You wrote the following and at that point I was immediately inspired to respond; without yet reading any further.
Perhaps your "voluntary government" equals my "anarchy;" my "government" equals your "gang of legal criminals."
I've read your words on this forum and not only do I agree with those words, I think that with effort we can demonstrate how true those words are in demonstrable fact - ao much for my opinions.
I read further and again I see no reason to continue reading without offering a quick reply.
In any case, my point is to encourage people to individually make a commitment to each other because the time is coming when such understanding and alliance will be absolutely necessary.
The principle governing such behavior as described above would be a voluntary arrangement among the individuals agreeing to that arrangement and the goal would be moved toward as time went on by, and the goal would be moved measurably closer in ways that were as agreeable, and as voluntary, so as to actually justify the arrangement in some way. What is that principle?
The gang of legal criminals is letting us breath for the moment, but that situation will not persist indefinitely.
The gang in question has been growing stronger and larger since at least 1788 in America and yet it is a gang that depends upon honest producers of anything worth stealing, so the POWER we have is still ours to recognize and then command at will.
Perhaps we part ways in that I think extremely locally.
Here is where I will give you the benefit of doubt and not automatically take your words as being an extremely insulting comment.
Perhaps we part ways in that I think extremely locally. I want a solid commitment with one or two others I can trust.
Here is my doubt growing as to what I think I should credit you with, as your words are beginning to have that deceptive tone directed at me personally.
Perhaps we part ways in that I think extremely locally. I want a solid commitment with one or two others I can trust. When we are self-sufficient, connected to our neighboring land, and organized to defend it, then I'll worry about building on that. You seem to envision a bit bigger and looser structure.
The familiar ring of falsehood is built upon assumption, and you make claims concerning my use of logic; which I find to be specially insulting.
I don't begrudge you that, but I sure hope you can trust it. I hope your "innocent and law abiding citizens of the world" are innocent as much as they are powerful. I may be skeptical about that, but I cannot judge. Therefore, all the best to you.
The link to my early effort to petition other people, to find friend from foe, employed the word "law," and since then I have found cause to question the words meaning.
I think there may be at least two working meanings for that one word.
Law is whichever person or group of like minded people overpower their targets while using deception, threats of violence, and violence.
Law is whichever arrangement is agreeable to every person volunteering to such an arrangement; without exception.
You may understand how the path of life is a work in progress.
Update: And I see that you have exactly two signers of your petition. Since this is precisely what my contract above envisions, maybe you ought to get together with Chad and discuss your common defense.
As I understand Law there is no need for contact during marketing surveys.
Chad may have felt the same way, he or she never contacted me.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: