Comment: No desire

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You got me. (see in situ)

No desire

I have no desire to get you, if by those words I am allowed some room to define the meaning of those words.

"I think you've got a good point that my statement about "shopping from government to government is not much use" is possibly overblown."

I have to comment at that point, in defense, against misunderstanding, before I read any further.

If you speak about shopping around for Crime made Legal, then that has to be understood as being what you are shopping around for, to invest in, to gain from, to bet on, or whatever, and that has to be separated from the opposite investments, whereby the shopper is seeking to invest in ways to avoid crime, prevent crime, to separate the criminals from the innocent victims, if possible.

That was my point, my question, my response, to clarify which process your words intended to focus attention upon, either/or, one or the other, and so as not to confuse the two as if only ONE MONOPOLY POWER Existed, and that one that exists is the criminal one.

1.
Shoppers shopping for the most powerful criminal organization which inevitably becomes the one that is a counterfeit version of the opposite organization.

2.
Shoppers shopping around for the most powerful defense against any criminal, anywhere, including criminals in gangs, and including criminals who claim to be the defenders against crime.

Your words again:

"I think you've got a good point that my statement about "shopping from government to government is not much use" is possibly overblown."

I will look further into your newest response and I will be specifically looking for your definition of "government" along these lines:

1.
Shoppers shopping for the most powerful criminal organization which inevitably becomes the one that is a counterfeit version of the opposite organization.

2.
Shoppers shopping around for the most powerful defense against any criminal, anywhere, including criminals in gangs, and including criminals who claim to be the defenders against crime.

3.
Shoppers who have no clue as to there being 2 opposite versions of government as the suppliers of one form of government are criminals by their thoughts, and by their actions, not by their words, as they define the meaning of crime, on the one hand, and on the other hand are the other guys, who by their thoughts, actions, and by their words, they supply the opposite of crime, so those shoppers having no clue as to there being 2 versions, not 1 version, are apt to buy the false version, since they are clueless shoppers, or worse, they may be brainwashed shoppers infected with a false belief in the need to pay the criminals more each day so as to then get more injury by those same criminals each day.

"Perhaps I should say "not much ultimate use" or make a less definitive assertion."

Perhaps I should ask for your definition of "government" and then I can know what you are talking about.

"...is not just about power..."

I see things differently, and I can condense my viewpoint into one workable sentence. If you don't see things as I do, that isn't a surprise to me. I could see things your way, but only if I ignore the way I see things, and that would be willful ignorance on my part.

"It is about (for lack of a better word) sustainability, about passing along to future generations an enhanced life from the environment, or at least the option to participate in that life."

Sustainability requires power, so how is it that it is not about power?

Here is my working sentence:

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Life form A no longer exists without the power required to sustain life form A.

What does Life form A do, if not gain more power out of less power?

The opposite can be called a word in human terms, a word in English, such as crime.

Life form B consumes more power resulting in less power.

Is that sustainable?

"I still don't understand your position on this point."

It has become a specific discovery, in detail, of mine, that English is problematic. I can explain in detail, but I have English to work with, and so far I'm finding problems in conveying simple things like the diametric opposite forms of government.

A.
Effective crime prevention.

B.
Effective crime made legal.

Confusing the two is a problem.

"Perhaps my definition of government will help: Government is the idea that certain people (those who govern) can legitimately do what it would be immoral for just regular people (the governed) to do."

How is that any different, in demonstrable fact, than any other crimes perpetrated upon any other innocent victims in human history?

If your definition of government is precisely the same thing as the way every criminal defines the meaning of crime, then my next question is to ask if you know of anything existing in human history that effectively opposes that which you call government?

"I believe that idea is a myth."

I believe that you fall into a trap of your own making, and then you trap yourself into it.

I can ask you why, while I feel little in the way of confidence as to getting from you an accurate answer.

I think my question is vital, so I ask it, and I think therefore that the accurate answer is demanded, as the false answer will mislead me away from reaching the intention behind the question.

Question:

Why do you define government in terms that are exactly the same thing as crime, and then you claim that government/crime is a myth?

You are in effect saying that crime does not exist.

You are, in that way, a self evident, self confessed, nihilist, or, competitively speaking, I merely miss the point.

I've been so often wrong that it would be wrong of me to be overly confident concerning the many possible answers to my question.

I can still ask.

Why do you define government in terms that are exactly the same thing as crime, and then you claim that government/crime is a myth?

I can ask:

Do you know of any methods by which crime, with or without false claims of authority, can be reduced?

"There are no rituals like voting which can make immoral acts morally acceptable."

I need to know this, as if the Sun was not bright?

If you know of no methods by which crime can be avoided, lessened, in any case whatsoever, then that can be known by me.

If you find one way, anyway, and it proves to be effective, and crime is thereby lessened, in that case, then I can ask you for a label for that method.

At the point at which you offer, if it happens, a method by which crime is lessened, and at the point at which you offer a label for that method, at that point I will offer a competitive label for your effective method of reducing crime.

I will call that competitive offer of a voluntary method of reducing crime by my competitive offer of a voluntary word and my word choice is government.

I have done so already.

Apparently, measurably, there is a power at work by which I say something, meaning something, and you read what I say, and you think I mean the opposite of what I say, as if English words have two meanings each, and the meanings are opposite, and the reader can choose, at will, the opposite intended meaning, and that is good enough for their government work, in any case whatsoever.

"The only function of government is to legitimize evil actions. I don't see that there's much way to get around that."

Around what?

You describe crime, you call crime with the label government, and now you "don't see that there's much way to get around that."

What is that?

Crime?

You don't see that there's much way to get around crime?

You don't see that there's much way to get around government?

If you define government to be crime, crime to be government, then it is ONE thing, not two things, so either you are confused as to what you don't see a way around, or I am.

I can ask.

Do you fail to see any effective way around crime?

Do you fail to see any effective way around government?

Do you fail to see that you are speaking about the same thing?

Am I the one who is confused as to your definition of government being exactly the definition of crime as defined by criminals when criminals perpetrate crimes?

"And your definition is that government is the means by which the slaves get away form the criminals? Perhaps we need a definition of criminals."

What?

"Perhaps we need a definition of criminals."

How twisted up can a mind get? My mind? I'm twisted here, sure, I am all twisted up in this case right here, and right now. Criminals define crime each time a criminal perpetrates a crime, each time, every time, and if you have any confusion concerning those definitions, then YOU, not WE, find a need for those definitions.

Criminals are predictable, if not nice.

Criminals lie.

Criminals threaten.

Criminals injure innocent people for fun and profit.

If the victims ask for it, demand it, love it, then they are not victims, and they are certainly not innocent, since they are feeding, paying for, investing in, encouraging, demanding, creating a need for someone to supply, increasing the pay rate for, enabling, supporting in a moral way, supporting in a material way, supporting in a willful psychological way, and supporting in a willful economic way, CRIME.

If the victims have been fooled, or threatened, or violently beaten into a condition of false love for crime made legal, then that is merely routine for criminals, and not at all a surprise to me, since I am already armed with a working definition of crime.

Your words (a voluntary competitive offer):

"Perhaps we need a definition of criminals."

My response less wordy (counter offer):

I don't.

"I'm sure I haven't addressed all your comments, and I'm sure I don't understand them all. I appreciate your observation (as I interpret it) that shopping from government to government might be useful in the process of eliminating the myth of government, because certain manifestations of the myth can be better than others."

Government as you define it is the same exact thing as crimes in progress defined by criminals.

I prefer not to feed it with any power at all. An example of government is, in demonstrable fact, reducing the flow of power to the criminals, reducing the aiding and abetting of the criminals just because the criminals reach for and use their favorite lie which is that they, the criminals, are anything but criminals.

1.
End the FED
2
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (look in the mirror)
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2013, start now, finish early.

Joe