Comment: Getting facts established first?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Comment (see in situ)

Getting facts established first?

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

Your viewpoint concerning my viewpoint may be a confusion that occurs in between our viewpoints.

It may be a good idea to find agreement as to what our viewpoints are, in fact, to establish those facts agreeably, so as not to continue working to make confusing things even more confusing, as if our agreement, although unsaid, is to confuse each other better.

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

If I take land from you, that is a crime.

If I am prevented from taking land from you, is that a solution to crime?

Who agrees that any portion of land is yours, or mine, or anyone on Earth who may happen to be, in fact, using any land in any way at all?

"The fertility of soil can be mined or it can be improved. This is actually really important to civilization. As a consequence those who are good stewards of the soil are important, and it is important for them to stay in the same place and be connected to the land which they nurture."

The power of which you speak is the power by which less power is made into more power, or I have your words confused in my mind.

It can be said, and agreed upon, that the power in question is exemplified by those who exemplify that power.

Facts submitted to anyone who may agree with these facts in this context:

1.
Farmer

2.
Gold miner

3.
Industrial factory

Bare land, virgin land, unoccupied land, produces natural resources such as oxygen, so that is self-evident power production useful for human life on earth.

Farmer shows up, works, and quantities of farming products now exist where none had existed.

That is an increase in economic power, actual calories, the power that is required for human life, a net gain of power, before there is less power, after there is more power.

Who says?

Those who equitably vote for the farmer to do what the farmer does say so, as the farmer exchanges powerful things for powerful things, all in agreement, without conflict, which is a powerful thing, since these agreements work as if they are miracles happening on Earth. More is made out of less because economies of scale, division of labor, and specialization, work to increase the power to produce more out of less exponentially more, not merely the addition of one farmer added to another farmer, not merely the addition of one season of crops to another season of crops, there are forces at work that work as if working miracles.

Less hours required each day, more output each day, higher standards of living each day, lower costs of living each day, on and on, into Utopia.

Do I understand the meaning of your words?

"The fertility of soil can be mined or it can be improved. This is actually really important to civilization. As a consequence those who are good stewards of the soil are important, and it is important for them to stay in the same place and be connected to the land which they nurture. "

Is that an established fact?

Where, then, is the confusion?

Your claim:

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

The cause of trouble happens to be the criminal. The criminal borrows from the victims. The criminal learns how to voluntarily associate with other criminals, creating a counterfeit form of honor, honor among thieves, and they too are performing miracles, they too access the leverage of economies of scale, division of labor, and specialization, and they too grow exponentially more powerful than merely the sum of their individual criminal acts of crime.

So your words appear to suggest to me that there is no use in shopping from experiment A, which is an effort to defend against crime, to experiment B, which is an effort to defend against crime.

Did I miss a beat, a step, going across a bridge that does not exist?

Do you mean, in fact, that there is no use in shopping between Legal Crime A and Legal Crime B, which are both examples of Legal Crime, and neither is an experiment in defense against crime of any kind?

If so, if I have found that bridge that spans the obvious gap, then I have a question to ask of you.

If Legal Crime A costs more and is of less benefit to any human being, and if Legal Crime B costs less and is of more benefit to any human being, then what is that human being inspired to do at that point?

You may not agree with my observation of obvious fact as the Despots, the Criminals, will move to the places where crime pays well, and the victims will move to the places where crime pays less well since they, the victims, or slaves, are the ones doing the paying.

"If you take this into account, the "solution" of being able to shop from government to government is not of much real use."

If you speak of government as being something, something akin to a measurable fact, then establishing that fact could be the foundation that supports the side you are on. I can build my side on a foundation too, and then a span between these sides we are on could be built, if there is a will to do so.

Government is the process by which the victims effectively avoid any contact with criminals.

That is government on the side I am on.

Which side are you on?

What is government to you?

Government is not easy because criminals are good at lying, robbing, and murdering the victims.

"Of course, if you can only see the life of some kind of "itinerate corporate vandal" (terminology due to Wendell Berry), then you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model."

I am right here, and if there is an if about anything I can agree to such an open ended question.

"itinerate corporate vandal"

There isn't any way I can agree to such an idea that appears to me to be leaking falsehood profusely.

"you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model"

When the slaves run away from the criminals they run to places where there are less criminals. If they run to places where there are more criminals, that can hardly be called running away, can it?

The example of Daniel Shays's may be a fairy tale, having no meaning other than pure fantasy, if that is what you think, and that is fine by me, you will think as you please.

I see much evidence supporting the concept of Free Market, Voluntary Government, working as intended, when the idea behind government is, in fact, a shared, agreement, to avoid contact with criminals.

You see whatever you see, and to bring in a third viewpoint, and attach a third viewpoint to me, as if I somehow voluntarily share that third viewpoint, is called a Man of Straw argument, for some reason.

What would be that reason for attaching, loosely, or firmly, that third viewpoint to me?

"Of course, if you can only see the life of some kind of "itinerate corporate vandal" (terminology due to Wendell Berry), then you might be enamored of the competing multi-state model."

I can certainly be the one confused, but those words appear to me as me being guilty by your falsely associating me with some nebulous fairy tale.

At least your words afford to me the opportunity to reject that false association, as I see it.

No thanks.

"I think that if you realize the importance of connection to land for the long term viability of society, then there is only one option left, in the sense that the majority of a local population (large enough to be self-sufficient and defensible) accepts the nonaggression principle."

I think that you presume to know what I think, and I think that your presumption of authority over what I think is well off the mark.

Your words, written as quoted above, appear to suggest that I, not you of course, do not accept the nonaggression principle.

Again, by your words, apparently, I am guilty by your false association.

Who, exactly, are the criminals?

Who, exactly, are those who do not accept the nonaggression principle, and is it a good idea to trust in words, or are deeds more valuable as evidence proving or disproving guilt in any case whatsoever?

I am, by your words, apparently, already tried, sentenced, and punished, publicly as one who does not accept the nonaggression principle, so your actions confess something.

What?

I am allowed a defense after the fact of public damnation?

Are your charges true?

Is your public punishment of me justified?

Am I not, as your words indicate, someone who agrees with the nonaggression principle, in fact?

Might it be a good idea to establish at least one fact before executing punishment on the innocent person who is presumed to be guilty from the moment of birth?

"The exact details of that acceptance---and what else is necessary to defend the resulting community in a hostile environment---comprise the crucial things that need to be determined. Without this minimum, I don't think you have civilization---at least by my definition."

So you have a working definition of civilization.

Do you have a working definition of government?

If by your definition the word government means crime, having the same meaning as crime, as criminals define exactly what crime is, each crime they define according to their will exerted upon their targeted victims, each in turn, then I can know that too, if that is your definition of government.

If that is not my definition of government, then confusion on the subject of government, how it does work, how it does not work, is likely, or inevitable.

I don't know if these words will work to convey accurate information concerning my viewpoints. I can find out, to some degree, in time.

Joe