21 votes

Josie the Outlaw: The Goal Is Happiness



Follow Josie on Twitter at @JosietheOutlaw1
On Instagram at @josiewalesoutlaw

Comment viewing options

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


for Josie

Classic errors parroted?

Liberty is government power defined by people.

Anarchy was a poor word choice at the onset of an awaking that occurred in the mid 1800s, yet the word stuck, and has been, since, an impediment to further awakening.

To claim that authority is bad, if that is the message here, is to claim that morality is bad, a misplaced accounting of the criminals?

When the criminals take over, it is no longer government, it is no longer Liberty, it is organized crime.

So the victims are then set about, misdirected, to fight against government, and fail at our common defense as a result of that misdirection through deception?

If government is merely Liberty, if government is merely the process by which innocent people are effectively defended, and that is the basis of authority, true authority, then why would anyone be inspired to fight against government?

If a criminal organization hiding behind a false claim of authority, a false government, is known as such, then why would anyone be inspired to pay those criminals another dime?

Can you not see the bait and switch, the word magic, working here?

If anarchism, Liberty, government, was ideal, it would be a process that works on each criminal at the moment the criminal began perpetrating a crime upon an innocent victim, and this process would cause the criminal the injury that the criminal intended to inflict upon the innocent victim.

That is perfect anarchy.

That is perfect government.

That is perfect utopia.

There is no way that that can happen perfectly.

Who ever said that we are perfect, or who ever said that perfection was possible?

The idea can be worked toward, as the concept of authority, and the concept of government is a concept shared by as many people as possible, whereby people pay for their own imperfections as well as can be done voluntarily.

If a criminal does willfully destroy innocent victims, then government, anarchy, Liberty, is willfully being destroyed by that individual in time and place, as that individual creates a crime by injuring the innocent victim targeted by the criminal.

Ignoring such things as crime, by criminals, does not constitute Liberty, never has, and never will, because criminals must understand how natural law works, as their choice to be criminals will, in time, blow-back upon them in some way, naturally.

So governments have worked when governments have been processed according to natural laws, when people themselves command their own common defense, with such things as due process, such things as trial by jury, such things as a principle driving due process whereby no one is excluded from due process, whereby everyone is afforded due process, whereby the cost to gain access to government is nothing more than a voluntary agreement to work effectively for our common defense against all criminals, or all enemies, foreign, and domestic.

Government is not a synonym for organized crime, so why parrot such lies?


Maybe not a synonym

but definitely a seed.

Nurturning deception?

Watering the tree of falsehood?

If the concept of defensive government can be understood in an English phrase, then that understanding can lead to a tree called Liberty.

Such as: "If good men do nothing, then evil will flourish."

If the concept of defensive government is then confounded by those who nurture the seeds of deception, then the victims of those lies might end up investing in the criminal, rather than the defensive organizations of people.

The criminals know better than to allow their earnings to fall into the wrong hands?


Why would good men

do nothing?

Missing the point?

If the phrase in English confuses rather than conveying the intended point, then that phrase in English fails to reach the intended goal.

Good men might do nothing (in defense of the innocent) when the criminals no longer see any profit in crime.


How was the phrase


Government as defined by...

Government as defined by criminals who tell lies and victims who believe in those lies is a counterfeit (false) version of government, for the criminals, of the criminals, and by the criminals, at the expense of the victims.

Fighting against false government is not the same thing as fighting against government.

The key point is where the criminals manage to falsify government.

Fighting against false government, or "government," is how good people, good men, good women, do something, so as to defend the innocent from harm, because if all good men (and women) do nothing (in defense of the innocent), then evil (crime, or willful injury upon the innocent) will flourish, and the meaning of government is thereby defined by good people who effectively defend the innocent in time and place from criminals with, or without, false government badges, licenses to kill that they give each other, licenses to steal that they give to each other, licenses to lie that they give to each other, on and on in false government.


The difference between false government and government

is what?


Government is the effective common defense of people, for people, and by people.

False government is the effective injury of people, for criminals, and by criminals.

Therefore the difference between government and false government is the number of victims destroyed by criminals. When government works the number of victims goes down to a practical minimum. When counterfeit government works the number of victims goes up to a practical maximum.

Is that not simple?

Government can be seen as an insurance policy and it can be as simple as anyone can afford at any time in any place.

False government can be seen as an extortion racket hidden behind a false insurance policy operated by criminals whereby victims are made to pay for their "protection."

Is that not simple?

If those who offer the insurance policy claim that only they can understand it, and that their authority to manage it is an exclusive power only they have, then that offer of authority is measurably false in cases where it is false.

Someone who is ignorant about anything can ask, then learn, then get past the temporary condition of ignorance, about an insurance policy, or about government, or about false government.

Someone who condemns before investigation is someone who may not understand, ever, the concept of government, but my thinking is such that someone who condemns before investigation is probably someone who is fully capable of understanding how false government works.


Simple is

not ten paragraphs.

So government is greater than regular people?

Your claim?

Your claim is a claim made by regular people?

I think that your claim is only you making a claim.

Then your question begging is fact in your mind?

This is a game often played by those whose intent is deception.

Of course exceptions to the general rule offer those exceptions to the general rule. Which are you?

Here are 3 (not 10) arrangements of words offered in response to one of your earlier questions:

Government is the effective common defense of people, for people, and by people.

False government is the effective injury of people, for criminals, and by criminals.

Therefore the difference between government and false government is the number of victims destroyed by criminals. When government works the number of victims goes down to a practical minimum. When counterfeit government works the number of victims goes up to a practical maximum.

Compared to the TOPIC TITLE VIDEO, those 3 paragraphs are by that relative measure simple; and those 3 paragraphs (not 10) are in answer to your simple question repeated here:

"The difference between false government and government is what?"

You ask a simple question.

You receive 3 paragraphs (not 10) in answer to your simple question.

Then I offer additional words as items of possible interest.

You respond with question begging?

Your question begging suggests that 10 paragraphs IS government?

Is that what you are doing?

Then, based upon that suggestion, you offer to supply the question you are begging to ask?

"So government is greater than regular people?"

By your words, not mine, regular people are not as great as 10 paragraphs?

Fools will fall into these traps, I suppose, set by game players, or merely people who love deception, or who knows what complications are involved in such things, in such people.

How about devil's advocates; those not often willing to confess their affiliation?

The measure of someone by someone is as great as may be managed in every case in time and place, and your question begging earns you that measure of simple credit?

You govern your simplicity in that way?

So few words, so much deception, all tied up in so few words?

I can marvel at the craftiness?


Would you remove the fluff


I understand that you enjoy hearing yourself speak, but who wants to sit through all of that babble.

Did you answer anything?


I checked into your history here on this Web Site.

I am inspired to respond to your type of offers of information.

What will follow are two links, and quotes from those two links, and the information contained within are for whom it may concern (most likely not you):

For whom it may concern link 1:

Bills of exchange, bank checks, and negotiable paper of all sorts add just so much to the body of the currency; and this issue is unlimited by law, and unlimited in fact, except by the exigencies of trade. They are just as really currency as the specie dollar, the greenback, or the bank bill. A field which has no fence up one of its sides is not fenced in, no matter how high and strong its fences may be on the other sides. So, the volume of currency is not, in any true sense, limited by prohibitions of free banking, by a return to specie basis, or by any other means, so long as negotiable paper can be freely issued by individuals; and this free issue of negotiable paper is too useful, and too well entrenched in necessity, ever hereafter to be interfered with. Commerce can be hindered and trammeled to some extent—by statute arrangements claiming to regulate the currency, whether by restrictive measures, or by flooding the community with over-issues; but the volume of the currency can no longer be adjusted by such means.

Link 2:

First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

I can be inspired to respond again.



Good info!

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.