Comment: For bear (or anyone who cares)

(See in situ)


For bear (or anyone who cares)

I ask myself the question asked by bear.

I ask myself the question many times, even before I ever met bear.

The question has to do with accurate judgment.

How does anyone, ever, tell the accurate difference between friend or foe?

I think it is a vital question, and I think the answer has to be accurate or the person asking the question may "settle for less", and the vital question will not be asked, and the potential for being a victim remains very much a present danger.

Life goes on, either way.

Step by grueling step:

Evidence A:

"I didn't realize that the word Anarchist was such a nasty word"

That is a well crafted product of falsehood. If anarchism means what I know it to mean, then there is a way in which anyone can self-govern themselves, and if that fails, then there is a way that a potential victim can avoid being a victim, with or without any help from another individual.

My understanding of anarchism includes the concept of Trial by Jury as a means in which anarchism worked in human history.

Here are the words of someone who has been called an anarchist:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

I read that, I understand it, I can speak about it, you can read it too, or not, it isn't a sound bite, and it isn't a hit piece, and it won't injure any innocent people.

If Due Process of Law is due everyone then I can file a complaint somewhere, as can anyone else, and the process follows the way it always does, due to everyone, and my complaint ends up with a Jury Trial since the presumed to be innocent person is accused by me in the complaint I file.

I accuse the defendant of a vicious lie that injures me publicly. My public credit is threatened by this liar who willfully seeks to injure me, and I am an innocent person.

If you read the link, written by a so called anarchist, you will find information that reports the effectiveness of Trial by Jury in the effort of self-governing people, as they seek to reduce the flow of power to the criminals: or in the common vernacular "Make Crime Not Pay So Good".

Trial by Jury, when it processes everyone the same way, as history shows, ends up with a network of free people (anarchists if you like that word) who find out that crime does not pay when no one is duped into paying criminals for perpetrating crimes.

Due process turned out to be fines paid for by people who injure innocent people, paid voluntarily, since out-laws were understood to be similar to wild animals, and it was OK to just go ahead and kill one, so no one thought it was unjustified to kill criminals when criminals failed to pay their fines.

Note: I did not claim, and I do not claim, that Trial by Jury was perfect when it worked, but self-government does work, anarchism does work, voluntary government does work, when it works, not when it does not work.

Trial by Jury worked as it did work, when it worked.

So, supposing We The People assembled here in this Country were operating under a Due Process of Law that was as due one person as well as any other person, all the volunteers assembled, then I could charge my current character assassin with the charge of libel and he would volunteer to undergo a Trial by Jury, or having volunteered to step outside of that law, I could just go and shoot him, and there would be no one claiming that I did any crime, or if there was someone claiming I did any crime, then I'd be processed as the claimant made that claim.

I would not waste a minute on my current character assassin, when there are bigger fish to fry.

I'd file a complaint against the Top Ten as such:

1.
President of the Legal Fiction U.S.A.
2.
Chairman of the Legal Fiction Federal Reserve
3.
Vice President of the Legal Fiction U.S.A.
4.
Speaker of the House of Representatives (Legal Fiction)
5.
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (Legal Fiction)
6.
The IRS Czar
7.
Homeland Security Czar
8.
Treasurer of the legal Fiction U.S.A.
9.
FEMA Czar
10.
NSA Czar

Words are not deeds, but due process due everyone, in my opinion, aught to be a process that is expedient, not frivolous.

If the Jury fines the worst monsters a penny, and no more "punishment" for those monsters who counterfeit laws that make torture and mass murder legal, because they say so, and they pay themselves very handsomely for their crimes, because they say so, then the Jury does that: fine of a penny charged to the worst people in the world today. I don't think that reasonable people, anarchists like Spooner for example, would credit those presumed to be innocent people with any authority after a genuine Trial by Jury was conducted, due process was conducted, on that list of those 10 people.

So, in a free world, anarchism in fact, here on this internet connection, I get my fair trial, I get to defend myself, and that is what I did above.

This:

"I didn't realize that the word Anarchist was such a nasty word"

Neither did I.

Who says that anyone ever realized that the word Anarchist was anything but an honorable word given to people like Lysander Spooner for his diligent efforts to help his fellow human beings?

Here is a guy who was called The First American Anarchist:

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

That person, a so called anarchist, earned credit too. It may be similar to an inside joke, you had to be there, or: you won't know what I mean unless you read the words written, and unless you understand the words written.

Not one word, not "anarchism", but the concept of self-government, as in you, yes you, are responsible for what you do, meaning you, yes you, respond, as you are able to respond.

An inside joke - perhaps.

Next up, in this Trial of sorts, by me, the one Juror, where I deputize myself, and I don't bother anyone else with my personal experience with a character assassin.

Unless you care.

"Dude, you talk with so much fluff.. You state that you have no duplicity but you have that way about you in your character which comes through in the air you you put on."

I may be mistaken but I have read some of the forum rules, and those who volunteer to employ this forum, according to those rules, are those who volunteer to avoid such things as character assassination.

What can be done about those who refuse to follow the rules?

The subject matter, the TOPIC, is generally falling under the concept of government, as in who makes the rules, and how are the rules enforced.

If not you, then who?

"Now, the majority of what you say, I find to be true. I just don't dig the fluffy way you say it.. It reminds me of Mark Twain here. Kind of pretentious."

I find Mark Twain here to be very enjoyable company. An example of what someone, anyone, considers to be "Kind of pretentious.", may help convey an accurate meaning of the word as the writer intends the word to mean what is meant by the writer who wrote "Kind of pretentious."

Having nothing but fluff to go by, having no example of the meaning of "Kind of pretentious." other than the name Mark Twain, there is little evidence that can serve to connect the supposed deed to the supposed individual person.

I can offer a counter claim on this Mark Twain person, a positive claim, that states, in my opinion, that Mart Twain writes very well.

I am even inspired to find an example and quote it.

"My experience is fermented. Newspaper (fresh & juicy), magazine (cider), book (hard cider), journals, research & investigative reports (whiskey)."

I found that here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/246727/can-friends-of-liberty-to-ag...

Mark Twain shares an interest in Ron Paul's messages - it seems to me.

Credit worthy stuff - to me.

Back to the Trial where I accuse the presumed to be innocent fellow forum member of character assassination:

"You went on and on, unnecessarily quoting the same line multiple times, over a word, that isn't an insult here. Maybe to some, but not to all."

My actual willful actions, which were the responses I was able to respond in English, my responsibility, accountable to me, had to do with someone claiming in English the following words:

"What you're dealing with in Josf and a few others I think is Anarchist.. They want to do away with all forms of government."

In particular the evidence presented has to do with the specific claim, in English, that goes like this:

"They want to do away with all forms of government."

Who is they?

Me?

Lysander Spooner?

Lysander Spooner wrote Trial by Jury - linked above.

Here are two more works written by Lysander Spooner:

http://jim.com/treason.htm

No Treason

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40

Back to the character assassin:

"They want to do away with all forms of government."

Who is they?

Anarchists?

American Anarchists are unique among the lot.

Here is another:

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

So "they" can be allowed to speak for themselves in reality. I can quote from them even today.

As to what the character assassin means when the character assassin uses the words "do away with" I can ask, and I can pretend as if an answer will be forthcoming, while I can be confident that no such answer will arrive, not a real answer, not an honest answer, not even another fabricated lie as an answer.

What do you mean when you work to assassinate my character with your association of "do away with" and me personally?

What are you intending to communicate as you association me, falsely, with the words "do away with all forms of government"?

"So if you can't talk without all the grandiose bullshit, maybe you shouldn't."

Speaking of constitutions, it seems to me, that the above sentence constitutes a threat.

In the vernacular of the wise guys of infamy, maybe you shouldn't do this...

Because?

Joe