Comment: Work on removing false connections?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thank you for taking time out (see in situ)

Work on removing false connections?

"It is very hard for me to separate non-monogamist relationships from lust in my own mind."

Your obvious error (obvious to me and to Andrews when Andrews was discussing the topic with James) is to invent this false advocating of non-monogamist relationships. Who advocates non-monogamist relationships? You keep quoting from Tucker the same words that are words where you can invent anything you want about what any person will, can, or may do, but that applies to the individual who will, can, or do anything, and that cannot be applied to Tucker unless Tucker did what you claim he did, which is a false claim that you keep repeating.

Who advocates non-monogamist relationships?

Who advocates fornication?

Who advocates adultery?

Tucker does not advocate any of those things, and what Tucker is advocating is specific to individual people. Find one who advocates something, find out why they advocate something, and you can't end up with Tucker, unless Tucker advocates something.

Tucker, in his words, not your words, advocates the concept of people being at Liberty to do good things or bad things at their own cost.

If they LOVE then that it what they do at their own cost.

If they may Love then that is what they do at their own cost.

If they will Love then that is what they do at their own cost.

If they do Love then that is what they do at their own cost.

Tucker does not explain, in detail, his thinking on how love relationships end up being difficult because of all the problems associated with passing on costs from one person to another person in any loving relationship, by charity, or by other means, because the concept of bringing up the subject of love is only specific to the LEGAL means of enforcing human relationships from one person UPON another person, or more specifically, from one GROUP (collectively) upon another person or group: Legal Means.

You keep failing to apply the context of the words to the situation intended by the words. The subject matter has to do with the supposed justifications for the POWER to PUNISH by this nebulous thing called Man Made Law and ORDER.

That is the subject. So...in essence the messages by Tucker, Andrews, and Warren (and even Spooner) has to do with the phrase "separation of church and state" and in so doing each individual person, once the connection between "church and state" is separated, are at Liberty to find God, or find ONE person to Love, without being forced to do so by some Group, or by some individual, where those individuals in that Group, or any individual "officer" may be even more mislead then the one individual being PUNISHED for failing to OBEY without question.

Categorically different are the human beings who set about to defend Liberty and those who set about to PUNISH people who do not OBEY without question.

The subject matter is specific to that focus of attention, and once focused with that attention, it is more than obviously WRONG to allow those people who are criminals to give them all the power they need to punish anyone failing to obey without question, since the opposite of your concerns happens.

If you don't think people should fornicate, then why do you keep paying the worst people, such as that Franklin Case of Child Sex Slavery, traced back to Washington, and "The Federal Government", so much money?

You keep paying them so well for fornicating, because you think they should be powerful enough to end fornication?

Here have more of my earnings, and then God's Law can be enforced by the worst people among us?

That is the context of Tuckers message. You distort that message, and you invent that distortion yourself.

You falsely claim that Tucker advocates non-monogamous relationships.

He does no such thing. He says that if people may love, then they may, and if people will love, then they will, and if people do love, then they do love.

YOU are the one saying that if people will fornicate then they will, and if the do fornicate then they do, and if they may fornicate, then they do, and even that does not suddenly, magically, turn into YOU advocating such things, does it?

Who is responsible for what people may, will, and do?

The State?

Tucker's message is clearly a message that states how it is an individual responsibility, and it is not a state responsibility.

Why is that turned into Tucker advocating things not advocated by Tucker, in your mind?

I could be wrong, of course, but so far your picking and choosing of that specific paragraph written by Tucker does not constitute Tucker advocating non-monogamous, fornicating, adulterous, human relationships no more than a confession by you as to your advocating the same thing.

"So does that mean that each individual makes their own personal laws and rules and there are no governing rules to keep people from infringing on other people?"

Who has the accurate answer?

If you ask me, then you are asking an individual person, me. If you ask someone else, Ben Bernanke, then you are asking an individual person who may find reason to lie to you.

My answer is that you do not understand the message intended, and I can adjust the message in the effort to remove any room for you to misunderstand the message in the way that you are misunderstanding the message offered: generously.

Here is the message offered: generously (by an individual: me):

Anarchy is not "no laws", or no "rules", anarchy is no rulers.”

Here is an obvious, measurable, case of you misunderstanding the message that I, an individual, offers to you, in the hope that you get the message intact, but you don't get the message intact, instead you make up some other message and no such message was intended by me, to you, generously.

Your false version:

"So does that mean that each individual makes their own personal laws and rules and there are no governing rules to keep people from infringing on other people?"

Now, if you will, may, or if you do get the message intended intact, with an additional word, for your consideration, a rewriting of the message with the same intent of transferring the message intact, without distortion by you.

Anarchy is not "no laws", or no "rules", anarchy is no false rulers.”

I hope that that can clear up the message intended so as not to have the intended message distorted into meaning the opposite of what the message intended means.

Joe