11 votes

The Liberty Continuum

A Healthy Society

Man is born naked into the world... Isn't that how Murray Rothbard put it? If we look at the world as a subjective reality then we only see the individual and his environment. The rest of humanity is all just another aspect of that environment.

However, when we start to discuss the methods by which society should be organized, our skewed perspective lends us towards ignoring a very pertinent reality. Society is necessarily a collective.

Every attempt to achieve more and more liberty in our lives, is actually an attempt to project a value system, that of free will and just property rights, on each other person in the collective that is society. A society I may add, that has never existed before and never will exist again except in that moment of time which it is measured. Each relationship, each personality, each individual value is entirely unique to that moment.

It would be more accurate to say, Man is born naked into the world where there is already a system by which all members of society govern their relationships with one another.

It is for this reason that an attempt to achieve a utilitarian, moralistic, libertarian Utopian system of government is essentially futile. Not because an institution could never be created by which to govern ourselves in a just and moral way. But because society is in a constant state of transformation, with each new participant in the collective. The method by which we govern our relationships, whether it be law enforced by the nation state, or voluntary community cooperation. Whether it incorporates just property rights theory, or whether it be by hierarchical institution of top down control, it is an agreement by the collective, that these are the terms by which we will live as a collective. It does not matter what shape the systematic arrangement of society takes. What matters is the code of ethics that I choose to accept to govern my own actions, and how my moral outlook effects the environments of those members of society, whom I may influence.

Searching for perfection in a system of government is like searching for perfection in a marriage. That's not how it works. We don't theorize the best way to be or to act towards each other. There is no way to codify it. To make it official. Society is a living and breathing thing. It depends upon the health of its members, the nature of the arrangement, the environment that the relationship exists in. What we believe.

And so, even if we were to arrive at a place in time, where society has accepted a more just and righteous way to arrange itself, a more moral code of law, does that mean we are done? We have succeeded? We have achieved Utopia? What if we were to destroy the nation state? Would that mean that systematic violence and predation would cease to exist?

My own personal truth is that political reality (currently a zero-sum game) is a reflection a sick society. Not an institution for control by the elite, but an agreement by society that we accept an immoral way of behaving towards each other. Just because we may evolve towards a healthier life, does not mean that we have achieved our goal. We must stay fit. We have to nourish ourselves, exercise, meditate and practice. Health is a continuous process. It is not a goal. It is a lifestyle.

This is not an apology for minarchism.

To be clear, i believe the nation state is the single most destructive, and immoral force that has existed on the planet. I have been watching the debate on the daily Paul rage on for months now. It seems advocates on both sides, minarchist and anarchist are not doing a very good job hearing each other. At the heart of the miscommunication is the way interpret the term government and state.

I subscribe to The Conquest Theory of the State. I have not been shown any instance in which a territorial state has formed except by the violent subjugation of the people of that territory by a violent parasite class. To again quote Rothbard, the state is "it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory."

This is not what minarchists mean by government.

One of the strongest reasons that the predatory state and the institution of the universal law have become so confused is that the state assumes authority over the rule of law in a society, for the purposes of absolving itself from it. The assumption is that without a state, there can be no set of ethics or rules by which society can organize. The reality is that this is state propaganda and ignorant of the historical realities surrounding the birth of the state. The questions that i would pose to minarchists are simply this:

Do you believe that the law should be applied equally to everyone in a society?

Do you believe I should have the right of self defense against infractions of the law?

Do you believe I have the right to contract for that defense, or organize voluntarily to ensure it?

Do you believe that the state and all of its bureaucrats should be accountable to the law, and subject to punishment and that retribution for their crimes should be demanded of them?

Do you believe that the state should have the authority to demand from me, that which I have a property right in under threat of force?

Do you believe that acting on behalf of the state, absolves the individual from consequences of breaking the law?

Could society develop in a way where adherence to a court system and participation in the victim/criminal justice process was voluntary? Did you know that it has, already, without the state?

My own personal answers to these questions are my terms for an arrangement of society that I find just. It is not what I am subject to now and I accept that. If the minarchist believes that he has the same right to defend himself against violations of the law then i ask, What purpose does the state have?

The consequence of economic incentive without societal health

The most frustrating thing in the world to me, is when I see an argument being dismissed carelessly when the person presenting the argument is quite intelligent and makes a good case. It is not the potential that the argument may be correct that frustrates me, but the unwillingness to recognize that the person presenting the argument has a different way of understanding the whole notion of the @. If everyone saw things the way we did, there would be no disagreements. It is our unwillingness to try and find the validity, "why does this bright and reasonable, intelligent human being feel this way? What does he see that I don't" in each others arguments.

The reason that minarchists take such a fierce position in the debate is because they believe they understand. Instead of assuming that they don't get it, why don't we look at what they DO get.

A purely market based legal system is extremely susceptible to corruption. The term I heard used was neo-feudalism. Without a universal legal framework, all kinds of injustices would be permitted. This is all very legitimate. If we got rid of the nation state tomorrow, what would sweep in and fill the vacuum?

Just as social contract does not protect us from abuse by the state, neither will a lack of social contract protect us from those who have access to wield resources for the purposes of control, both economically and political.

The Liberty Continuum

We cannot rely on the market to provide us with justice. We cannot rely on a political institution dedicated to preserving our liberty. We can only rely on each other. We can only rely on what we as the collective accept as the appropriate way of arranging ourselves. The collective needs each of us to help mold its opinion, and shape its perspective. We owe it to our brothers and sisters to embody the morality of liberty and foster it in whatever shape it takes.

Liberty is not something to achieve. Not an end goal. It is a continuum. It is spiritual.

Liberty is what we can strive for. It is the health of society. It is an active process. The important thing is not that we achieve freedom, but that we are concerned to always move forward on the continuum.

If an anarchist removed himself from.society, he would be an anarchist, but what positive impact would he have on achieving liberty. In order to have individual freedom, we need somebody who will respect it.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Agree with your thread. To

Agree with your thread. To answer your point about government as conquest, Saul's kingdom was voluntary as chosen by the people of Israel to replace anarchy. Also, many tribal systems considered anarchy also had heiraechical systems that could not have been consented to universally. So a government without conquest.

Ventura 2012

Logic and Reason enable us to remove opinion completely

If we trust that justice in law itself is all about balance and we recognize that law itself is discovered as a process of never conflicting truths in its application as the only true form of law then opinions are not needed or useful.

I have been screaming from the rooftops here at the DP that there is a fundamental intrinsic absolute truth in law that determines exactly what the proper application of REAL law is:

No law can violate any other law.

This is intrinsic to what LAW itself actually is. In the application of law another fundamental truth can be derived:

Lawful application of law can only be performed when no law is violated to uphold the law.

Acknowledging and embracing these fundamental logical truths of law itself means that discovery of the lawful path can only be found within the constraints of these truths.

In scientific discovery of the Laws of Nature it is intrinsic to the understanding that two contradictory laws cannot exist simultaneously. We need to awaken to the enlightenment that discovery of non-conflicting truths is what ALL LAW actually is. It is the goal of the discovery of what law actually is and it's discovery is dictated by logic consistency versus logical error. It is the bounds of what behaviors and actions are lawful versus unlawful for every individual regardless of what title one may claim.

Most of these truths have already been discovered in law but through each act of ignoring the law they have inherently performed the exact inaction of giving up the protections of law. Because of their ignorance of law the people have no way to know what is truly lawful versus what is not. The result is that in this ignorance they default to accepting civil law that is written and enforced under the guise of limited to no liability for the enforcers actions. Equality means equal behavior and equal liability for one's own actions including the act of accusing someone of some form of breach of peace or breach of duty or any other derivation thereof. Not understanding simple truths means perspective is written by others and tyranny is accepted and even defended for reasons of proclaimed 'exigent circumstances' which is nothing more than a failure by one to accept liability for their own actions.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Golden Rule?

"No law can violate any other law."

If you wish to help me know better, then you will offer to me information that you understand to be accurate information.

If you wish to get help in knowing better, then you will offer to other people information that you understand to be accurate information.

If you wish to be lied to, then you will lie to other people.

How many ways can people offer to each other the many possible ways to express accurate perceptions of reality?

If my opinion is such that it is a good idea to seek a more accurate viewpoint, then there is at work in that process something that can be measured.

"Most of these truths have already been discovered in law but through each act of ignoring the law they have inherently performed the exact inaction of giving up the protections of law."

If there is no awareness, no perception, of measurable reality, or what is, then that describes such things as rocks.

On the other hand, if there is an awareness, a perception, of measurable reality, or what is is perceived in fact, and there is then a willful choice to "ignore," then that is the definition of "ignorance"?

Refusal to acknowledge measurable reality as a choice made by a perceptive being is ignorance?

Joe

Golden Rule = Divine Law

"How many ways can people offer to each other the many possible ways to express accurate perceptions of reality?"

Infinite. Which is why Law is Hyperdimensional in its application. One pattern of words and concepts describes a reality and then gets interpreted by others. Closeness in pattern of words helps ensure correct information transfer to another but the entire communication process is subject to hyperdimensional existence of each perceptive beings experience filtering the information. One can mean one thing state the words to another and the interpretation either be the same, slightly different or completely different depending upon the experiential neural nets of the receiver. Observation of the workings of nature reveal that best communication can be achieved by closeness of experience hence to communicate with more precision it is best to know the others experience and speak in their words your own point.

"If my opinion is such that it is a good idea to seek a more accurate viewpoint, then there is at work in that process something that can be measured."

After your opinion has processed a decision will be made and action performed. The decision is knowable, the action is measurable.

Ignorance is ignoring something that has some form of application to one. The laws of nature are applicable therefore everyone not learning the laws of nature are ignoring them. Some says they understand something but they ignore the fact of how much information they lack.

When people make exceptions for this or that in law then they are destroying the law. The exceptions come from the fact that someone is ignoring the law and making opinions that can be shown by a lawful individual to have inherent fallacies in those exceptions. Exceptions are not necessary in real non-conflicting law.

Example- US Constitutional Tender laws. The tender laws require only gold and silver coin in the payment of debts. Many will refer to Coinage laws and justify violation of tender laws. The law requires gold and silver for government tender but people accepted a violation of that law and they destroyed all of their freedom in the process and justify the very mechanism that makes them a debt slave. They ignored the law, allowed a law to be violated and thus they gave up the protections of law and now they are slaves to criminal men who have acquired vast resources via fraud. When people give up the protections of law by ignoring the law then they will get exactly what they deserve. The process is inherent to how law works. They ignored the law and received pain for it. This did not require them to know that that law was/is valid and existed. The ignorant individual made it applicable as soon as they used tender for payment of debt to the State. They made action but did not care whether a violation was occurring. That's ignorance.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Willful Ingorance

How about a test that may or may not demonstrate willful ignorance?

The criminals took over in 1787.

That is made abundantly clear and here is one example of the evidence proving the fact:

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

Law cannot be some people claiming ownership of other people, yet that was done in 1787.

If the criminals took over in 1787 then how can anyone claim that when those criminals enforce a money monopoly, or legal tender law, that their criminal claims are laws?

You tell me, please.

Joe

Willful ignorance, confusion or error

When examining Contract Law and American Organic Common Law the only interpretation can be is that some men got to together and formed a contractual entity. They discovered their lawful understanding and made it applicable law to THEM. Just because they agreed to an understanding does not mean that their laws are actually lawful. However, it is worth noting that the slavery issue was not created in 1787 it was only acknowledged as valid property rights that already had jury determinations behind it. Does that make it applicable law? Not for those who challenge the validity of that 'law' and who can demonstrate actual injury and enable those who make claims to conflict themselves into irrelevancy.

Here is the hyperdimensional nature of law gleaming through the logic. One may not challenge the slave owner out of fear and ignorance and then silence is consent. One may challenge but acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it. Another may challenge and restore their freedom. All of these scenarios happened.

Also considering the parties to THEIR contractual law of the Constitution it is only those who claim such capacity that those laws actually have any valid application to. The Constitution of the United of America is not just the law for government but it is the 'law' for THAT government. Even their Organic understanding of common law acknowledges that Governments are instituted among men deriving their just (lawful) powers from consent of the governed. The "People" party to the contract have no binding obligations whereas those under the capacity of that government are standing under the application of those contractual bounds for that contractual capacity.

Any set of parties can implement government(s) how they see fit and even that capacity acknowledges this fact in their law. Other People had and will always have their own power to institute (or not) government(s) but the Golden Rule is forever playing itself out so that those people that accept unlawful laws only get the divine inspiration that they have wished upon others. If one believes they can force the rules of a contractual capacity onto others who are not party to the agreement or not under that capacity then they will receive the divine inspiration that will shape their nature to bring that. Others who seek consistency in law without prejudice will enable the divine inspiration to access the divine protections of law.

So the tender laws never claimed applicability to the People party to that contract and it never claimed applicability to anyone other than those who operate inside its capacity. So there never was any claims of monopoly over tender except for THAT contractual entity.

The battle to shape law and protect oneself within law and without violence is eternal. The thing is though there is a built in failsafe called logic. One who logically conflicts diminishes their relevancy/believability. Too many conflicts and fallacies stated from ones own derivations of understanding of applicable law will cause a human being to lose credibility amongst peers. This means anyone can identify their own standing conflicts and direct all facts to intersect every logical conflict until sociological and physiological responses happen to the point that consistency becomes the highest weight of all because any further conflicts and credibility is lost. This attacks ego, which is a very highly weighted input for control freaks, enabling the ego to realize its inferiority in factual consistency means embarrassment sets in and caution is increased.

The whole process of discovering what is actual properly applied law then becomes steering facts through all identified conflicts and maximize the perceived idiocy of the adversaries knowledge. If one doesn't know that this is how real law is discovered then they don't know what the protections of law are. Ignoring the protections of law means defense within non-violent forums is not accessible to the ignorant. Not upholding the law means logically flawed precedent will continue because the conflicts were never revealed.

You have confused applicable law for that government with applicable law for "the People" or other people. Those who claim law as applicable but violate that law are lawless individuals. Their lawlessness just needs to be revealed with them conflicting themselves.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Subject to higher quality and lower cost

Here is this:
"However, it is worth noting that the slavery issue was not created in 1787 it was only acknowledged as valid property rights that already had jury determinations behind it."

Before that there was this:

______________________________________________
Antifederalist No. 15

RHODE ISLAND IS RIGHT!

This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-America Intelligencer?)

The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for,and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury.
__________________________________________________

The owners of people, criminals, saw the writing on the way with Shays's Rebellion, since the people in Vermont were not willing to return runaway slaves. The people in Rhode Island similarly disposed, as were those people in Pennsylvania.

So this happened:

"The "dirty compromise" of the Convention was taking shape. The South Carolina delegation would support the commerce clause if New England would support a prohibition on export taxes and a protection for the slave trade. This understanding solidified during the next two weeks."

http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/society/slav...

If a jury is stacked with people who claim to own people (criminals) then the victims are victims of juries stacked with people who claim to own people.

"One may not challenge the slave owner out of fear and ignorance and then silence is consent."

I do not know what that means.

What do you mean by silence is consent?

If I can effectively defend an innocent victim with a loud forceful shout of the word NO when a criminal begins to get busy inflicting injury on an innocent victim, and I know this, then my silence can be understood as willful consent.

1. I shout and the criminal stops, runs, whatever, and I know that will happen.

2. I know that my shouting will stop the criminal yet I do not shout, and the criminal perpetrates the crime.

What do you mean by challenge a slave owner (criminal) out of fear and ignorance?

Do you own someone? If you do I can ask if you could explain what that means, and then I won't be ignorant concerning what you say when asked a question.

Do I need someone to tell my that owning people is a false claim?

Control is a more accurate word. So I can ask someone why they chain someone up. Why they whip someone when someone is not doing productive work. Is that about as useful as asking why someone lies?

What is a challenge to a slave owner?

The slave fears the slave owner because slaves tend to be hanging from trees?

Why master, why do you hang so many people from trees?

"Well it is for your own good of course."

I am having some trouble understanding those words:

"One may not challenge the slave owner out of fear and ignorance and then silence is consent."

Perhaps you mean that someone incapable of challenging a criminal because someone is overcome with fear, and overcome with ignorance as to how to challenge a criminal, and then that same one may be falsely accused of consenting to criminal injury of victims because someone is silent, so fearful, and so ignorant, that someone does not so much as whisper "no" in their sleep?

"One may challenge but acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it."

That sentence is similarly difficult to understand. One can challenge, or not challenge, and that can happen either way. I see no way to acknowledge the validity of their own slavery. What is the meaning of the word validity? A slave is a victim and if a victim validates whatever was victimization, then it is no longer victimization according to them, such as what, Stockholm Syndrome?

Take someone, literally control them, kidnap, chain up, render powerless to proceed on their own will, then keep them long enough to break their will, then that is called validation?

"One may challenge but acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it."

Did what?

1. They challenged, they knew they did it, they challenged someone, perhaps they challenged a criminal.

2. They acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it?

Is that Stockholm Syndrome? That past is forgotten and now I love my chains?

Those who love their chains pay people to improve the chains when the chains break. That is not slavery. That is not crime. That is people loving chains and paying people to improve the chains when the chains break.

Another may challenge and restore their freedom. All of these scenarios happened.

People perpetrate crimes, sure, and some people figure out how to avoid it. Slavery is a good thing to avoid, from the slaves point of view. Slavery is happy days for those who love it? Why would a slave think in terms of restoring freedom? How about thinking about crime prevention instead? Here are those criminals, here are a few ways to avoid them, spread the word, and a few less slaves may be the result.

"Any set of parties can implement government(s) how they see fit and even that capacity acknowledges this fact in their law."

I'm not sure what that means either. If criminals are roaming, and victims are piling up, or victims are finding themselves in chains, being whipped, working very hard for the privilege of being whipped, and a set of parties can implement government, how they see fit, then what exactly is implemented while the criminals are roaming, and the victims are piling up, and victims are finding their way into these work parties?

"Other People had and will always have their own power to institute (or not) government(s) but the Golden Rule is forever playing itself out so that those people that accept unlawful laws only get the divine inspiration that they have wished upon others."

To me that is the logical result of the idea I get from the term The Golden Rule. If someone wants to be a slave then someone will enslave other people, as violence inspires more violence, just like a liar will lie with an obvious result that the lies will blow back, so a liar must want to be lied to, that is how things work.

Do onto others and what can be expected to be done unto you?

"If one believes they can force the rules of a contractual capacity onto others who are not party to the agreement or not under that capacity then they will receive the divine inspiration that will shape their nature to bring that."

Call it "force the rules of a contractual capacity onto others" and if it is merely crime, then why call it something other than crime?

If someone wants to be a criminal, wants to perpetrate crimes, then it is not that tough to figure out that the victims may be easier to enslave if the criminal lies about it, disarming the victim, luring the victim into a false sense of security. Is that shape shaping up? And what can be expected with the criminal lies so as to enslave victims? The criminal is soon unable to tell the truth, know the truth, see the truth, and the criminal is then enslaved by his own lies?

"Others who seek consistency in law without prejudice will enable the divine inspiration to access the divine protections of law."

Accurately accounting for the difference between the criminals and the victims may help?

"So the tender laws never claimed applicability to the People party to that contract and it never claimed applicability to anyone other than those who operate inside its capacity. So there never was any claims of monopoly over tender except for THAT contractual entity."

According to your personal accounting efforts?

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

quote___________________________
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
_______________________________________________________

Hamilton knew the score. In order to enforce a Central Banking Monopoly there had to be a demand created for the ONE money. No competitors allowed.

Why do you think Washington went into Pennsylvania?

I have a Conference Call to attend. I can return to this welcome reply.

Joe

Clarifications

"One may not challenge the slave owner out of fear and ignorance and then silence is consent."

A slave can challenge validity of his condition but it is possible that out of fear and ignorance the slavery is not challenged (in law). If a man is a slave and he is silent (makes no indication that actual injury is occurring) to his slavery then from a court of law perspective there is no injury therefore there is no case for a court to hear, no contest to the slaves conditions or criminality of the slave owner. They're must be allegations before any court action can occur.

"Do I need someone to tell my that owning people is a false claim?"

No but depending on how stupid someone is one may in fact consent to slavery. We see this everyday all day in America. Almost everyone is consenting to slavery without even know they are doing it. This is the vast majority not some tiny minority. This current form of slavery is from conditioning not from fear but ignorance of law plays a large role in modern slavery in America.

"I see no way to acknowledge the validity of their own slavery."

What about those who consent to slavery and do vast amounts of voluntary effort to maintain slavery? Is this slavery 'valid'?

"
"One may challenge but acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it."

Did what?
"

This happens everyday in modern America. People starting to wake up but lacking vast amounts of knowledge challenge the courts now but also consent to their own enslavement through the words they use and not realizing those 'applicable' legal constructs are not necessarily the same as what the person is trying to say in their challenge. I see this all the time. One is speaking plain English but the courts are speaking in legalese and the two can mean vastly different things. If one ignores this fact of 'courts' then it is almost guaranteed that one will consent to their own slavery and have absolutely no idea that they consented or how they consented. This consent through ignorance is divine inspiration playing itself out within themselves which is why they are getting screwed in a situation where they consented.

"If criminals are roaming, and victims are piling up, or victims are finding themselves in chains, being whipped, working very hard for the privilege of being whipped, and a set of parties can implement government, how they see fit, then what exactly is implemented while the criminals are roaming, and the victims are piling up, and victims are finding their way into these work parties?"

If criminals are roaming and no one is resolved in pursuing and obtaining lawful justice then they will experience exactly the amount of pain they are willing to tolerate. Peace and freedom will come from the removal of criminals but if everyone knows there are criminals taking over and no one seeks justice then in some respects they are consenting to living under tyranny. Tyranny is crime with injury and people who are willing to tolerate this state of being then they probably have not had enough tyranny. They need more to see the error of their ways; karma/divine law whatever you want to call it. They are getting it for allowing lawlessness to flourish.

"Call it "force the rules of a contractual capacity onto others" and if it is merely crime, then why call it something other than crime?"

Just to show the mechanics of what is playing out when people interpret the Constitution as applicable to them when it is not, The Constitution does not claim the applicability to the People, it is rules for a contractual capacity. A crime requires mens rea to be a crime. Their may be a distinction between a civil violation versus a criminal violation depending on the intent of the perpetrator.

"
"Others who seek consistency in law without prejudice will enable the divine inspiration to access the divine protections of law."

Accurately accounting for the difference between the criminals and the victims may help?
"
Divine law will inspire the necessary thought to know who (or know how to find out who) is who and how to ascertain the status. For me I am so in tune with the divine that for some criminals in my presence with intent towards me the hairs on my neck and arms will stand up and point at them when they are close regardless if I have even seen them. You can't get a much clearer message from the divine than that. Automatic physical response for serious threats in the vicinity!

"According to your personal accounting efforts?"

According to the snapshot of words that actually made it in the document through the interplay of all who were present.

Of course Hamilton knew the score, His actions were clear. Hamilton still had to wiggle his way through the opposition.

"Why do you think Washington went into Pennsylvania?" Washington liked power and he generally liked being the center of attention. My general answer, ego.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Thanks for clairificaiton

I tried to return to the previous response before this latest response but I failed, if time permits I can return to the old one after responding here. This is a hot iron (rare) on this Forum.

"They're must be allegations before any court action can occur."

I think it helps to imagine situations. One day while walking my wife and I came upon two people at each other, both women, in their yard. I opened court, stepped up, and imposed my will on those two in such a way as to stop the fighting. I did so without resort to violence.

That is an example of a court action in fact. If it is into a court action according to you, or many people like you, then my guess is that you would not impose your will in that case.

If you are speaking about a court, then examples of what a court would, or would not do, can be qualities (and costs) of that court you describe.

If you are speaking about all courts because all courts, without exception, are naturally composed in a specific way, and if so, then what was the allegation in the example court I offered as an example court?

"No but depending on how stupid someone is one may in fact consent to slavery."

When children are very small it may be a good idea to teach them about the many ways criminals manage to enslave people? Unfortunately my parents were themselves infected with the "conditioning" (fraud, false advertizing, brain washing, response conditioning, behavioral modification, "mass marketing") to a point where it was an order to be followed without question that children must go to indoctrination centers for indoctrination, so we children were also indoctrinated.

"What about those who consent to slavery and do vast amounts of voluntary effort to maintain slavery? Is this slavery 'valid'?"

The meaning of valid, to me, is a voluntary association, so any accurate measure of indoctrination invalidates validation because the association is no longer, by that measure of indoctrination, voluntary.

In the case of my parents, my mother was one of those victims of the women smoker campaign of mass marketing invented by Edward Bernays. She was enslaved by that habitual smoking and if there was no mass marketing then perhaps she would have been smoking and if so then it would not be slavery, it would be strictly voluntary.

So validation invalidates a crime. Having no ability to validate, because willful deception is involved, is precisely that, there is no way to validate something that is unknown. If the infected individual, infected with indoctrination, is then made aware of the power holding the individual into slavery, and nothing is done to escape that hold, then facts are currently what they are, but validating the previous enslavement crime assumes that time can be turned back?

Song lyrics come to mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0t0EW6z8a0

One powerful lie, false advertizement campaign, infecting almost everyone I meet, is the "society" did it lie. If a criminal willfully creates these ideas, these lies, like the Edward Bernays examples, then accurate accounting accurately accounts for that fact, following the money back to the source, and what is found?

1. Someone
2. Society

So who did it?

Society did it.

Who is to blame?

The gun did it.

Who can be defended against?

The government did it.

How much damage does that lie manage to inspire people to validate?

Please sir, can I have more lies, here have all the fraud money I have left in the bank, just give me a better lie to hold onto?

Volunteer work?

"Almost everyone is consenting to slavery without even know they are doing it."

You and I do not understand the same meaning of the word consent.

One indoctrination is complete the otherwise naturally working brain is conditioned to respond, where behavior is modified, as if a hard drive is filled with viruses, and those viruses then load into the RAM to create a false operating system out of the one that would have been working as an operating system had not the target of the virus been indoctrinated.

Again, those who are infected, indoctrinated, may read my words and then claim that I am blaming society for the actions of people.

If so, of someone does that, then they confess their infection, for my words offer the exact opposite message, and therefore the infected, indoctrinated brain, is reacting, is transferring, is projecting, as if their own thoughts override existing perception of reality, and their brain washing commands them to project their own thoughts outward into "society," when triggers for that behavior are introduced into their field of view. I've seen this behavior is crowds where I may say something, a triggering message, and the whole crowd turns their head in unison, and they shout "no," in unison; yet my words were factual accounts of an accurately measurable reality.

That type of data accurately measures a power at work and when that power at work just so happens to keep the power flowing from the many to a few, the following of the money concept, following the flow of power, and finding those few, when that is done, uncovers some significant pieces of inculpatory evidence, yes, or no?

"This is the vast majority not some tiny minority."

Up until a point at which the indoctrinated masses can no longer afford to be victims, at which point there are examples of victims marching into mass graves, the proof is in the pudding as to validating, agreeing to, that path by those individuals driven to work for their own miserably demise so as to please their masters.

If there are cases where people naturally decide to get up as one long marching band, marching to a torturous and horrible early death, all voluntarily, in a strict sense of the word, validating their desire for such things, then such an example is an example of a species of life that could not survive under any condition that requires inventive, creative, productive, adaptation.

What are we doing to day Sam?

Today we march off into torture and misery so as to leap into our early graves and start rotting in a pile.

OK, Sam, sounds great.

"This current form of slavery is from conditioning not from fear but ignorance of law plays a large role in modern slavery in America."

If instead of lies being told to children the parents make sure that the children are having their moral conscience nourished into ever higher quality so as to cost everyone less over time?

Can I tell all the stories of all the teachers telling lies to me and my children and all the effort required to expose those lies to whoever will listen? Once infected there is an operating system failure, as the counterfeit operating system demands blind obedience to falsehood without question.

"What about those who consent to slavery and do vast amounts of voluntary effort to maintain slavery? Is this slavery 'valid'?"

I'm skipping around in a random order, for some reason, perhaps I lost my place.

What is the meaning of the word valid? If the meaning is akin to agreeing to the accurate accounting of the facts, then the cause of action must be understood as the cause of action. One of the first lies told to children is a duplicitous command to them. They are told to obey without question or they will be bullied into doing so, and then they are told that bullies are bad so they are told never to be a bully. Children are then shown that the teachers are bullies, the teachers are bullied by their "superiors," and the whole faculty of administrators at the school are bullied by the people financing the school. Then the children are shown how the bullies their age in the school are the ones who command the bully teachers, as those bullies are rewarded precisely as those bullies want to be rewarded. So the message is to obey while no one else obeys. Natural law built into living beings, such as moral conscience, favors the non-bully strategy, so there has to be a significant expense expended in defeating that natural law, that natural order, and so how much do College Student Loans cost the teachers who benefit from all that precise, scientifically perfected, teaching?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8

Which is better for a living species?

A. Systematic falsehood as a rule
B. Accurate accounting as a rule

The two paths are voluntary, but who does the deciding?

"This consent through ignorance is divine inspiration playing itself out within themselves which is why they are getting screwed in a situation where they consented."

A man called me yesterday telling me the story of his life after Military Duty in Vietnam, disability resulting, and then IRS battles in so called courts. He heard my viewpoint. You hear mine now.

There is no consent in cases of fraud, so when you claim that someone consented, you are no different than the other liars in fact, and the term there is actus reus, in other words your words are lies, even if you fail to recognize that your words are lies. If you knew the words you offer are lies, and yet you lie anyway, then the term is mens rea in Latin, or guilty mind. In either case the words constitute a lie.

Person A speaks honestly. Person B knows the power wielded by person B, and any excuse to force Person A to pay Person B works for Person B, including the excuse that words are magical, so once the magic word is uttered by Person A, ta da! Bingo! Person B forces Person A to pay Person B.

Where does consent enter the picture?

"This consent through ignorance is divine inspiration playing itself out within themselves which is why they are getting screwed in a situation where they consented."

I offered an example of a case. Person A goes to trial on charges of failure to pay Person B. Person B is a group of people working the same fraud. Person A is the victim of the same fraud. Where is the consent you speak about?

If that case applies to your words, then as far as I know, which is not much, but as far as I know, you are speaking about a crime in progress whereby the criminals falsely claim to be running a court of law.

"Peace and freedom will come from the removal of criminals but if everyone knows there are criminals taking over and no one seeks justice then in some respects they are consenting to living under tyranny."

The concept of consent is contentious at best in this situation whereby my inspiration is to know better through discussion with other people where other people have competitive viewpoints, and through discussion my viewpoint can improve as has happened over, and over, and over again, and again, so I stick to it.

Here, however, in this place and time, the concept of consent is a road block.

"They are getting it for allowing lawlessness to flourish."

No, that is not what I see, when people are indoctrinated into a false belief that sending the criminals everything asked of the criminals will be their one and only choice to defend themselves against criminals, then every injury done by criminals inspire the victims to greater effort to produce more for the criminals.

In other words, when the criminals take over, the victims are led to believe that their power of self defense ARE those criminals.

That has nothing to do with consent.

This is not news by the way:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. "

http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/commonsense/sense2.htm

The criminals figured out how to fool the victims better.

Hey Bill!

What is it Sam?

Look out the bad guys are at the gate, you had better give me more money; and I just happen to have some you can borrow with interest.

The fools game is not that hard to figure out, but again the children are indoctrinated as early as possible.

Those who refuse to look at the facts are those who, in my experience, will turn their heads in unison and shout "No."

http://silkworth.net/fitquotation.pdf

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation."

The natural operating system is a curious one, a sponge, and when the sponge is filled precisely with self-defeating lies, then the independent mind driven by a natural operating system becomes a tool for those who command it. Cannon fodder validates the need for our fearless leader?

Consent is not a definition we share, in context, and neither is validation, so what explains the two opposing meanings of two words, your definitions and mine?

"They are getting it for allowing lawlessness to flourish."

Millions of people marching on death marches exemplifies something worth knowing, if for no other reason than to clue the potential marcher as to what awaits in the future allowances. So...what works to clue in the clueless?

"A crime requires mens rea to be a crime."

Well now, there is a common term shared.

The ink written on paper can be seen as a magical entity commanding a power to cause people to act, such as your version of what The Constitution is to people, to you, to other people, but not to me.

Your version of what The Constitution is, is your version, and so far as I can tell your version is not my version, and your version is not the version offered to me by those who opposed that Constitution. That Constitution, as far as the accurate accounting work I've done, is a document that documents a crime in progress, so that Constitution is a piece of inculpatory evidence proving a fact. Those who signed it are those who confess their involvement in that crime, at the very least, and then those who used that document to aid in their slave trading, their piracy, their compounding fraud, their money monopoly fraud, their extortion collecting system, on and on, is as well recorded on further documents sprung forth from that original crime when the criminals took over a working Federation with that criminal document that is called The Constitution.

Three obvious points of contention (failure to find agreement) can be enumerated as:

1. The meaning of consent
2. The meaning of validation
3. The meaning of The Constitution of 1787

I can offer:

1. Consent means voluntary association which is no longer voluntary if someone infects someone with falsehoods, and then those falsehoods drive the infected one to act according to those falsehoods.

2. Validation means voluntary association too, same qualifications above, as one (free from falsehoods) agrees to acknowledge another one who is also free from falsehoods.

3. The Constitution documents the beginning of a perpetuating crime whereby criminals took over defensive government in America.

If you do not validate or consent to the above viewpoint offered, then you don't, and if you don't, then you may validate and consent to the idea that it is a good idea to find out why there is no ability to validate, or consent to, that viewpoint. It is a good idea, I consent to, and I validate, the idea that it is a good idea to figure out why there is no validation, or consent, possible in this case, with those 3 meanings, because I may be dead wrong.

If I am dead wrong, and I have yet to find out why I am dead wrong, then it stands to reason, a good idea, an idea worth validating, an idea worth consenting to, that help is needed, so I ask for help.

If you have a higher quality and lower cost, or more accurate, or more useful, or more competitive, or better offer of meaning for those 3 contentious words, labels, terms, then please afford me the opportunity to know the better meanings.

"The Constitution does not claim the applicability to the People, it is rules for a contractual capacity."

Do you mean to say that the criminals who wrote and signed the document did not say something? A Constitution does not speak, it cannot say, it cannot claim, it is ink on paper, and the ink was placed on the paper by people who can be held to account as the people who signed it, which may or may not actually be those who wrote it; but having signed it, in my opinion, constitutes incuplatory evidence connecting those people with that crime.

"Their may be a distinction between a civil violation versus a criminal violation depending on the intent of the perpetrator."

Those criminals were dividing up the spoils of victory, you get these slaves, you get those slaves, honor among thieves?

I don't think that the meaning of honor means the same thing to me as the meaning of honor means to the thieves that made slavery legal in their minds.

Mens rea?

"Divine law will inspire the necessary thought to know who (or know how to find out who) is who and how to ascertain the status."

If Divine inspiration is the power behind people claiming that The Constitution of 1787 is anything other than a document documenting the start of a perpetuating crime, then I think it is important to understand precisely how that works, because to me, as far as my study goes, that version of Divine inspiration looks a whole lot more like devil worship than anything even close to the golden rule.

If there is anything on a list of the most competitive existing evidence of divine inspiration, then that list can be offered.

I think there are three things working on that list, and I place those three things in the order that works for me; and I make no claims as to having divine inspiration myself, all I am offering is my opinion based upon my study.

List of things that may be examples of divine inspiration:

1. The Golden Rule
2. Trial by Jury
3. A Declaration of Independence
4. A Bill of Rights

Since The Constitution was nothing more than a bunch of criminals assembled to divide up the spoils of their victory over the former slave traders, these criminals claiming dominion over those same slaves, where some of the criminals were still working for the former slave traders, all part of honor among thieves, I see no possible way to include The Constitution on the list of divinely inspired creations of people.

Divine inspirations of people, by people, for people, to me are voluntary associations.

Divine inspirations of criminals, by criminals, and for criminals, to me are devil worshipers.

Devil worshipers tend to pile up the corpses very high.

"For me I am so in tune with the divine that for some criminals in my presence with intent towards me the hairs on my neck and arms will stand up and point at them when they are close regardless if I have even seen them. You can't get a much clearer message from the divine than that. Automatic physical response for serious threats in the vicinity!"

So your tuning inspires you to include The Constitution as divine intervention or inspiration?

Again, if I am wrong, then there is the least bit of hope that I can be inspired to be less wrong, so I ask, politely, if you can help me see better.

1. Consent
2. Validation
3. The Constitution

My tuning and your tuning are tuned up differently on those three things, and if I am wrong, and if I am open to deliberately deliberating on the available evidence (available to me, me the guy who is not close to any divinity as far as I can tell), then there is still hope for me - perhaps.

Perhaps not.

_____________________________________
According to the snapshot of words that actually made it in the document through the interplay of all who were present.

Of course Hamilton knew the score, His actions were clear. Hamilton still had to wiggle his way through the opposition.

"Why do you think Washington went into Pennsylvania?" Washington liked power and he generally liked being the center of attention. My general answer, ego.
________________________________________

I suppose at this moment I can offer a summary of my reluctance to agree, to consent, or to validate your viewpoint, because I am unsure of what is your viewpoint.

Do you think that The Constitution of 1787 was inspired by the Divinity that you are in tune with?

Back to the previous response:

"You have confused applicable law for that government with applicable law for "the People" or other people."

I find it difficult, at times like this, to understand how someone else becomes confident in their judgment of my confusions - without asking.

With that in mind I can ask, what makes you so confident in your judgment of my confusions in this case?

"Those who claim law as applicable but violate that law are lawless individuals."

If you claim that those criminals ever thought they they would be chained up with their lies themselves, then I think you are the one who is confused, not me. I think that criminals will eventually be victims of their own lies, sure, but if they knew that then they would probable choose not to lie in the first place.

"Their lawlessness just needs to be revealed with them conflicting themselves."

I'd be in a position to agree with that had I not found so much disagreement in meanings of words from your offers of words flowing into my perspective through this medium of exchange as I read your words and as I offered my viewpoint (in words) step by step during that process.

Thanks again for Clarifications; as that generous offering has accomplished a narrowing down of the obvious confusion I have in my efforts to understand your messages.

Joe

"Society is necessarily a collective" == Deeply wrong

Society is made of individuals. Period. There is nothing but people. Society, like government, like soylent green, is people, and nothing but people.

This may sound like a semantic point, but it's not, because when you say society is necessarily a collective isn't merely semantic. You are attempting to say something specific, and the inevitable logical result of this idea of collectivism is that some people will order others about with guns and badges and uniforms and that is decidedly not social. That's what you mean. You are not just writing apologia for minarchism. You're writing apologia for statism in general.

A purely market based legal system is extremely susceptible to corruption.

Compared to what? The socialized monopolies that infest our society now. Your saying concentrated power is less prone to corruption? What about the entire history of the world is lost on you?

This assertion is exactly backwards.

It's capitalism that promotes morality, and socialism that promotes immorality.

It was the fact that government was limited and the tools for plunder were limited that was behind the fact that the U.S. was a much more moral place before the progressive era. It's government that causes moral decay. Period. More government, more moral decay. More government and more mechanisms to gain via evil, via violating rights, via murder theft and kidnapping.

Government makes evil profitable.

Government makes evil work.

And because it works people are tempted that would not otherwise be.

If you're a good man running a business you have to have lobbyists, at first defensively, but then the line gets blurred.

If you're a good man running a business, are you going to not accept subsidies? Refuse obamacare?

If you're a good man running a business burdened with an obscene tax and regulatory burden, and you see someone skimming on his taxes or compliance, you will be tempted to rat him out, even though you know the taxes and regulation themselves are wrong.

How many of us don't accept a single dollar, credit, benefit that we know was stolen from someone else?

People used to be able to go through life never accepting a single cent that was stolen.

Government destroys that.

Agreed

There are some good points in the original post, and I commend the original poster, but a collective has no opinion; a collective has no perspective. Only an individual can have an opinion or a perspective.

This is a fundamental error which is built into our language and a deep seated part of our mental malware (n.b., Larken Rose's recent lecture on mental malware).

Try to define exactly what is a "collective opinion." What is an example of a "collective opinion?"

A collective opinion is

one guys opinion enforced by other guys with guns:)

I haven't seen that LR vid yet but I will definitely watch it.

I get tetchy whenever someone uses the c word. I know what they mean, even if they don't. They mean people are a resource to be used by the few.

Paraphrasing from somewhere: When people use the term 'collectivism' they mean masters and slaves, and they intend to be the masters.

The real good of the many is only achieved when we will not sacrifice individuals, nor agree to be sacrificed, for the good of the many.

Stefan Molyneux

He has a podcast where he explains that concepts, such as "society", don't exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIlOtkBhRvI

Sea…Nice Job!

Word of warning though….valuing my opinion won’t make you a lot of friends on here. Probably because Liberty is too hard and takes personal responsibility, not only for your actions but your thought s too. You have mastered both.

You say criticism….I say constructive response……potato…..tomato…you know.

Like this here

“Every attempt to achieve more and more liberty in our lives, is actually an attempt to project a value system, that of free will and just property rights, on each other person in the collective that is society”.

Liberty is ours to keep and only when we give it over to the society is it theirs to garner….and when they take it too far then violence occurs to restore the Liberty which society overreached.

This is what made Thomas Jefferson’s words so powerful:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And then you profoundly added....And I say this with all due respect and deference. You adressed the part that so often gets left out of the personal responsibility.

“What matters is the code of ethics that I choose to accept to govern my own actions, and how my moral outlook effects the environments of those members of society, whom I may influence”

“Searching for perfection in a system of government is like searching for perfection in a marriage. That's not how it works. We don't theorize the best way to be or to act towards each other. There is no way to codify it. To make it official. Society is a living and breathing thing. It depends upon the health of its members, the nature of the arrangement, the environment that the relationship exists in. What we believe.”

Yes Liberty is a responsibility…….it is not something that we take from the State or that the State gives us….we should protect it from the State….it is ours to “GIVE”……we give it to others by respecting their “right” to live the way they see fit, as long as they never infringe on some else’s Liberty.

It like being “saved”…..i don’t live right by God because I fear the consequences…I live right by God by showing him the respect for “saving me”. And for all our atheist friends out there…..he save me from the only sin I didn’t commit, the “original sin”. All my other sins I am responsible for and I accept the responsibility.

We should live right by our fellow citizens by showing them the respect that we know they gave up some Liberty also……this is what Bill will never understand.

From there the only debate should not just be just the scope of the governing body but the size……that one never gets addressed….but in this case size does matter…..the bigger the worse it gets.
I could go on……but when I say Nice Job I really mean it…not only for the OP, but also for the passion that you displayed with your rebuttal to Bill……you nailed it again, if he can’t see the wisdom of what you are saying it’s his loss…..you got it and should be proud that you do get it. Rothbard would be proud.

I do not agree with false labels.

If no one can explain an agreeable meaning for the word anarchist or minarchist then those words mean nothing to me.

As to the questions:

___________________________
1.
Do you believe that the law should be applied equally to everyone in a society?
____________________________

I am certain about the demonstrable fact that a law that is not applied to everyone equally is not a law. A counterfeit law is precisely the same thing all criminals do to their victims. So...

a. Laws agreed upon by all to apply to all, such as due process of law, or rule of law, that is afforded to all without exception, is law for everyone volunteering to abide by voluntary law.

b. Counterfeit law is when criminals claim that their laws apply to everyone while criminals obey no such law, yet those same criminals claim that their injuries to their victims are "for the good of the children," or any other false claim that works to perpetuate counterfeit law.

______________________________________
2.
Do you believe I should have the right of self defense against infractions of the law?
_______________________________________

Volunteers who volunteer to agree upon law defined as a process due everyone without exception can be volunteers that agree to defend each other which included defending each individual self, and this is a prime example of true law, true voluntary law, true agreeable law, because the ones who do not agree are the ones who confess their intent to perpetrate crimes upon innocent defenders. Of course those who volunteer to defend each other are going to face those who say that volunteers are not allowed to defend each other because the obvious reason is that those who claim that volunteers are not allowed to defend each other are criminals intending to make victims out of free people who volunteer to defend each other.

________________________________________
Do you believe I have the right to contract for that defense, or organize voluntarily to ensure it?
________________________________________

Before anyone can agree to "contract" there would have to be an agreement as to what a "contract" is, so that question requires an agreeable definition of the word "contract" before the question can even begin to be answered. Suppose the question was asked of one person who agreed to sign a contract explaining the agreed upon meaning of the word contract?

Where is that contract? Where is the contract explaining the meaning of the word contract?

In the fine print of that contract are words written in such a way that some people are going to use that wording as an excuse to force a victim to never, ever, fail to keep to that meaning on that paper, never allowing the victim, according to the fine print, to redefine the meaning of "contract" according to current realities? Does a contract predict every single possible demand for adaptation in the future reality, and those bound by the contract are forever kept inside the boundaries of the contract? What a load of horse crap, if so.

So some people manage to get other people to sign a piece of paper and then instead of defending innocent people from harm by criminals there are people defending the meaning of a contract as it was meant when it was signed, regardless of any current conditions that render the contract destructive to those who signed the contract? Such an idea sounds very good for those who manipulate future conditions in their favor so as to steal from those who are ignorant of that fact, whereby the criminal manipulators of conditions known only to them of future conditions, creating "leverage," and creating power because they create the future conditions in which those who don't know the future conditions will suffer by that disadvantage, due to their ignorance, their powerlessness to defend themselves, at the time of the contract signing event. Wonderful stuff.

I think a contract signed as an explanation of the meaning of contract might be a good idea so long as I always reserve the power required to adapt to future conditions demanding adaptation when failure to adapt to future conditions will result in my injury whereby someone else just so happens to be gaining at my expense; as if no one could possibly have known?

Escape clauses can be honest, accurate, and justified due to unforeseen, unforeseeable, adverse future conditions.

Escape clauses can be dishonest, accurate only because the dishonest "signer" has the power to know, and has the power to avoid "full disclosure" of knowledge to the other "signer," and inaccurate from the viewpoint of the "signer" who is "kept in the dark," during the "signing" of the contract, and the escape clause amounts to limited liabilities afforded to one at the expense of the other because the contract documents precisely how one criminal can make a victim of someone foolish enough to sign a "contract" made by criminals, enforced by criminals, for their mutual criminal profits at the expense of their divided and conquered victims.

_______________________________________________
Do you believe that the state and all of its bureaucrats should be accountable to the law, and subject to punishment and that retribution for their crimes should be demanded of them?
_______________________________________________

Where is the contract that is signed whereby the meaning of the word state is agreed upon? If state is a synonym for crime, then obviously the criminals sign that contract knowing that the state is a synonym for crime while the victims sign that contract under false pretenses whereby the victims are led to believe that the state means a voluntary defense association.

What is the contract that is signed whereby the meaning of the word bureaucrat is agreed upon? If the state is a synonym for crime then is not a bureaucrat a criminal? If the state is a synonym for crime then a bureaucrat is a criminal whose "law" is counterfeit, and so the criminal does not obey any law, other than the law that says the criminal can perpetrate crimes upon the innocent, at the pleasure of the criminal, and at the expense of the victim; and no such power is afforded to the victims by the criminals unless the victims agree to be fellow criminals. Rule by criminals. Criminal rules.

If the state is a synonym for crime then of course the criminals will "punish" each other as they work like rats on a sinking ship to feed off of every weaker rat.

What is the meaning of redistribution? Is the meaning of redistribution nothing more than theft? If so then where is the contract that is signed by those who agree with that meaning of that word and why are those people agreeing to use a counterfeit word when the genuine word is much better since the word crime means crime and the word crime is not willfully deceptive like the word redistribution?

_____________________________________
Do you believe that the state should have the authority to demand from me, that which I have a property right in under threat of force?
____________________________________

Again there is no contract I know of whereby people agree to sign a contract stating the meaning of the word state, so there are at least two possible meanings:

1. State is the same thing as crime except the word state is used as a false front for criminals hiding from victims.

2. State is a voluntary defense association in a free market of government services such as the example offered between 1776 and 1787 in America where there were 13 States joined in a voluntary association known as a Federation.

The state is a concept, a process, a process due to people by people, so a state cannot "have" authority itself, as if a rock, or a gun, or a grain of sand, or a cloud, or a mountain, can "have" authority, so the question here is extremely deceptive without having in advance an understanding of what is meant by this strange attachment of possession attached to a process as if a process, a thing, can own, or control, anything such as authority, or responsibility, or accountability.

Also, where is the contract signed by the signers of the contract whereby the meaning of the words property rights are agreed upon? Having as many possible meanings as there are grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth is not conducive to actually connecting a useful question to an accurate answer. Is it even possible?

If it is not even possible, then why ask the question that cannot be answered? Argument for the sake of argument?

_________________________________________
Do you believe that acting on behalf of the state, absolves the individual from consequences of breaking the law?
________________________________________

Here again the question appears to afford a thing, this state, qualities that cannot be possessed by a thing, as if this thing commands, and this thing orders, and this thing requests, and this thing decides, and this thing is asking for help, and this thing is then inspiring people to act on behalf of this thing, and no such thing is even remotely possible, so why ask such a loaded question, loaded with deception?

What is the point?

Is the point such that the one asking the question is promoting the maintenance of this lie that things can be responsible, and things can be accountable for the actions of people? The gun did it? Society did it? The government made me do it? The state asks and so I obey on behalf of the state? Seriously?

_________________________________________
Could society develop in a way where adherence to a court system and participation in the victim/criminal justice process was voluntary? Did you know that it has, already, without the state?
__________________________________________

Society is a thing, or society is a sum total of individual, responsible, and therefore accountable, people, if people care to be accountable, if people realize that they are individually responsible? A court system cannot be adhered to as if people are asked by the court system to act on behalf of the court system, as if a court system was in some way responsible, and a court system was in some way accountable, or can people adhere to things in that way? If a court system is a process and people volunteer to use the process then people adhere to their own responsibility to find agreement instead of turning to crime, and in that way people are accountable in fact where facts can be agreed upon, such as the fact that things, such as processes, cannot be responsible or accountable.

_____________________________________
What purpose does the state have?
_______________________________________

People are driven by a sense of purpose. A thing "has" (possesses) a purpose? A criminal will use a lie (the state did it) to cover up their crimes because open violence is easier for the victims to defend against.

If government, or the state, is a way that people can create effective, common, mutual, defense against criminals, then the obvious opportunity exists for criminals to use that word as a false front to cover up their crimes.

What purpose do people have in creating a voluntary defense association created for the purpose of defending the innocent from the criminals?

What purpose do people have in creating a false version of a voluntary defense association created for the purpose of perpetuating organized crime?

What purpose do people have in using words that are defined one way by criminals and another way by victims?

"The most frustrating thing in the world to me, is when I see an argument being dismissed carelessly when the person presenting the argument is quite intelligent and makes a good case."

Where is the contract signed whereby those signing the contract agree on what is or is not a good case?

I think I've made a good case concerning every single stupid ass question asked as if asking stupid ass questions can ever connect a useful question with a valuable answer.

"It is not the potential that the argument may be correct that frustrates me, but the unwillingness to recognize that the person presenting the argument has a different way of understanding the whole notion of the @. If everyone saw things the way we did, there would be no disagreements."

The obvious principle driving people agreeing to volunteer to join voluntary associations is the principle of finding agreement.

What is the obvious principle driving people to argue?

"It is our unwillingness to try and find the validity, "why does this bright and reasonable, intelligent human being feel this way? What does he see that I don't" in each others arguments."

Finding agreement or arguing?

I don't argue, what would be the point?

How can someone agree to ask and answer useful questions, accurately, when the words used in communicating can mean opposite meanings at the same time?

It is not possible.

What is possible is an accurate accounting for those duplicitous words, and then an agreement to define the agreed upon meanings, and then ask the questions, and then agree upon the agreeable answers whereby those volunteering to do so also agree to find the accurate answers.

When choosing duplicitous words it is an obvious agreement to reach the goal of confusion by compounding error upon error in a never ending argument which is the agreed upon goal.

1. Use duplicitous words creating impossible fictitious situations so as to move as far away from the valuable questions and the accurate answers as possible as quickly as possible.

2. Agree on the meanings of accurate words before stepping in the direction of asking valuable questions so as to then agree upon finding the accurate answers.

"Instead of assuming that they don't get it, why don't we look at what they DO get."

I am not a group. I do not belong to a group. If there are things I know, things I do, that other people also know, and other people also do, then the common agreement of knowledge and action, creates a group. A group where people share the knowledge of the useful, shared, desire, demand, for agreement, are those who then are inspired to supply agreement, creating what can be agreed upon as free markets, including a free market where the volunteers agree to demand effective defense of each other from criminals, and the volunteers then agree to supply supplies of effective defense to meet that demand in that agreed upon free market, and so, what, may I ask, is the label, the word, the term, used by all those in agreement, all those agreeing to demand and supply effective defense?

What is the one word, or two words, that label that free market agreement to effectively defend against criminals?

I'll offer a competitive, free market, answer. I will offer a competitive, free market, example of a possible answer, and then any volunteers can also volunteer to add to the list of possible free market answers offered by volunteers volunteering to answer the question asked.

Open source competitive answer offered:

Liberty

Liberty is the one word answer to the question asked, as one of the volunteers asks for, demands, a supply to meet the demand, for one word that describes the free market agreement to supply effective defense to meet the demand for effective defense against the criminals.

How about a few other competitive answers along side of Liberty as possible answers offered in a free market of ideas?

Liberty

Due process (due everyone without exception and those who except themselves confess that they are the criminals)

Rule of Law (opposite of rule by man/dictator/tyrant/criminal or men/dictatorship/tyranny/organized crime)

Trial by Jury (according to pre-Magna Carta English common law)

Democracy (according to the example in ancient Athens)

Constitutional Republic (based upon Democracy and exemplified in the 13 Republics after 1776 in America)

Federation (the actual Federation before 1787 not the counterfeit Federation after 1787 in America)

"A purely market based legal system is extremely susceptible to corruption."

That is a good example of self confused wording in my opinion.

A purely market based system, of any kind, is either voluntary or not, and if it is purely market based on voluntary agreement, then there can be no corruption, because the introduction of corruption, in any form, removes the quality of voluntary agreement, and if the purely market based system is involuntary then it is merely crime, so why call it "purely market based" if all it is is another example of crime?

Crime is not that hard to understand. As soon as a criminal creates a victim there is no more Liberty for the victim and the criminal can be held accountable, in fact, because the criminals is, in fact, responsible. Blaming the state is what the criminals do, when the criminals corrupt market based systems, or voluntary systems, when criminals remove the quality of agreement which is necessary in voluntary systems.

Criminals create counterfeit market systems, counterfeit "agreement," counterfeit "volunteers," on and on and on, and it may be a good idea to stop agreeing to use the counterfeited versions of words.

"Without a universal legal framework, all kinds of injustices would be permitted."

That is missing a vital element that is the "legal framework" that is agreeable, and to illustrate, to communicate effectively that vital element, that vital element can be added to those words.

Without many offers of competitive universal legal frameworks, one universal kind of injustice would be permitted, that one universal kind of injustice is called crime if the defenders want to nail down one name for the one non-competitive universal legal framework.

How does that work?

Here is A:

"Without a universal legal framework, all kinds of injustices would be permitted. This is all very legitimate."

That is not at all legitimate when criminals perpetrate crimes because victims are defenseless.

Add the vital element:

Here is B:

Without many competitive universal legal frameworks, criminals perpetrate crimes upon victims. This is all very legitimate when volunteers defend, and that is NOT at all legitimate when the criminals take over.

"If we got rid of the nation state tomorrow, what would sweep in and fill the vacuum?"

Again there are two very distinct and opposing definitions of nation state.

Sentence A:

If we got rid of the competitive voluntary defense associations tomorrow, the pay rate for criminals increases and more and more people turn to crime as a way of life.

If we got rid of the non-competitive involuntary organized crime monopoly, the pay rate for criminals decreases and more and more people earn their living honestly.

Nonsense:

"If we got rid of the nation state tomorrow, what would sweep in and fill the vacuum?"

Common Sense:
http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

More nonsense:

"Just as social contract does not protect us from abuse by the state, neither will a lack of social contract protect us from those who have access to wield resources for the purposes of control, both economically and political."

Where is the contract that people sign where people agree on what is or is not a contract?

A state is a thing, or a process, and it itself cannot abuse, think, act, be, or not be, as people are responsible and therefore people are accountable if people agree to account accurately instead of people agreeing to be fooled by liars telling obvious lies.

If criminals fool victims into signing contracts that are then driving people to transfer resources from the many to the few, then the solution to that problem is for the fools to wise up.

"We cannot rely on the market to provide us with justice."

A free market is not a thing. A free market is a process. Individual people in Liberty volunteer to find agreement instead of criminals volunteering to make victims. Of course people are fooled into believing that a thing can be responsible, accountable, and those fools are then a ready supply of victims for criminals to exploit.

"We cannot rely on the market to provide us with justice."

We (meaning the fools) can rely on a thing to magically produce everything all the time.

"We cannot rely on a political institution dedicated to preserving our liberty."

WOW talk about loaded statements. Where is the contract that is signed by those who agree on the meaning of what is, or is not, a political institution?

1. The thing that decides to suddenly wake up in a new day where the thing is now dedicated to preserving our Liberty - ta da!

2. The criminals fool the victims into paying the criminals to protect the foolish victims from the criminals, and the criminals demand ever more for ever less. The criminal version of Liberty liberates everything of value from the victims quickly. Talk about a sweet deal.

"We can only rely on each other."

Criminals can certainly agree while there is a ready supply of foolish victims, then, when the supply runs out, there is less of that criminal version of reliance upon each other.

"We can only rely on what we as the collective accept as the appropriate way of arranging ourselves."

Where is the contract that is signed by those who agree in the meaning and use of that word collective?

Is a collective a thing, a responsible thing, an accountable thing, that just so happens to be blamed when people perpetrate crimes upon victims?

"The collective needs each of us to help mold its opinion, and shape its perspective."

Where is the contract offered by this collective thing when this collective thing was looking for people to sign this contract where this collective thing is created, and so, so, so, needy?

"We owe it to our brothers and sisters to embody the morality of liberty and foster it in whatever shape it takes."

It may help to acknowledge the fact that we owe it to ourselves to defend ourselves now, so as to avoid having a much more powerful future organized crime "collective" in the future.

Each individual who pays less into organized crime is thereby reducing the stolen power used by the criminals running their organized crime thing, their "collective" of individual funds into their International Monetary FUND, for expenditures expended in maintaining organized crime on a World-Wide level.

I, me, myself, can add to the total amount of power no longer flowing into the criminal FUND, which is then measurable as less power commanded by the criminals as the criminals will then spend that power to effectively move more, not less, power from the victims to the criminals.

Total defensive power is measurable as less power flowing from defenders to criminals.

Total criminal power is measurable as more power flowing from victims to criminals.

1. Defenders (power moves less from victims to criminals)
2. Victims (power moves more from victims to criminals)
3. Criminals (power moves more from victims to criminals)

It may be a good idea for the defenders to get on a different page than the page created by the combined total power of criminals and victims.

"Liberty is not something to achieve. Not an end goal. It is a continuum. It is spiritual."

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Those who create and maintain that are those who sacrifice human souls, as they burn people alive, eat people, and who knows what else, in demonstrable fact.

I suppose it is possible to counter that type of spirituality, also knowable as devil worship, also knowable as evil.

Personally, I think it is a good idea to separate the concept of effective defense of the innocent victims (also known as Liberty) from a relationship any individual may have with spiritualism, or God, or The Creator.

If effective defense involves spiritualism, then it does, but to connect the two as if the two are one is not accurate in my opinion.

It, meaning Liberty, is life where the defenders defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals.

It, meaning Liberty, is not spiritual unless people agree that is spiritual.

It, meaning Liberty, is life where the defenders effectively defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, because that is Liberty in fact, with, or without, the agreement, acknowledgement, of any involvement of any spirits.

Liberty is fact based, on the ground, accurately measurable, completely agreeable as Liberty when Liberty is Liberty.

How many people agree on any measures of what is, or is not, spiritual?

"Liberty is what we can strive for. It is the health of society. It is an active process. The important thing is not that we achieve freedom, but that we are concerned to always move forward on the continuum."

I think otherwise. Liberty is a specific goal, and once Liberty is reached in time and place, then less power is used up defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, because crime no longer pays so well, and then much more power can be invested in making life better and less costly for the people in Liberty.

So Liberty is a goal, and once the goal is reached, the quality of Life is higher and the cost of life is lower because much less life is stolen and consumed by criminals who steal that life and use that life to steal more life.

"If an anarchist removed himself from.society, he would be an anarchist, but what positive impact would he have on achieving liberty."

Where is the contract that is signed by those who agree on the meaning of anarchist? The first American anarchist (so called) proved the viability of free markets in his work on paper and his work within groups of people who agree to avoid being criminals and victims. This notion of anarchism expressed in the quoted words is not that same anarchism defined precisely by Josiah Warren who was, is, and may continue to be called The First American Anarchist.

The second most likely American Anarchist was Stephen Pearl Andrews and then possibly Benjamin Tucker, while Lysander Spooner appears to have been inaccurately accounted for in most publications adding to the "collective knowledge" of modern man.

Those people, individual people, called anarchists, defined the meaning of individualism in no uncertain terms and they did not claim that individuals are in any way disconnected from any contact with other people. What they did was to accurately account for the facts concerning the connections among individual people.

"In order to have individual freedom, we need somebody who will respect it."

Black is black, and white is white?

Joe

Man was born naked into the world

Born. Already you have a society of two, one dependent, one responsible. One with proper authority over another, the other with proper obedience. One a debtor, one a creditor.

You seem to get this, and the post was really strong. I agree largely about the conquest theory of the state. But here we are getting into dangerous waters, because you don't define the word 'state' and give an unequivocal, standard meaning through the whole piece.

The conquest theory does not claim that all involuntary government stems from conquest. It is talking about a particular state form in history, and indeed, the predatory origins of many states is a fact. Historically, the conquering class usually settles into the conquered population and loses its distinct identity over time.

However, the conquered people also have involuntary government, which does not comport with voluntaryism, libertarianism, or anarchism. They are also a 'state' on the typical anarcho-cap view.

To your questions,

Do you believe that the law should be applied equally to everyone in a society?

We haven't defined law, or society. but we'll leave that aside. For sake of discussion, yes, the law should be applicable to all individuals; there shouldn't be special person-based privileges founded on mere power or on some claim to specialness inhering in the person.

But this is a very different question from whether institutions, and capacities, not persons, have special privileges under the law. Judges, for instance, acting in their capacity as judges, can do things that random persons can't do. Or do you believe that individuals should be allowed to try and sentence people without consequence?

You're mixing up personal privileges, like an hereditary aristocracy, with functions of a government. The person who is a judge should not be allowed to commit rapine and murder at night merely because he is allowed to give a sentence in his capacity as judge during the day.

Do you believe I should have the right of self defense against infractions of the law?

Interesting phrase. "the right of self defense against infractions of the law." This seems to assume that all possible infractions of the law are aggressive actions against a person, and so qualify for self defense. This doesn't follow, as we can think of crimes that you can't 'self defend' against, such as dumping toxic waste in a river that is no one's property. There are also things that no individual can defend against, right or no right. Since the group is necessary to defend against lots of threats, the individual is in the relation of dependent, and has to accept the rules if he wants defense. Just like the baby and the mother.

There are also big problems of power imbalance that arise due to natural inequality of size, strength, brains, skills, cunning, and the ability to gang up on people. The ideal of equal rights and protections is hard to balance with the real power imbalances in the world. To equalize what nature and technology has made unequal, people need to to gang up and use their collective force to iron out individual imbalances in power and privileges that arise naturally.

If the question is, 'should i be legally permitted to defend myself against other persons if they are committing a crime against me?

Yes.

Do you believe I have the right to contract for that defense, or organize voluntarily to ensure it?

A society will not normally permit an individual to amass a private army for 'self defense,' simply because the army/gang could just as easily be used for offense. There is nothing preventing your heavily armed defense forces from being used criminally. So the answer is, "only up to a point." One which doesn't destabilize and endanger the rest of the people (society) or threaten public order. The public claims for itself the right to the 'heavy artillery,' as it were.

You have no such right within a society that does not permit it. Just as you don't have the right to defend yourself with nuclear weapons from pakistan, as an individual. Or do you think you do have this right?

Do you believe that the state and all of its bureaucrats should be accountable to the law, and subject to punishment and that retribution for their crimes should be demanded of them?

Sure.

Do you believe that the state should have the authority to demand from me, that which I have a property right in under threat of force?

The group that defends your property rights can charge you for it. If you don't want to pay, you should be free to opt out of the explicit/implicit contract and leave the legal territory. You don't have permission to free ride or steal defense/justice services that others pay for. If this applies on private property, there's no reason it doesn't apply to public property as well, which is designated by the agreement of citizens/property owners.

Do you believe that acting on behalf of the state, absolves the individual from consequences of breaking the law?

No.

Could society develop in a way where adherence to a court system and participation in the victim/criminal justice process was voluntary?

No. Criminals won't voluntarily submit to justice. Societies that do not defend themselves from criminals and other governments with measures that require violations of voluntary principle will always perish in the absence of external protection. That's why there aren't any examples of such societies.

Did you know that it has, already, without the state

No.

Minarchists don't take a fierce position in the debate. They are typically quiet, modest, and polite. I'm not a minarchist, so I don't count. It's the anarchists that are loud, obnoxious, bullying, unreasonable, hostile, judgmental, etc. For the most part. You, Micah and Seth don't count, but you guys aren't really an-caps at heart.

Great post!

Bill…..You wrote quite a bit

But I stopped reading after the “toxic river dumping”, here’s why.

You stated
“This seems to assume that all possible infractions of the law are aggressive actions against a person, and so qualify for self defense. This doesn't follow, as we can think of crimes that you can't 'self defend' against, such as dumping toxic waste in a river that is no one's property.”

What lacks from your thought is the person doing the dumping does not own that river either….so if it’s not his to destroy…..then he shouldn’t touch it.

I hate the saying the “locks are for the honest people”…….really because that’s basically what you are saying. The only reason someone like yourself doesn’t harm others, either aggressive or non-aggressively is because it’s against the law.

I teach my kids that……doesn’t matter what it is, you know whether it belongs to you or not and if it doesn’t then it’s not yours to touch…..period …..full stop.

I mean do you not rape your neighbor’s daughter because it’s against the law……or because it is a violation of her as a person…….I hope it’s the latter. Graphic choice …yes I know, but I wanted to choose the most graphic description to prove the point…..any violation whether locked or wide open is a violation.

You seem to think of this only from one view point, the victim. I say change the hearts of men and laws aren’t necessary…..right more laws and we all devolve to the lowest common dominator…..the law.

Hey Goldspan

Long time no argue.

Well, according to anarchism/NAP, it is wrong to do harm to another person or their justly owned property. So on NAP, river dumping isn't a crime.

On your view it may be, but that aint NAP/anarchism.

Carry on.

Bill, like so often when we argue

you prove my point.....and you never get it.....thats why I don't waste my time on you anymore.

Well then

stfu and stop whining. Making ad hom statements doesn't progress the situation.

Bill ....how do i make it more clear

Your mind set is ass backwards….its like you are constantly think about someone getting over on someone else all the time…….I look at it like “live and let live”. I don’t really care what you do as long as it does not interfere in someone else’s life or their property…..but as far as no one owning the property……like the river…..you know it’s not yours, so don’t harm it………you would only have the right to destroy what belongs to you….
It must be your upbringing……are you a yankee?

Well the adults

are discussing situations where two people disagree about right/wrong.

Go back to the kiddie table, where everything is simple.

Paece, child.

kiddie table indeed

Didn’t I use that one on you last year when you were trying to pass off your so called superior knowledge of modern banking….wasn’t it something like banks could lend all they wanted because they would just get all the reserves they needed from the Fed…..and didn’t I prove that you had no understanding of the way reserves moved from one side on the balance sheet to the other and became capital requirements…….yeah I remember you….dummy. Did you ever take that accounting class I recommended?

But let’s just stick to the topic at hand for now……answer me this “Bill”…….please answer this or I won’t go any further with you………Are you a good person? Do you not violate others because its the law or because you understand that to do so is wrong? Do you think are the only good person in this world? (you probably do because of how narcissistic you are)If the answer is no, you are not the only good person in this world, then why can’t we all just get along……….i guess because you just don’t want to let people live the way they want to live……so YOU need the State to make sure they live the “Bill” way .

And you didn’t answer me…….are you a Yankee?

It's not

about me.

Well aint this some s***!

My two favorite posters on the DP(albeit for completely different reasons). How incredibly far apart both of you are, and yet how unbelievably similar.

When I saw that you were arguing, I had to see what about. And lo, here you are. Bickering about nothing, right on my post. Like pissing at each other in the middle of a hurricane.

Bill, why do you assume you have a correct understanding of what everybody believes, and consequently believe everybody is wrong? Is it possible that you are missing something? Like you don't get what it is that everybody believes? Or why they believe it? Is it so unlikely that there is a reason that everybody keeps arguing, and its not because they are all dumb? Your attitude reminds me of my attitude when I first started reading the communist literature. I was so completely against the idea that anything they said might be valid, that I couldn't understand how anyone could be an intellectual and be so stupid to get fooled by it. It wasn't until I realized what it was that they believed, that I could really measure my personal belief system against theirs. I came out much stronger, and with much more conviction.

@goldspan. I haven't heard any feedback from you. I am a little nervous, mind. I value your criticism(as I do Bill's) very deeply. I always appreciate your insight, but as a human being I also desire validation. Not bullshit. Not patronizing. I desire to be validated for my thoughts. I don't share thoughts to get validation.

Either way, I know you are just gonna be honest. And I am going to deserve any criticism. Look forward to hearing it.

Séamusín

Sea,

I was going to comment “nice job”, but decided that it deserved more than that and there was a lot to digest. Then I got distracted by Bill and I knew I couldn’t give it the attention it deserved until I addressed his nonsense.

So Nice Job and thanks for the compliment ….I think. But let me dig into it and I will tell you what I think…honestly……which I know you deserve and value….truth.

If I'm wrong about something

you are free to point it out. That is after all what a debate is.

Goldspan and me have a history of debate going back a long time, because he was posting shlock a year ago on the same old tired inflationista chicken little claims about the economy that haven't panned out in thirty years, because they don't understand modern monetary economics and banking.

As for you, you just keep claiming there is some proof, in a book somewhere, that voluntary governments work, and can provide defense and justice systems that won't be overrun by states. But you'll never develop the claims and arguments, just demand people read your 1200 page tomes when they don't have the time.

You are wrong about the goals of most self proclaimed an-caps

The goals are not to eliminate community legal institutions, or social contracts or public arbitration.

You also believe that without the authority of the state to commit crimes against the people, a code of behavior could never be established or enforced. It is either all behavior is criminal or none. I believe the abstraction that is the law(in our case the constitution) can be adopted by a free people more readily than by a people subjected by the state.

They are just to eliminate the coercion of the state. The involuntary subjugation of individuals by a systematic predatory process. I do not have a problem with self government. I believe in the arrangements between members of society. The authority of the group to determine criminal behavior. The authority of society to aggress upon individuals in it. It should just be based on a basis of morality. And authority to regard the law with impunity, or subject the citizenry to one law and the bureaucrats to another should not be granted.

What that means is that the government should not be allowed to steal, to murder, to lock people up etc... as retribution for not adhering too arbitrary decree. If I as a citizen cannot impose such a demand on my fellow citizen, then neither should the institution responsible for enforcing the law be able to impose such a demand upon me. That the government should have no special privilege. The law exist in the abstract, and the mechanisms for enforcing it should be decentralized. Open source, even. Nothing should be demanded of my labor or industry under threat of force.

We have talked about it before. You say that if society agrees through the political process that we all owe an amount of wealth to an entity to provide the service of defense, then that political entity has the right to stop proving the service of protection. I agree.

it is when it comes to that entity's authority to initiate violence against the individual who does not pay what is demanded, that you lose my buy in. I do not believe that a construct for self government is just, that claims the authority to initiate violence against a "citizen" who does not "pay his dues". It is one thing to end his service. Another to attack him and throw him in a cage. That, I do not believe is just or an optimal system for society to organize itself by.

The state is the institution that demands of my labor and industry solely because I reside in the territory over which it has achieved military dominance. The state is not we. The state is not society. The state is as you put it, the gang in charge. I do not want the state in my society.

There was no state in Iceland during the period directly after the first settlers arrived in the middle 900's. The period of the historical cycle in Irish history up until the invasion of the Normans in 1200 was also stateless. The American west had essentially a voluntary legal system that was very well documented. The uplands of southeast Asia, an area called zomia was stateless for centuries. 19th century busoga in Africa was particularly capable of organizing militarily as a stateless society. Most cultures surrounding the politically dominant roman empire had voluntary systems of organization.

I could go on. You will probably just say, prove it. You aren't developing enough. That's why I gave you the books. It would take me a decade to explain the history of stateless societies, how they organized, and what they fell to. Read them or not. Just save me the crap about not providing you with empirical evidence. Read the books, prove me wrong, or accept it as truth.

In any case it is not my point. Providing you with data doesn't solve the fact that you are not allowing yourself to see things differently. See it from an anarchists eyes. See it from the eyes of an intelligent person who studies hard, and spends alot of time developing his ideas and has come to the conclusion that anarchy is the optimal choice. What do they see? Why do they see it that way?

All you see is that "They are wrong! They don't see it my way!" and that is what goldspan meant when he said you will never get it.

Séamusín

We've discussed this all before

I stand by my positions as developed over the months.

The societies you cite are not stateless on anarchist definition. You are equivocating the term state. Normally you call the state any system that involves involuntary interactions, and other times you mean something else, though it's not clear what.

None of the examples you cited had voluntaryist societies, and so were statist on the normal definition anarchists use.

The state is... you ready?

The state is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.

I cut and pasted that from the OP. No equivocation here. The generally accepted authority to aggress upon myself or my property by the institution supreme political will in a given territory, under threat of force, solely because I reside there, when I have not committed an infraction of the law against my fellow citizen.

The institution that claims the authority to take my property so that they may provide me security and then inhibits my ability to find a separate alternative. The institution that demands payment from me for using the infrastructure they develop, and then monopolizes the ability to develop infrastructure.

The institution that demands payment for providing education, and then decrees that it is a crime for me to not send my children to their indoctrination camps.

Stateless societies:

"There were stateless societies"

"I am all ears"

"example x, y, and z"

"Those don't count"

Séamusín