Comment: Discussion versus misrepresentation.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Contrast and Comparisons? (see in situ)

Discussion versus misrepresentation.

"So I think that they have opened their work up to be discussed."

Discussion versus misrepresentation can be shown in contrast with each other.

If you say the Tucker advocates adultery, and I say nowhere in his writing does he do so, and you quote words where you claim that that is where Tucker advocates adultery.

I offer quotes by Stephen Pearl Andrews as a way of showing that Tucker does no such thing.

You continue with the barrage of false connections to Tucker with claims that what Tucker advocates can lead to old men having sex with children, which to me is an obvious case of publicly hanging Tucker for, as you repeat, advocating adultery.

All that exemplifies misrepresentation.

Had we been discussing Tucker, instead of you misrepresenting him, and me defending what he actually wrote, then all that connecting of Tucker with all those things that other people may, will, or can do, with or without a man made law gang punishing those who get caught, would not have been so readily published by you on this forum.

You could have said that Tucker does not actually advocate anything other than what Tucker actually writes which was very specific, and he chose the word LOVE.

You could have then said that Tucker leaves open the very real possibility that someone like me might not get the message as to what Tucker means when Tucker uses the word love, and then someone like me could misrepresent the meaning of the message offered by Tucker.

You continued, instead, to convict Tucker, and punish tucker with libel, and slander, as you misrepresented Tucker as someone who advocates lust, adultery, and other things, and you went on and on with that, deeper, and deeper, into all those things that people like Tucker supposedly support, advocate, bring about, invest in, create, and love to do, such as that one thing you connected to Tucker which was the sex with kids connection to Tucker.

That set me off big time.

I went on a rant.

I saw no need to publish all those responses based upon an obvious misrepresentation.

It is better to discover where the misrepresentation goes off of a demonstrably accurate measure of fact.

Tucker uses the word "right" to me a negative, as in it is not "right" for "the government" to punish people who make errors, even serious errors, in their choices of voluntary associations.

You then twist that around to mean that Tucker says that it is "right" to make errors, even serious errors, in their choices of voluntary associations.

I can play the part of Tucker, or I can just be me speaking from a voluntary association, or equitablist, or anarchist (genuine not counterfeit) perspective, such as Tuckers.

I can say no mam, that is not what is meant, what is meant is that a person doing wrong aught to be the one who pays the costs of those things that that person does, not the other way around, and this is not a Trial by some Jury on the table for discussion to find who exactly is guilty of exactly what, this is a discussion of principles, and it is principally wrong for men to impose their will as if they were Gods, and for men to then punish people who have already punished themselves well enough for their own good, as if to say two wrongs make things "right".

I can go on and on. But you can go on and on as well, quoting those same words by Tucker, and then misrepresenting those words.

The other word you twist, other than "rights" is the word Love, as you are the one who takes the meaning of love offered by Tucker, and you turn that word into lust, fornication, adultery, sex with children, and who knows what else you can do with it, and then attach that new meaning, that counterfeit meaning, to Tucker.

And another word you twist is the word "free". Tucker is specific in the principle of being free from false government, in my opinion, and you make that word out to be free from any sense of morality, and that is the meaning you attribute to Tucker.

"I don’t think it is a refusal on my part. You can always ask me if I am refusing to understand and then I can tell you yes or no."

I asked you to define love in the way you define love, and then define love in the way that you claim Tucker defines love, and then take out the one word, in the one sentence you keep using to keep Tucker dangling on the end of the rope you hang him on, and see how the sentence works in both cases.

You skipped overt that, as far as I can tell, but I may have missed your work on that requested path.

I do see that you are no longer quoting that one part of Tucker's words.

"I had a thought this morning. People say the same thing about Ron Paul wanting to end the War on Drugs. I can imagine myself 100 years from now if I had never heard of Ron Paul and asking some serious questions. Ron Paul says he does not advocate people using drugs, but he advocates the liberty of the people to make the choice. And I suppose that the choice is sent back to the states to work out. I know there are people who follow Ron Paul because he advocates that freedom from Federal Drug laws."

Here is a very good connection that is demonstrably accurate. If the subject matter is turned onto a different angle of view in each case then those viewpoint could be this:

What can be done in cases where a person injures themselves by giving into lust, fornication, adultery, drugs, and other destructive things, and at the same time what can be done to avoid abandoning the innocent victims injured by those same willful actions, and at the same time what can be done to avoid punishing any innocent people in the process?

In Tucker's day there were some very serious cases of very bad things happening in the sphere of legal love and marriage, bad things done all nice and legally.

In Ron Paul's day there are some very serious cases of very bad things happening in the sphere of legal love and marriage too.

But the link between Tucker and Paul being made is principally solved, in any case, by doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.

Who knows what is right?

Tucker and Paul are the one's saying that "the government" (so called) does not know what is right.

Who says otherwise?


How about suggestions, not laws written on paper by me?

Case by case, by case, how about suggestions?

That is a voluntary association. Who suggests an involuntary one?

What is the definition of crime?

If there is no solution suggested, and there are still victims being made by criminals, then becoming a criminal is the suggestion?

What to do in case of the next case of lust? How about a suggestion?

What to do in the next case of drug use? Crush the drug user?

The suggestion offered by Tucker is Liberty, or to be free from false authorities, who are actually criminals with a badge, and then proceed to other suggestions from that point.

Ron Paul offers a voluntary competitive design of government known as a Republic, or Confederation, or Democratic Federated Republic, as far as I can tell from Ron Paul's words.

[There is a saying that goes something like this: “Sin takes you farther than you plan on going and doesn’t let you go when you want to leave.”]

So what works to help those people choosing those paths?

Tucker's message is that individuals have to pay their own costs, for their own mistakes, and if there is an organized way in which those people can be helped, a "collective way", then it has to be a voluntary one, not a criminal way whereby the criminals gain access to false authority, badges, licenses, etc.

Here is where I may be wrong, because I think I have found the words that convey a more accurate message, but the actual facts are the symbols in English written by Tucker, and in no place can you prove that Tucker advocates, supports, wants, desires, works to get, invents, creates, produces, invests in: fornication, adultery, lust, sex with children, or all the other false connects you make and attach to Tucker.

"What if others had not of blazed that trail for me to follow?"


Don't follow false people?

What happens when someone takes it upon themselves to lead themselves? Some make mistakes? Life can be cruel, because there are so many false leaders, and so few good examples to follow, so the point offered is to stop following false leaders, and start looking for true ones.

That is exactly the context from which Tucker's messages are offered. Liberty is not perfect, but it is better than more of the same false leadership that rewards the worst among us and pays the worst among us the most for doing the worst they can do with the power their victims give them.

"Are laws made for the purpose of helping a society and protecting individuals, but then things go wrong with the laws or the law enforcers?"

The case in point, pointed out by such people as Lysander Spooner, and myself, and others, is that The Constitution, for one case in point, makes slavery legal, on purpose, for profit of the Masters, at the expense of the Slaves.

Your question:

"Are laws made for the purpose of helping a society and protecting individuals, but then things go wrong with the laws or the law enforcers?"

Which laws are made for the purpose of helping? A case in point is The Constitution, a law made for helping Masters enslave Slaves.

If you think otherwise, then why do you think otherwise since all the evidence required to know the demonstrable fact, to know the fact accurately, is written in the official record.

Previous to The Constitution was The Articles of Confederation, another case in point, so what were those Laws designed to help?

What happens when a large army of troops invades the country you depend upon for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which can't, by definition mean, at the expense of liberty)?

A. Voluntary Government is designed to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - in so many words.

B. Involuntary Government goes the opposite direction on purpose, or in other words, masters make slaves of their targets for the fun and profit of the masters while the slaves are handed the bills, and the productive work load.

"I have never given laws much thought. So this topic of moral man-made law is new for me."

So you blame Tucker for advocating bad things when he is doing the opposite?

"I suppose you just figured out what you wanted to without dragging someone else thru the obstacle course with you? Well, I guess I am dragging you along my journey of trying to reason these things out. You have been at this much longer than I have."

It was not easy, I don't expect it to be easy for you, Love of God and Country can be genuine, and therefore it can be a very effective False Advertizement Campaign on the other hand. Being led by the false power too long can cause very troubling self doubts, I have had these experiences, once the naked Emperor is obviously not wearing any clothes.

A. The Genuine Love still exists while the false version is brought into view.

B. If I was so stupid as to believe the false version, and while so many people around me are still believing the false version, am I really able to see anything true at this point?

"A: Yes, certainly it gives perfect freedom for anyone to do any thing that he can do at his own cost."

Someone claiming to be "free" to commit adultery and do so in secret, is keeping a secret for a reason, and so the one paying the cost, the wife, is "free" from the secret information?

When Warren says "at his one cost" he does not mean to be ambiguous. The concept is up front, out in the open, and very strictly voluntary, which means, precisely, no hidden costs being hidden by people keeping secrets from those who will then pay those costs.

"That last sentence containing the words: “renewable by consent of both parties.” I suppose would keep people on their best behavior during the marriage contract? So that the contract might be renewed? Sort of like secession of the states was supposed to keep the Federal Government from abusing the states."

To me I have a need for my wife to need me, which she continues to do, and to me that is the extent of my contract, and all those other things done, legally, where ornaments. Look at that nice ring, for example, in the box, where it remains.

My brother told me a story about a Russian friend of his in New Jersey, way back when we were kids. They jumped over a fence, and one kid had on a ring. The ring, and the finger, stayed on top of the fence.


"Oh well. I digress. I am being way to long winded. I am sorry."

Not on my account. I would like to know what you think is funny about "using it on them", which I don't understand your meaning. The Alien and Sedition Acts were abuses (criminal acts) and are you saying that the opposition to those Alien and Sedition Acts were later abusers themselves (criminals)?

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were suggestive offerings of peace, from my reading, so how can that be an abuse: if that is your meaning of "using it on the Federalists"?

"I think I am having a hard time with the absolute statements of the Either/Or. As if there is not a 3rd option available. So perhaps we can put these on the table to discuss?"

Yes, by all means, that is the essence of Liberty, inventing, producing, and maintaining options in the face of Monopoly (Crime).

Monopoly/Crime or Legal Crime is always the same thing, it is destruction, ONE thing.

Either/or is what the Legal Criminals do, they say evil 1 or evil 2, your choice.

No, Liberty says, I think I can find a better way.

Quick Break

"One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty. (Jesus said the poor will always be and this is also self evident in allowing people to reap what they sow as already discussed. There are fools and fools will choose foolishness.)"

I might be reading your comment wrong but by use of the word "equal" (by that author) the judgment of finding what someone wants (foolishness) makes that person equal in their own mind, they get what they strife to get, in abundance.

If they are following fools, on the other hand, then that is also a goal, is it not? If they are victims of fraud, threats, and violence, then they are victims as defined by their tormentors.

"Or if you do not want to, say so and I won’t proceed. Thanks, Joe. Have a nice weekend. I didn't proof. I have to get going!"

In context the idea there, if I get the idea intact, is that there is the genuine article (which can be many competitive experiments, thousands upon thousands of versions) and then there is the counterfeit version (destruction for the want of it).

EITHER voluntary OR involuntary and the criminals (legal criminals since the context has to do with "government" so called) dictate the condition of having no choice, the victims are then pressed into the need to invent a choice other than Evil A or Evil B.

A. Voluntary (create options) Power moving to abundance.

B. Obey without question (destruction A or B) Power moving toward scarcity.