Comment: Seriously flawed

(See in situ)

Seriously flawed

Now you have government.

That's the Robinson Crusoe version anyway.

Now for the harangue and advice.
_______________________________end quote

I read up to that point above and to me there is a very serous flaw in the message being offered to the so called anarchists. There are at least 2 types of anarchists.

Genuine people whose goal is to do no harm to anyone.

False people who claim to be anarchists but they genuinely seek to do harm to other people for fun and profit.

There are in the words preceding the quote above where 2 types of government, not one, worked in that fireside chat, or story.

People cooperating with a shared goal to do no harm to each other.

People cooperating with a shared goal to do harm to targeted innocent victims.

The speaker who spoke the story line appears to have both forms of government confused as if only one form of government exists.

Having that foundation of confusion my guess is that the rest of the story is going to be awfully useless.

Before reading further, and before commenting on what is offered after the quote I took out of the story above, I think it is important to rewrite the story in a way that accurately identifies the two versions of government.

As it happens, some of these hundred exiles try to bully the others around and take as much as they can get their hands on. So some others maybe try to persuade the bullies to chill out and take their fair share, or cooperate and work together to get stuff.

Taking your fair share was, perhaps, a lie told by the LONE GUNMAN THEORY. Perhaps, I can't say, that is my guess. So rewriting that to express a cooperative effort among honest productive people earning whatever they can under those conditions of "natural anarchy," whereby no one, at least not yet, is endeavoring to "take" "something for nothing" or "their fair share" or any other false advertizement that intends to transfer earning from those who earn as those earnings flow to those who steal by way of lies, threats, or aggressive violence. Note the plural use of the word "those."

Those acting alone are governed by their one, exclusive, power of will. Those acting alone to perpetrate a crime upon any innocent people are those acting alone to perpetrate a crime upon any innocent people according to their own self government, as they volunteer to be criminals: ALONE.

That is a single individual person, becoming a criminal, on their own, for some reason, and if no other person, anywhere, ever, invents another crime, of any kind, then there is only one LONE GUNMAN.

Defense against crime (individual or collective)

Crime (individual or collective)

The best defense against crime, the best government, is self-government, which is to avoid being a criminal, to avoid any impulse to act out a crime yourself.

The best defense against crime is to avoid volunteering to be a criminal.

If there are other particulars as to how to earn a better defense against crime, competitive ideas, real working examples, then those competitive ideas can be shared among the non-criminals, as the non-criminals share better, competitive, ideas as to how best to earn good, non-criminal, government, as a workable, cooperative, honest, productive, method of defending against crime.

Confusing cooperative people earning their living in Liberty with criminals being criminals is not a good idea, not a competitive method of defending against crime, since the innocent victims, if confused, have no idea as to who is, and who is not, a criminal.

So the story line has so far offered 1 criminal acting alone and every other person alive is a potential target.

1. The group of honest productive people.

2. The one criminal.

Two governments working at that point, in that story line.

The government working among the honest productive people is absent any crime until one criminal decides to resort to lies, threats, and aggressive violence, and that one criminal acts alone, at first, so there is a cooperative government of non-criminals, a glue connecting each honest producer, and then there is one individual acting alone, government by a criminal mindset, an individual criminal mindset.

Many people helping each other earn a higher standard of living and a lower cost of living, at first, and only 1 bad apple, at first.

Natural anarchy at first, and then one LONE GUNMAN, acting alone, all alone, by him, or her, self, begins a crime spree with the first criminal thought followed by the first crime, all alone, just one individual alone.

So that is the story so far in the story line.


Well that don't work, so a few of them gang up to tie up and bludgeon the bully with a club.

There are copy cats?

Criminals teaching criminals how to perpetrate crime?

Might makes right is the lie told, so as to create a culture of criminals?

Why don't the victims ask the one LONE GUNMAN to work at finding any other criminals who may be lurking in the dark, and in that way the one and only criminal, the first one, the first known one, the first one caught red handed, the first one presumed to be innocent one, the first one then found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a number of people randomly picked to judge guilt or innocence, and what happens if those people merely ask that first criminal to work at finding any other criminals, for pay, and for that pay that one ex-criminal becomes another honest earner, earning a higher quality of life, and earning a lower cost of life, doing what that criminal specializes in doing, which is to accurately identify criminals perpetrating crimes and alert the many victims as to such activity, so that the potential criminals can avoid any contact with the current criminals who have yet to be asked to join an effective fight against crime? Long question, but a vital one, to me.

1. Crime is the idea criminals use as a false method of fighting against crime, and the targeted victims fall for it every time?

2. Crime can be effectively fought without following the lie that to fight crime the crime fighters have to resort to crime, resort to lies, resort to threats of violence, and resort to aggressive violence upon the innocent.

The story offered goes on with the following:

So some others maybe try to persuade the bullies to chill out and take their fair share, or cooperate and work together to get stuff.

There are words that suggest a possible cooperative POWER utilized by the criminals, but that may be my imagination working. Perhaps the speaker of the story is not actually identifying a POWER utilized by the criminals so as to afford the criminals a means of gaining more POWER, collectively, over their targeted victims.

Again, the LONE GUNMAN, or the first criminal, acting alone, is probably combined with several, isolated, disconnected, LONE GUNMAN, and the pool of victims, one or two working together, ask, politely, for the criminal to stop perpetrating crime. Perhaps there is not enough force of reason with only 2 defenders asking 1 criminal to please stop being a criminal, and perhaps the idea of actually hiring the criminal to work for pay, to specialize, to be on the side of the 2 defenders, against any more LONE GUNMAN is not an idea on the table at that time.

Who knows? I don't. I did not write the fictional account.

The story claims:

Well that don't work, so a few of them gang up to tie up and bludgeon the bully with a club.

Having insufficient POWER commanded by the defenders constitutes "Well that don't work,.." so the former victims become criminals themselves, in this story line, at least that is how it looks to me. I'm not a criminal. I am not a LONE criminal. In so far as I've been forced to pay Federal Income Taxes with Federal Reserve Notes, to that extent, I've been a member of a criminal gang, under duress.

I am, by that glue, by that connection, that legal counterfeit and extortion racket: glue, by that glue, I have been a paying member of a criminal gang that roams the earth "to tie up and bludgeon" people for fun and profit.

I don't get the fun. I don't get the profit. I get the bill.

So the idea to gang up and become criminals under the false flag of crime prevention is exposed for what it is, in this story line, if anyone cares to know better.

The story goes on:

He flees into the hinterland and joins up with some other billy badas_ses that had been chased off. They say F it lets team up and go crack some skulls, grab some fermented berry drink, some women and have a good old time.

Honest, cooperative, sharing of the idea of Liberty works for a number of people glued by that idea, avoiding crime, specializing, dividing labor, and becoming very productive as a result, this group in Liberty has the POWER to have much more at the end of the day compared to what was produced at the start of the day, because of this POWER of cooperative effort, this sharing of economic POWER, whereby no one turns to crime instead, in this group until the first criminal perpetrates the first crime.

Then the criminals gang up and create a crime monopoly.

Then a band of criminals form in competition with the crime monopoly.

So that is the A,B,C's of Legal Crime for ya'll to chew on, if you care to.

If you care not for more lies that cover up Legal Crime, then care enough to see past the lies - please.

Four of em descend on the peaceful social organization forming among the others.

The story teller fails to recognize 2 competitive groups of criminals? The story teller claims that the peaceful social organization forming is, by the story tellers own words, the same people who had resorted to this: "tie up and bludgeon"?

"tie up and bludgeon"
"tie up and bludgeon"

What is so hard about accurately identifying the criminals?

Do you have to be one to know one, according to a criminal?

I don't think so. Criminals are, if not nice, criminals are routinely predictable.

Criminals lie.

Criminals threaten.

Criminals aggressively attack innocent victims targeted by criminals for fun and profit.

Criminals routinely perpetrate crimes upon innocent people who have something that the criminal wants to get from the innocent targets.

Why is that difficult to see?

Four of em descend on the peaceful social organization forming among the others. They lose 10 people before driving off the gang. They gather round tending their wounds, and decide they need 10 or 15 on guard at all times to watch for and repel or capture this gang of thugs.

The story is one of criminal gangs in competition for their fair share of the booty, as far as the actual words in the story line mean anything to me. To me the logical, reasonable, obvious, effective methods of fighting crime can be categorized in many accurate ways from best ideas to worst ideas possible, and the door can be left open to better ideas as time goes by, but the idea that always fails to pay off is the idea that becoming the criminals is a way to fight crime.

In simple terms:

Voluntary associations are crime free, by design, until a criminal, acting alone, creates an involuntary association as the first criminal perpetrates the first crime upon the one targeted innocent victim, and from that point on that one criminal can begin a crime spree if no POWER is employed by all the other victims to prevent any further crimes upon any further innocent victims.

Abandoning innocent victims is very bad for the rest of the innocent victims because the criminal earns a life of crime as a criminal gains POWER from each new victim.

Involuntary associations are crimes in progress so criminals offer involuntary associations as a false method of fighting crime, so it may be a good idea to know that anyone offering an involuntary association is a criminal, so don't be fooled by that lie. If you are fooled by that lie you may be feeding the criminals by the process that starts with that lie, and then you will grow weaker, and the criminal will grow stronger by that lie.

Involuntary association is crime.

Voluntary association is liberty.

What is so tough about simple observations of accurately measurable facts?

The people standing around on guard aren't working so they have to get paid to stand around and be cops, so they can eat too.

Now you have government.

That's the Robinson Crusoe version anyway.

Now for the harangue and advice.

I am just an average Joe. I am just an old worn out laborer. I smell a rat here, with this story. This is a false story. I'll read on, in case the story gets better.

n the theory or schematics you conjured up.

From my point of view, which is demonstrably accurate, the conjuring was done by the people who claim that becoming criminals is a way to fight crime, and that was demonstrated again, in this story line. So who is doing the conjuring?

At least test this shyt out on an island somewhere before you try it in real life!

What follows will be 2 of many.

2 examples offered, of many examples available, by which a person offers reasonable, actual, methods of taking away the profits from the criminals, so that crime no longer pays. It is known, obvious, and measurable that when the criminals take over the power of the government the first thing they do is raise their pay, and give themselves bonuses for their crimes that they claim to be just for them and not for anyone else. They, the criminals, monopolize what they do best, they monopolize crime.

The first offering is a so called anarchist named Lysander Spooner offering a history of Trial by Jury.

It worked as designed even to the point of modern versions which are unfortunately confused and misunderstood and growing worse as anyone can see if anyone watches Television. Currently there is a very effective effort to discredit Trial by Jury with National Show Trials of dubious authenticity.

When the criminals are the authorities, the victims aught to question that version of authority.

Second of 2 offers, of many possible offers, is an offer from another so called anarchist, this anarchist supposedly being the First American Anarchist, an offer of concise explanation of what Free Money Markets mean, in reality, as Free Money Markets were tried out in a few villages in the early 19th Century here in America. People can claim that the idea does not work, but those are false claims because the idea is still working here and there as people use the idea to their advantage.

Those who merely point and discredit, out of ignorance, are what they are, doing what they do, as if on cue.

Yes master.

Right away master.

Can I lick my blood and teeth off of your boots, Master, when you stop kicking me in the head, Master?

At least test this shyt out on an island somewhere before you try it in real life!

Real life is always current.

If we knew better we could all acquit each other of any so called "National Income Tax Liability" as I think was Henry Fords words here:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford

Before you try to persuade people to adopt it for 350,000,000 people who need to eat and be provided for through the system of social cooperation in a market economy operating on a legal basis.

How's that for a compromise?

Offered are 2 of many examples of offers offered by Anarchists.

If the speaker of this story has a bone to pick with anarchists of some other definition, then a definition of that process in mind is demanded, or is there a reason for confusing 2 things as if only 1 thing existed?