A asking for a 1 inch part and cooperating B looking at the stander for a 1 inch part and finding a list of possible parts that range from a 1 thousandth of an inch to 10 miles.

"Then, shouldn't you actually state WHAT your understanding of the terms "collective" vs. "collectivism" is, or whether you still believe they refers to coercive entities?"

That appears to be another case of my actual thoughts being misunderstood and having someone other than me telling me what my thoughts actually are, when in fact I know my actual thoughts and your words report meaning that does not speak for me.

To me there is nothing coercive in a word by itself as if the word itself has magical powers, if that is what you are attributing to me as if I think such nonsense.

In context a word can be very destructive. An example can be a sign on a road where a blind hill leads to a bridge that is currently missing, having fallen down, and a driver of a fast car would go over the hill and not see the broken bridge in time, and the car could not be stopped in time, and any people in the car, or bus, would then plummet to a certain horrible death.

On that road someone places a sign that says "Free money ahead, limited supply, hurry before it is all gone."

A high speed intersection where there are 4 way green lights.

Green is not coercive. Willfully turning all 4 lights from the normal workable configuration to a condition where all 4 lights are green, for fun and profit, perhaps a garage is drumming up business, or the morgue?

_______________________________________
But, reading that, it's clear that you still seem to think that a Collect-ive automatically means it's a coercive collect-IVIST combine.

It is not.
_______________________________________

Here again your take on my words appears to be the opposite of the intention I had in mind when I wrote and offered those words. If you look at the link that reports on the origins of English, accurate or not, the idea may surface that the cause of much confusion happens to be found, in part, with the "quality" of ambiguity built into the Language.

Or not.

Mileage may vary.

"Suppose you're beyond reproach and damn all the modern or arcane dictionaries."

Before I even begin to read what follows that sentence I think I can pre-judge the rest of this paragraph as being something that I think goes off of the point and onto some nebulous argument that is between you and whatever you think I think, while so far your estimate of what I think, to me, is well off the mark.

"Thouest speaketh thine own logos? If so, why art thou bloweth thine lyre, at all?"

In no way did I ever claim that I could speak to anyone without employing a common language of some utility rather than no utility at all. English can be compared to math. One is very good for deceiving someone, the other is very good for conveying accurate messages.

Which do you prefer? If English will be good enough (for government work?) then so be it, but there are problems and I'm not the only one noticing the problems, so I may be in the minority, but there are those who I can speak to who share this understanding and therefore it is easier, with them, to remain focused on one point before wandering off to other points.

"you simply do not accept a word definition"

The problem here is that I was in no way intending to do as you think my intentions where, so what can be the source of the failure to communicate? Too many English words? Too few English words? If you already know what I think, then you can write what I intend to say to you and I can sign on the bottom?

"...you'll simply continue to choose to believe what you believe, and no one can tell you otherwise..."

And now, returning, to insult. So now I am, by your measure, incorrigible, dictatorial, closed minded, is there an end to the negative qualities you can attach to me personally?

"...obviously already a-priori believed in..."

Rather than you telling me what I believe in or what I do not believe in, you could ask, because my beliefs are very simple.

I believe that perception exists, and beyond that I am guessing.

"...with which you chose to rebut..."

Pigeon holing me into some nebulous argument, (what is the point?) for the sake of argument, or who knows what, is an often resorted to tactic by those who engage in such things, as may be the case here, and I care not to know (diminishing returns).

I think discussion is a way of comparing viewpoints, and it is a good return on my investment, when someone shares the same goal, or point.

When not, then not.

"Which again, brings me to inquire, then WhyTF are you even bothering to reply to me, let alone anyone?"

When words express agreement, there is in those words a reinforcing affect, a "second opinion," but more important there are those cases where someone can precisely point out to me where I have obvious, measurable, error in my viewpoint. I seek both. I do not seek someone telling me that their distorted view of my thoughts are my thoughts, which is too often the case.

Should I stay or should I go, has the point of diminishing returns on investment passed on by awhile ago? I don't know, I have not yet read the rest of your response.

"No: YOU will do no such thing, young man! ;0)"

Case in point! Thanks. I should have used quotes, and now, with you help, I man not repeat that mistake.

Non-competitive:
We will do no such thing.

Competitive:
"We" will do no such thing.

Thanks again. Sometimes the return on investment is hard to find.

Sometimes non-existent.

Sometimes negative.

I am 55 years old. Is that young by some measure?

'hey, you and I both know you're gonna say one thing, and I'm gonna say another, and I think it's pretty obvious by now that this conversation, at least on this particular topic, isn't going to go anywhere, so I offer this as a cordial closing.'

I have much more to offer, and my hope is always, despite opposition or "to the contrary", that there are many people all over the place, who can show me new, improved, viewpoints.

If you already knew about the origins of the English language, for example, or the works of Josiah Warren, then I probably offer nothing new to you, in that regard, to me, on the other hand, there was a time when I was unaware of either viewpoint, and so my tendency is to pass things on, to those willing to know better from worse.

"You go on about how beyond a pt. of "diminishing returns" it's pointless."

Mileage may vary.

"Come on, Josf, really?"

The estimate of what I did, or did not do, before that question above, is Greek to me. I can't therefore answer that question having no basis from which your viewpoint is, in fact, or at all.

"non-sarcastically state it rhetorically, as if you're actually feigning not expecting an answer back"

How much work is it to unravel all that mystery?

What would be the point?

The point of discussion is exemplified in your offering me something tangible concerning my errors in communication, the pay off, also includes reinforcing measures of agreement.

That is a point. That is my point. That is the returns that may become obviously diminishing to a point of no return, and often, in the case of resorts to insult, there is a negative return.

"Sounds vaguely like an empty non-threat-threat-ish??"

I am working on finishing a book. I have work and home duties. Tonight I have a meeting with Frank O'Collins on my schedule, and I am suffering through the Grand Jury Orientation information. Among all those things are variable measures, in my estimate, of doing the right thing, in defense of Liberty, and so I take time to discuss with anyone willing to discuss.

The supply of people willing to discuss is well below the demand I have for it. I don't know if you can make sense of that, but it is an offer I put out there in case it is acceptable.

"take a long ass time to rebut in a long ass verbiage"

I've been seeking and finding discussion for decades. The insults range from "you use to few words" to "you use to many words" and so I respond with a standard response in such cases of insult.

Tell me what I should say, that is right according to you, and I can sign on the bottom.

"Though, I do like the 'I'm an uber capitalist'-garnish by invoking..."

I am very far from any resemblance to a modern day capitalist. I can show you where Carl Menger dives into pure fantasy, and where Murray Rothbard employes aggressive fraud.

More confusion between may actual thinking and your error prone estimates of the same? Do I fail to understand your version of what I think?

"we simply are gonna talk in circles."

More,and more,and more, comments upon what I will do, according to you, is never ending?

What is the point in returning to that flow of data?

"Unless, you're honestly alluding that we should ignore past experiences and interactions with others in the past as an initial point of holistic reference for future encounters."

The genuine productive use of experience can be confused with willfully falsifying another person's character based upon a nebulous connection with similar people?

"Which, I highly doubt that that is actually what you inferred."

I did not suggest that experience is of no use, if that is the idea at this point.

"Also, I never pulled you into a "we" of any kind. Which again, makes me truly wonder, beyond the cut & paste job, whether you actually even read my reply, nor the one I was previously replying, to before YOU decided to reply."

What you may or may not have done at some other time and place can be competitively compared to the following:

"we simply are gonna talk in circles."

If I fail to understand the meaning of that sentence, then that fact can be known.

1.
we simply are gonna talk in circles.
2.
I never pulled you into a "we" of any kind.

What does the evidence suggest to you?
If the evidence suggests to you that I do not understand that there is no contradiction, then perhaps I could be shown why there is no contradiction.

To me one sentence says one thing, and then the second sentence denies the first one.

"...a neurotic roller-coaster..."

Returning to insult mode, or have I again failed to understand English?

"It still doesn't change the word definitions, but no one's stoppin' ya: least of all me."

Insults aside, there is a measure of return on this investment in my opinion.

Thanks.

No time to edit.

Joe

Very well put.

The real collective is what we all do without anyone brandishing a weapon. We don't brandish a weapon because we know everyone has one. When we know only one man in the room has a gun, that's not freedom NOR free trade.
When every one has a gun, no one sees the (nefarious) use to brandish one.

This!

Great comment! Thanks for clearing that up! I hope the point of the post was still well taken!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

quite

welcome!

and yes, I know exactly what you were trying to say.D

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Right on brother

And it was what I was trying to say but you said it better. A collective doesn't need guns. Individuals need guns to protect them from the faux collective.

To us, the collective is what the collective DOES without violence. We agree!

ANY OTHER SORT OF 'COLLECTIVISM' is just an excuse for libido dominandi.

But.

No self appelating collectivists disavow violence.

When they speak of collectivism, they are speaking of statism, they are speaking of evil.

My argument stands.

If collectivism does not involve non defensive use of guns, I am all for it.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Bump

Thanks again Rob. Keep up the excellent work.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Collectivism isn't necessarily bad...

Unless it is done by force.

Voluntary collectives can be great fun. We are a voluntary collective here and it is awesome.