Comment: Hand up for me here:

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I left an earlier reply below (see in situ)

Hand up for me here:

"I am talking to you about Tucker advocating the right of every man and every woman loving for as long or as short as they can, will, or may."

No, that is not how I see it, repeatedly, so I may yet be wrong, but the routine is occurring over, and over, and over again, without exception.

You take out LOVE and you put LUST in place, and then you blame what you do on Tucker.

Tucker did not mean LUST when Tucker wrote LOVE, unless he did, and without him here to confess his deception, we both can't know the true fact of what Tucker meant when Tucker chose the word LOVE instead of the word LUST.

You are the only one taking out the word LOVE and putting in place the word LUST. Tucker did no such thing, I do no such thing, who does that leave as the 1 person who is taking out the word LOVE and putting in the word LUST?

_____________________________________________________
Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”
_____________________________________________________

Not:

Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to Lust after each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

That is your baby, not something Tucker wrote, meant, said, thought, advocated, rewarded, or punished for failure to do, or not do, in any case whatsoever.

"I am not telling on Tucker to my friends. I am talking to you about Tucker advocating the right of every man and every woman loving for as long or as short as they can, will, or may. That is what I am doing."

Without exception, consistently, you are taking out the word love and you are placing in the word lust, and that is what you are doing, if I am not mistaken.

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

There it is again. Tucker the goat fornicator: tried, proven guilty, sentenced, and publicly hanged on this public access forum, as Tucker swings on the end of his rope.

"It is beyond my thinking as to why someone would even go that direction."

That someone who goes in that direction is, according to you, Tucker, again, and again, and again, without fail, and no such thing can be proven, at all, unless you, by your own power of will, take out the words offered by Tucker, and put in place your words instead.

Your punishment is already done, over with, you have discredited Tucker, that is the past now, your reasoning for passing that guilty verdict, ordering the stones to be thrown, throwing the stones, managing to hit Tucker, square enough in the forehead, with at well thrown stone, figuratively speaking, not literal at all, mere words, not really stones, but none-the-less discredit, invented by you, produced by you, and sent to your target, this Tucker the advocate of whatever it is you have conjured up in your mind, public punishment, by you, is done.

Now what?

Move onto the next target?

If Tucker wrote about LUST and Tucker used the word LOVE in place of LUST, then Tucker was either in the dark about what is, or is not LOVE, or Tucker was willfully being deceptive by that willful use of a falsified change of wording in English.

You convicted him of these dastardly things, you keep doing this public hanging, throwing your stones, placing a new noose around his neck, each time I try to jump in front and take the stone, and each time I cut the rope.

Why?

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

So now I am, by this connection, also advocating fornication and adultery?

I do so by stealth, by way of deception, by willfully using words like LOVE to cover up what my actual intent is, which is LUST, and me and this dead guy, this Tucker, are of like mind?

When he says LOVE, he is such a liar, as I am, when I say LOVE, because we are such bad boys, we really mean LUST, not LOVE, because we are devious?

What is the point of our deception? There must be a motive, or is that not even necessary, in this case, to consider motive, when all the evidence needed exists in plain view, there is no doubt, no reasonable doubt whatsoever, as these bad boys do these bad things.

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

We, the advocates of fornication and adultery know better than to openly advocate fornication and adultery and that is why we use the word LOVE instead of LUST when we advocate fornication and adultery?

We can only reach our goal of advocating fornication and adultery by willfully resorting to deception, by using the word LOVE when we really mean fornication and adultery?

Or, on the other hand, we are hopelessly ignorant of our crimes, crimes worthy of punishment, as our fate is sealed by our stupidity, and carelessness, and our incapacity to realize that when we say LOVE we really mean LUST, when we say LOVE we really mean, despite our own false perceptions, we really mean fornication and adultery, because that is our condition of absolute abject belief in falsehood without question, and as such, thanks for the help in pointing out how bad we really are, as we are duped into thinking that we are advocating love, when in reality we are advocating fornication and adultery.

Case closed?

I can now try to figure out what other things I have totally wrong, now that I know that I have been operating under this false idea that I advocate LOVE, but instead, in reality, I have been, like Tucker, advocating LUST and I have been advocating fornication, and I have been advocating adultery, not LOVE?

If I am that bad, that unable to see this truth, what else am I not seeing clearly?

1.
Truly devious, willfully choosing the word LOVE when my actual intent is to advocate lust, fornication, and adultery.

2.
Too caught up in lust, fornication, and adultery, too infected with evil myself, to even know that I am advocating lust, fornication, and adultery, while I think I am trying to point out that it is a bad idea to pay the few very worst among us everything we earn so that they can figure out better ways to destroy everything.

"So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red."

OK, I get it, we, these guys, this fornicators, or advocates of fornication, Tucker, me, the other guys, are capable of this wrong, so we are as capable of all those other wrongs, because we either willfully distort words, or we are too evil to even know how evil we are, in fact?

Because...you take out the word LOVE and put in place another word, as you take out the meaning of LOVE and you replace that meaning with whatever you care to put in place of that meaning intended?

I can't speak for Tucker. I can speak for myself. It seems to me that Tucker chose the word LOVE because Tucker meant LOVE.

Either he is lying, or his is himself deceived, and in either case you already tried, passed judgment, and executed punishment upon his good name.

I am as willing to take your punishments, by your judgment, because I am as guilty of whatever crime Tucker has committed, and when I say LOVE I mean LOVE, so that leaves only the case of me being so well deceived as to be hopelessly ignorant of the fact that I mean LUST when I say LOVE; by your way of seeing this case?

"So I am going to talk about it to my friend, Joe, because Joe sent me a link and I have been talking to Joe for about a year now and this is a problem I am having with anarchism…that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally."

Where is this person, other than a total fabrication in your own mind, where this person, with a name, says, and I quote: "it is OK for people to live immorally."

So far as I can tell, that person is you, only you, and no one but you, in this case, since no one else has printed those words but you.

Why would you falsely place those words on anyone but you,since you are the only one writing those words as far as I can see so far?

Case in point:

__________________________________________
Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”
___________________________________________

That is exactly what that is, and the word choice, in print, is "love".

You convict that person of advocating fornication.

You convict that person of advocating adultery.

That person, you convict, of those things.

You say this:

"...that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.

You offer Tucker's words as proof of that claim, I suppose.

Who is guilty of mistaken identity?

"So, now I have to add that to legislation and punishment?"

From your viewpoint, after your example of mistaken identity (my viewpoint), you now choose to return to the actual point of Tucker's words?

After you falsely convict, and publicly discredit (with your hit piece on Tucker), exacting punishment after the conviction, after all that, you now return to the actual point of Tucker's words?

"I do not want to legislate or punish."

Then why do you to it? Is there some other force involved, some other power that made you do what you have done already?

"But that does not mean that I advocate what Tucker says about love either."

Tucker is stating facts here:

__________________________________________
Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”
____________________________________________

You are falsely (in my view) discrediting Tucker with your false claims of his advocating fornication and adultery.

"I am having a hard time sorting that out. What if all the abortion, rape and sex trafficking are a result of not abiding by God’s law?"

The point made by Tucker can be reasoned out, whereby "subsidizing false morality" creates a demand for abortion, rape, sex trafficking, and torture, and mass murder, and Monopoly Money Suppliers.

The Franklin Case happened well after Tucker's time, but around Tucker's time was those cases reported by John Tyler Gatto whereby the false words for human trafficking was "up for adoption".

Pay a lot, pay in children, pay to those who will abuse children, a ready supply of children, and what does that increase in supply of children, ready for exploitation, cause by way of demand?

Increase the supply of reward for something, and what happens to the demand for that something?

That was Tucker's point, that was Andrews' point.

I will cut and paste again, the words of Andrews, addressing exactly what you are doing, in my view, exactly your error is being answered, in fact, by Andrews in these word:

"Now, the doctrine of free love is not even anti-marriage in the external or legal sense of the term, any more than the doctrine of free worship in our churches is anti-worship; certainly, therefore, it is not anti-marriage in respect to the spiritual conception of marriage entertained by Mr. James. It is simply opposed to the legal imposition of marriage as a uniform and compulsory mode of adjusting the sexual relations of society and may be said perhaps to be equally opposed to the dogmatic imposition, upon all of us, of precisely Mr. James’s idea, or anybody’s idea of spiritual marriage. It is simply and wholly the doctrine of “hands off,” or of remitting the jurisdiction of the subject to the parties concerned; of freedom to marry externally and by express contract for those for those who desire so to marry; of freedom to be married ever so closely and exclusively, in the spiritual sense, for those who believe in it and desire it; and of equal freedom for those who believe in neither to regulate their love relations in accordance with whatever ideas they do entertain. The doctrine pronounces absolutely nothing with regard to the truth or falsehood of any of those ulterior doctrines, but simply prohibits the interference of anybody with the affairs of others, in this respect, for the purpose of enforcing their own individual or collective beliefs. The whole doctrine of free love is, therefore, rigorously constrained in what Mr. James defines as the negative side of that doctrine. It has no other side whatever; and upon this side of the subject Mr. James affirms that he is infinitely in accord with us. The other side of the doctrine – what he calls the positive side, and attributes to us – is, as I have previously said, purely a figment of his own imagination, and would be as abhorrent to me, if I recognized it as really existing anywhere, as it is or can be to him."

You claim that Tucker's stand on NOT making Love LEGAL is Tucker advocating fornication and adultery.

If I am wrong here, you could show me where I am wrong.

When the power of LAW is abused, then "advocating" goes well beyond "advocating" and becomes "subsidy" whereby baby murder for fun and profit is a steady flow of earnings from those who invest into "regulating morality" to those who are best at making as many babies as possible to then have those babies murdered by those who are best at baby murder.

When the power of LAW is abused, then "advocating" goes well beyond "advocating" and becomes "subsidy" whereby child sex slavery for fun and profit is a steady flow of earnings from those who invest into "regulating morality" to those who are best at making as many children as possible to then have those children tortured and murdered by those who are best at torturing and murdering children.

If you don't get that point, made by Tucker, Andrews, Warren, Spooner, or I, and instead you keep up your false judgements, and real punishments, of Tucker, for your abuse of his words, then I can keep working at conveying that point, until when: doomsday?

"Who says I am judging?"

I think you prove that you are judging, and to me your judgments, and your public hangings, are based upon your creations of falsehoods.

What is this:

"I am having a hard time sorting that out. What if all the abortion, rape and sex trafficking are a result of not abiding by God’s law?"

Connected to this:

"But that does not mean that I advocate what Tucker says about love either."

Connected to this:

"...that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.

Connected to this:

"So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red."

Connected to this:

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

Those are your judgements, you judging, you making these claims that someone, somewhere, is doing those things, your words, all your words.

Connected to this:

Tucker says:
“Even in so delicate a matter as that of the relations of the sexes the Anarchists do not shrink from the application of their principle. They acknowledge and defend the right of any man and woman, or any men and women, to love each other for as long or as short a time as they can, will, or may.”

You judge Tucker based upon your fabricated meaning of the word LOVE into lust, fornication, adultery, immorality, and further connecting Tucker to lying, stealing, and killing. All judged by you, as you connect all that evil to Tucker, because you convict Tucker of either falsely employing the word LOVE when, according to you, Tucker means lust, fornication, and adultery, or, and you can clarify you judgement, you claim that Tucker has no clue as to what LOVE actually means.

"Who says I am judging?"

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

You judge Tucker, find him guilty, and execute your public hanging of his message.

What remains, please, is a clarification, if you will, concerning your judgement of tucker.

A.
He is guilty of willful fabrications of lies so as to cover up his advocating of fornication and adultery with the cover of LOVE as a False Front.

B.
He is guilty of being false himself, lacking the capacity to know the difference between LOVE, fornication, and adultery.

If you will, please, pass judgement more specifically, if possible.

"Is questioning judging?"

Questioning is questioning. Judging is judging. Why do you ask?

You judge here:

"I am telling you that those words, just the thought that someone advocates fornication and adultery is way out of my comfort zone."

Is that not judgement of Tucker by you?

If that is not judgment of Tucker by you, then how about this:

"So those things are just like lying, stealing, and killing to me. I see red."

This:

"...that one would suggest that it is OK for people to live immorally.

What are those if those are not judgments. Are those questions, not judgements?

"Is pointing out what seems wrong to me judging? Should I look the other way and say nothing?"

If Tucker writes LOVE and you replace LOVE with lust, fornication, and adultery, and then add stealing, lying, and murder, is that a case of guilt accountable to Tucker or is that just you replacing the word printed with the words you make up yourself?

"Can people really love as long as they want, can, will, or may without hurting someone else?"

Do you use the word LOVE to mean LOVE or do use the word LOVE to mean lust, fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, and murder instead of LOVE?

The same question applies to all the rest of your questions in that paragraph.

I had better move along in this reply, I see that your welcome response includes many more welcome words.

First, to the point:

Tucker's point had to do with Legal definitions/punishments/rewards for LOVE, that was his point, and as far as I know, there was none of the advocating for anything else done by Tucker - at all.

"So then I can say: hey, that is not the way it is supposed to be."

And the point is pointed out, that a slowing down, and a stopping, of the POWER flowing from those who "legislate morality" may reduce the rewards for lying, cheating, stealing, baby murder, child abuse, slave trading, fornication, adultery, "up for adoption", and many other "subsidized moral behavior" that is currently funded so well through those "legal" means.

"Are you going to punish someone who rapes your son because that is what his interpretation of love is?"

OK, so now we are cutting to the chase, as you say; now it is clear that I too am advocating those things you say Tucker is advocating, and now, to put me in my place, my son is on the block?

I can go into great detail as to what I teach my son by example, which is not very good, and by careful discussions of what I think is right, and what I think is wrong, and as may happen very often, I become the student in that relationship.

Shall we get personal?

"What are the boundaries?"

I think one boundary ought to be to avoid convicting an innocent person, punishing that innocent person, if possible, that is a boundary.

I think another boundary ought to be to avoid abandoning victims, in each case possible, so as not to continue, aid, and abet the criminals who will perpetuate their crimes upon those abandoned, or even "subsidized" victims - such as that Franklin case example.

"OK, so what is the purpose of Trial by Jury? Who says anything is wrong? How do we determine what is wrong? Is there anything wrong? Who says?"

In historical context, while siting the example of historical reporting done by Lysander Spooner, and accessing my own personal experience with the modern, counterfeit, version of Trial by Jury, I think Man Made Law can be made less criminal and more effective at avoiding the injury of innocent people and there are competitive examples of moving in that direction instead of moving in the direction of LEGAL CRIME.

Trial by Jury, as it worked in history, and as I see it working now, can stand in place of The Hand of God, when the goal is to avoid injuring innocent people in FACT, and when The Hand of God is clearly not applied in these specific cases, each one case, each one time, in history, now, or on into the future.

Pick any case. I think there is work to be done to reach for that goal of not injuring another innocent person.

I can pick a competitive case or two too.

1.
Ben Bernanke for the crime of Fraud
2.
Osama Bin Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) for the crime of mass murder with drones

Had people gotten, instead of not, the warnings, and suggestions, of a long list of people, things might have turned out better, instead of worse, and time is clearly proceeding, so it is not too late to listen, and be advised.

1.
Thomas Paine
2.
Daniel Shays
3.
Patrick Henry
4.
George Mason
5.
Josiah Warren
6.
Stephen Andrews
7.
Lysander Spooner
8.
Benjamin Tucker
9.
Ron Paul
10.
I can raise my hand here, because I can, just like I did so many times in Public School, and soon enough the "teachers" figured out how necessary it is to ignore me.

What do we say, this group of ignorant people?

Stop paying the criminals so well, and crime may not pay so well.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to collect National Debt)
4.
Do so by July 4th 2013
5.
Try not to convict, sentence, and punish an innocent person
6.
Try not to abandon the victims
7.
Hold yourself to account for progress toward reaching the goal of Liberty.
8.
Try to point out to others this accurate accountability stuff, if other people express any sense of agreement in reaching toward that goal in meaningful, expedient, effective, competitive, ways.

"Tucker can make a strawman and call it love."

Here I have to stop and do other things. Here is where you are entering into the phase of the trial where you are working on the judgment of willful intent. You have already passed the judgement stage, you have already found the (innocent) person guilty, and you have already punished the defendant that can't defend himself.

Joe