Look, whoever you are, and I don't care what your motive is for twisting words around, and I don't even care if you are aware of what you are doing.
If now you are making a claim that government, according to your definition, your words, is nothing, or "a certain idea rather than an action" then again the claims is precisely the same claims made by criminals.
If you want to speak to someone about an idea, and nothing but an idea, and the idea that you want to speak about has nothing to do with any actions by anyone, then your question to find someone to speak about nothing is nothing for me to have any interest in, and my guess is that if you find someone who shares your interest in speaking about nothing of consequence, or "a certain idea" RATHER "than an action," then that person may wink while he, or she, plays along with the charade you are on, of your design, or merely parroted by you for lack of reason applied by you.
What, if I bend way over backwards in assuming that you have a motive, what is the point of speaking about this "certain idea rather than an action"?
I know how the lie works for criminals, while the targets are distracted by the suggestion to focus attention on this "certain idea rather than an action," the victims are acted upon in such as way as the victims are rendered powerless to defend against those actions which are driven by "a certain idea."
"Therefore, my definition can not be a definition of crime."
If your point is to point out things that are not crimes, then why not speak of an idea such as any other idea of no consequence, such as, I don't know, the relative colors of dog crap?
What is the point of pointing out this idea rather than an action that is by your definition not a crime?
I see by looking ahead, but not yet reading, you offer examples.
While on that concept of exemplifying Crime made Legal, or False Government, in action, based upon the lie, here are 5 examples:
1. Unlawful Authorities at Work
2. Dangerous Criminals at Work
3. Adoption by the finest Evil
4. Drug Wars for Profit and Fun
5. The Final Solution coming to a Theater Near You
On to your claim that is a claim of "an idea rather than an action" whereby this idea "can not be a definition of crime," and examples?
"A gangster sends a note to a store and demands money from the store owner for supposed protection. The gangster threatens to send his thugs to punish the store owner if he does not obey. In sum these actions are called extortion."
Now you are reporting on how a criminal defines a specific crime that you call extortion, and I can agree, or I can not agree, generally, but having no specifics, no names, no dates, no evidence whatsoever of an actual victim, then I'm reserving judgement in that specific case. I can reserve judgment on my own, and I sure don't need your help in this specific case.
"An IRS official..."
I'm cutting that claim off before it wanders on into colors of dog crap.
An IRS official is a crime in progress, it is a false, fraudulent, label, it, the name, is inculpatory evidence documenting a crime in progress, so what is the point of aiding and abetting such a crime by using the false name?
The crime of extortion, in my case, has been well documented, as every unit of honest earnings I ever made, whereby my earnings went to the criminals running The Internal Revenue Service, is, in fact, inculpatory evidence of my injury by those criminals, and again I don't need your help to know dog crap when I see it, or crime when it is perpetrated upon me by criminals.
"and there is a law which says the IRS agent is entitled to make that demand"
What happened to "a certain idea rather than an action"?
You exemplify a general report on specific crimes in progress perpetrated upon unnamed victims by unnamed criminals, and now you claim that such crimes are entitlements according to "a law" in your words?
The victims in question have names, my name is Joe Kelley, I am one of the victims of this specific crime in progress, and your claims of "a certain idea rather than an action" are just so much noise to me, noise covering up the crimes, by you, and therefore in my opinion you are aiding, you are abetting, you are lending moral support, you are lending material support to, you are transferring power to their idea, you are transferring power to their actions, and for what, what do you gain?
Why are you helping the criminals perpetrate their crimes upon me and everyone else who are, in fact, victims to this crime that you are now speaking about as an example of what, "an idea rather than an action" and therefore it "can not be a definition of crime"?
"This is called taxation."
If the criminals call it dog crap do you then start obeying that order without question too?
I call crime crime because it is crime, not because some criminal has this idea that it is "an idea rather than an action" and therefore it "can not be a definition of crime."
"It is the same as extortion, except that because of the idea of government it is renamed taxation and considered legitimate."
By who, you, is it considered legitimate?
It is crime because there are criminals perpetrating crimes upon innocent victims, even when it is claimed to be "an idea rather than an actions" and therefore it "can not be a definition of crime."
An idea can be invented by someone, dreamed up by someone, or parroted by someone, and an idea can be a willful distortion of the facts, whereby the person inventing the idea, or parroting the idea, is either the inventor of lies, or just borrowing the idea of lying from the inventor, and the inventor, or the parrots, who lie, willfully, are lying willfully, and those who merely regurgitate the lie, not knowing that the lie is a lie, are merely regurgitating the lie, despite their ignorance as to the lie being a lie.
The inventor of the idea of lying passed on awhile ago, long dead, perhaps some place on Earth renamed, here lies the inventor of lies, at some time way back in human history, before anyone had any USE, for the idea of lying.
"This question doesn't make sense because it includes the assumption that my definition of government is a definition of crime. That is false."
If you point at people who call themselves government, which you just did again, with your finger pointing at criminals who hide behind the false label of The Internal Revenue Service, ha, ha, ha, what a JOKE on the FOOLS that one is, "service," if YOU point at those criminals as an example of "government" then YOU do that, and now you are claiming that I am speaking falsely?
I'm getting so tired of this crap, this dog crap, I'm dreaming of the days when Duels decided the fate of those who spread such lies.
So now, rather than that idea, now there are more civilized ways to deal with libelers?
Why am I asking you? You are now claiming that I am speaking words "That is false."
Go take a long walk on a short peer.
How is that for a sentence?
So now your claim is that the cause ("because") of some thing happening, is "the idea"?
I think that I can often be wrong, as in this case, my idea here is that you are seeking, you are letting other people know about a demand of yours, seeking a supply, and what you want is company, you want company to share in your twisted ideas of crime and government.
I can't supply that demand.
I'll have none of it.
Crime is defined by the criminals and they often claim that their crimes are just "an idea" or the gun did it, or the government did it, or the public did it, or the mob did it, or the idea did it, or "because of the idea of government" he did it, or she did it, and so who benefits under that idea of false accountability?
What is the point?
"Government is the idea according to which this legitimization of that which is evil can take place."
How many definitions do you offer before you find one that does not change like the wind direction or ambient temperature?
"If any normal person (or more generally any non-governing person, like a gangster) extorts someone, it's considered illigitimate or criminal."
Well, now you have access to a criminal brain, I suppose, and a competitive one at that, since that specific criminal does what that specific criminals does because that criminal desires to do what that criminals desires not to do, or some other such twist of reason?
Society made me do it?
I've spoken with criminals. I want to find out why they do what they do, and often has been the case that they claim, at least to me, if not to themselves, that the victims deserve what they get, and that they, the criminals, are helping the victims, ever so generously helping them, because that is what the criminals say, to me, if not to themselves.
But you know, I guess, better than I do, as to what you mean when you define government, or crime, or whatever you think is legitimate, or illegitimate, or law, or whatnot, but I certainly do not agree with your ambiguous, fluctuating, definitions. How could I agree, when you change your definitions on a whim, at your pleasure, and therefore the only way I can agree is to ask you what the latest definition is, as if you were the authority over what is, or is not, crime according to me, or what is, or is not, government according to me.
I, on the other hand, know that criminals define crime as they invent new ways, or borrow old ways, to injure innocent victims.
I, on the other hand, know that government is the way in which criminals are overpowered.
I, on the other hand, know that one of the crimes perpetrated by criminals is the claim made by the criminals whereby the criminals claim that their crimes are examples of government.
You made a similar claim when you claimed that "there is a law which says the IRS agent is entitled to make that demand."
Hi, I am a criminal, and I demand that your earnings are now my earnings, a crime I perpetrate, and I do so because you are powerless to stop me.
If there existed a power to stop crime, then there is government in that case, when that crime is no longer being perpetrated in that way.
So, according to you, I suppose, there is government, or crime, or government, or crime, or government, or crime, or you are confused as to what you think, or I am confused as to what you think, while I know that criminals define the meaning of crime and former victims who overpower criminals define the meaning of government in each case when those definitions are defined by those people who are not confused at all.
"It is the same action, but the function of government is to make that (criminal) action appear legitimate."
Yea, same message, confusion, it is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, and you don't have to keep repeating it to convince me of your confusion.
I am not fooled.
Crime is crime.
In any case where crime is prevented, that is the definition of government in that case.
The specifics are defined by the people who either perpetrate crime, specifically upon an innocent victim, or a specific employer of government prevents a crime upon a specific innocent victim, in time, and in place, in reality, which is based upon an idea either way.
The criminal idea is whatever the criminal may dream up at any moment to explain, to himself, or herself, or to explain to whomever cares to know, the reasons for targeting, and injuring, the innocent victim targeted by, and injured by, the criminal.
The government idea is based upon the idea that it is wrong to allow criminals to injure innocent victims, and it is right to prevent criminals from injuring innocent victims, and it is wrong, by that reasoning, or it is a lie by that idea, to BE A CRIMINAL while claiming that some innocent victim is being injured by YOU.
Call me, in so many words, a liar, keep it up, and you merely confess to me, that you are driven by the criminal idea, and your crimes upon me, as I am innocent of your charges, and I am in no way deserving of your punishments, those lies exist as inculpatory evidence proving the fact.
It is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, which is it, where is this false stuff you are accurately identifying with your finger of blame?
"What you are suggesting is not a definition, but merely a perception of government."
Now you claim to know what I am suggesting?
I am doing no such thing. I know how to prevent crime, there are many ways, and the most obvious, effective, reasonable, just, affordable, legitimate, workable, understandable, logical, effective, economical, moral, productive, and least destructive way, even to the criminals, is to stop paying the criminals so well for each lie they tell.
End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home (You are the Troops)
Do so by July 4th, 2013, start now, finish early.
I can go into great detail concerning step by step, competitive, methods, by which government IS the step by step way to stop paying criminals for their perpetration of crimes.
As to your claims of what I am suggesting, as far as I can tell, you miss the point.
You wrote this:
"You can't make a perception or a perceived means into a definition."
Presumably your words are targeting me for some reason.
Earlier you wrote this:
This question doesn't make sense because it includes the assumption that my definition of government is a definition of crime. That is false.
In particular, my definition of government is that it is a certain idea rather than an action. A crime, as you've indicated above, is an action. Therefore, my definition can not be a definition of crime.
Just poking at this idea, that is of no consequence?
"The assumption that government has something to do with stopping crime is also a related myth, but the function of government is only and always to legitimize evil actions."
It is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime, it is government, it is crime.
Government did it.
No, government is only an idea,
No, government did it.
Crime is, but government cannot be anything other than crime, so therefore, I guess by this reasoning, there can never be any defense against crime, and if there is, by some miracle, that defense against crime can't be, by definition, called government.
Government can't be defense against crime, by definition, because government is an idea, not an action, so either there is no such thing as defense against crime, or at least there is no way, ever, to call defense against crime a word that already means what I say government means, which is just an idea, not an action, and defense against crime would be action, so defense against crime can't be government, and government is defined by me as I say it is, always, and forever, or at least government is defined by other people, people I call governors, as I say government is defined, forever, the way they, those governors, not me, as they define it, and I merely relay the definition that they say is the definition of government, which can't ever be any action in defense against crime.
So, I suppose, there is a question worth asking, at obvious risk, but none-the-less worth it in my judgment, what is the word used to label the process by which crime is no longer so profitable for the criminals at the expense of the victims?
I know that the criminals don't want the accurate answer to the question known by the victims, there is no money in the answer being known by the victims, which is reasonable of me to know this fact.
The criminals have no interest in finding a word that works to label the process by which the criminals are no longer paid so well.
But I can ask anyway, just in case an answer might arise from out of the blue.
What is the label used by people driven by the idea of Liberty, whereby these people work cooperatively, agreeably, effectively, and economically, toward reducing the pay rate paid to the criminals by the victims?
"if I may attempt to cut through your double talk"
You may make as many false claims, libel, upon me as you can get away with, absent a process by which I can defend myself against your libel.
"It's like saying that cloud up there looks like an elephant to you, so it's an elephant."
I can offer a competitive word for one of the many competitive processes by which people work effectively to reduce the injury to innocent people by criminals.
I can account for my own words, without your claims of libel upon me.
Your libel targeting me:
I said no such thing. In fact, what I said, was that criminals define crime as they define it, as they perpetrate crime upon their victims, even as they may call what they are doing just, right, or whatnot. The crime of libel is defined by you now.
There is a process by which libelers can be prevented from accomplishing their injury upon their targeted victim.
I can account for my own words, I can be accountable.
I did not say anything having to do with a cloud looking like an elephant.
An IRS agent is a willful criminal, knowing that an IRS agent is perpetrating a crime, or an IRS agent is unknowingly perpetrating a crime, in any case whatsoever, not a cloud, not a cloud that looks like an elephant, but an IRS agent, a criminal, perpetrating a crime.
Some claim entitlement. Who believes those lies?
A competitive process by which a victim of an IRS Agent perpetrating a crime is no longer victim to the IRS Agent perpetrating the crime, is a competitive process by which a victim of an IRS Agent perpetrating a crime, and those events, driven by the idea of avoiding criminals, can be called something, a label, a name, a name for that process.
This might help (not you) but it helps me avoid any credit afforded to your libel upon me:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Being targeted by a libeler is costly. There are many forms of government available to any victim. One is accountability.
I can account for my own words and my own words are thereby offered in defense against the libelous attack being made upon me.
If the attacker can show where my words are examples of "double talk," rather than a function of a combination of problems associated with communication, then I can know what "double talk" is, by that example provided by my own words.
Absent any inculpatory evidence, proving the case of "double talk," the charge is false, and the event is an example of libel.
"Saying it's an elephant because you perceive it to be an elephant is not useful."
The author of the speech involving clouds and elephants is not me, the author is self-evidently the actual person publishing those words, or his Man of Straw.
"In the same way, saying that government is the means by which victims seperate themselves from criminals because you perceive it that way is not useful."
Criminals have no use for any process by which the victims exemplify effective defense.
Here are a few examples of competitive efforts to effectively defend against criminals hiding behind a false front of authority:
The most promising example of competitive government I see is that developing process of having a network of defenders ready to help someone during an attack by the criminals who are hiding behind a false front of authority; the process being developed in the first link.
Carl Miller offers much in the way of effective use of government as a power of defense against crime committed by criminals hiding behind the false front of authority.
The false authority over me, the one claiming that I have written "double talk" can prove the case, or continue attacking me with libel, as this case may be a process seeking an accurate label.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: