Comment: Do I get your message?

(See in situ)


Do I get your message?

In my own words: An agreement to behave agreeably is a Man made Law that works for everyone in agreement.

Is that your message; in other words?

The concept of someone "getting away" with doing things that are demonstrably disagreeable, and leaving it up to God to sort it out, is the message I got, and it is the same old twist, or deception, spun on the concept of anarchism.

If there are two agreeable things to be done by those who volunteer to agree, up for consideration by anyone, then which are of the utmost importance on that short list?

I see these two:

1.
Do not punish innocent people.

2.
Do not abandon innocent people who are being punished.

I heard the first message in the Speech, and I heard the second message being shot down as the concept of detaining the person getting away, challenging the person getting away, to find if that person getting away was a person who had punished innocent people, is punishing innocent people, or will punish innocent people, and if the person getting away was in no way agreeing to help avoid any punishing of innocent people, ever, then that to me is cause for concern.

I suppose the context of the speech is vital for the message to be delivered without misunderstanding concerning which made-made-laws are either flattened or supported concerning a person who is suspected of failing to abide by agreements concerning the injuries of innocent people, a suspect that is presumed to be as innocent of the crimes in question, such as Libel, as presumed to be innocent as much as there is a presumption that there has been a crime committed whereby an injured person is claiming to be injured.

How does one face a trial if one refuses to agree to such nonsense?

If someone is not present, and has fled the country, during the trial, and beyond anyone's doubt in the whole country, or at least beyond anyone's doubt in a representative sampling of the whole country, the formerly presumed to be innocent person, found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is doing whatever criminals do best, in other places.

I think the point missing, which I find to be curiously missing, is what can be done when devilish human beings are doing what they do best, which includes crafty avoidance of anything remotely resembling a fact finding effort conducted by a representative sampling of the victims, whereby those victims are doing something effective to avoid further victimization of their own hides, and avoiding damage to innocent victims that may not be directly associated with their own group.

Anarchism, from my fact finding missions, go as far back as Zeno of Citium, and it is not the type of behavior that equates precisely with flattening the POWER that faces the evil wind of human criminals. Anarchism, or agreeable behavior, as far as I am concerned, offers the opposite message.

Support agreements that intend to avoid harming any innocent people.

Joe