Comment: Liars confess

(See in situ)


Liars confess

The lie invented by or parroted by the liar confesses the source of the lie being the source of the lie.

Follow the lie, in writing, in speech, in action (writing or speaking), to the source of it, and there is the source of the lie.

Does the source of the lie actually know that the lie is a lie?

Ask.

If there is no answer, the liar confesses an inability to respond to the question.

Responding to the question is an ability, a response ability, and therefore an account ability accounted to the person who is found to be the source of a lie, and the person who is found to be unable to respond to the question asking if the source of the lie knows that the lie is a lie.

"O, my intrepid friends, brave pioneers and adventurers of uncharted political seas!"

Names of actual people, rather than a shot gun blast aimed at collectively punishing some nebulous group, might be a better idea.

Having a name of someone who supposedly is an intrepid friend, supposedly is a brave pioneer, supposedly is an adventurer of uncharted political seas, might lead to an actual defense against any slide into libel, sliding down the slippery slop of collectivism, as appears to be the case here, once again.

Here is a name:

Josiah Warren

Here is a chart whereby the pioneer charted the political seas, as no one else has ever done before, or since:

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

Ignorance may appear, at first blush, to be bliss.

"You all choose, voluntarily, to continue to live under the protection of society and its laws, despite all the chest thumping and tough talk about your wish to dispense with all government and the tyranny of law by force."

An example of aggressive force driven by the criminal thoughts of a criminal could remove the clouds of smoke and the reflections of many mirror images of Straw Men, such would be the focus of attention, like a light turned on in a dark room, exposing the actual criminal caught red handed. Absent specifics the ambiguities are produced by the ambiguous speaker for a reason, a reason that may be left to the imagination, for lack of specifics.

Law by which force? I won't hold my breath for an answer.

1.
Aggressive, involuntary, criminal force in the form of lies, threats, and violence upon the innocent, whereby the criminal takes power from the object of the criminal desire?

2.
Defensive, voluntary, honest force only as a last resort when all other options are exhausted in the effort to remain associated voluntarily.

Why would anyone work diligently, and effectively, to confuse the two opposite uses of force above, as if there was something to be gained for the person causing the confusion and from the targets who may become confused?

I won't wait for an official answer from the official person doing the confusing.

______________________________________________
Seems to me that all of you, despite your philosophical musings, continue by your free choice to live under the legal protection of a coercive society without much second thought. Or in your words, the political machinery of slavery.

So please, dispense with the histrionics. "Give up the act."
_______________________________________________

Names, again, would place the targeted actor in the seat, under the light, so as to offer the targeted actor a means of self defense against any aggressive attack of libel perpetrated by any criminal attacker.

Currently there are many people working under duress, under attack, by vicious predators who aggressively attack innocent victims routinely, such as the example right here, this example of collective punishment, one of many specific techniques of aggressive attack perpetrated by aggressive attackers currently. Many people under duress, under attack, by vicious, aggressive, criminal, attackers, with badges, with high pay rates, or without badges, or without high pay rates, work to honestly produce more by the end of the day, despite the costs associated with being viciously attacked by aggressive attackers currently.

Some of the targeted victims who are targeted by the aggressive attackers do manage to honestly produce more by the end of the day, and some of the targeted victims are even able to produce the additional product of defense against vicious attack by aggressive attackers who may have, or may not have, false authority dangling on a shingle, or scribbled on paper, or fabricated into a mushing lizard brain, or who knows what inspires such vicious attacks. Some of the targeted victims say no thanks, and some actually resist effectively.

Here is one example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B3no...

Despite vicious attacks perpetrated by aggressive attackers, defense is still possible while ending the day with more produced relative to what was produced at the start of the day.

Imagine the possibilities?

http://www.infowars.com/jim-marrs-global-elite-suppresses-ne...

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

Imagine what could be when aggressive attackers are effectively nullified before their lies accomplish the intended purpose of the liars?

"The market you worship and hold up as the essence of anarchy is a product of the law that protects property and makes economic activity possible."

Again, names replace ambiguity, and instead of collective, collectivized, punishment, as if droning to death a funeral party to assassinate a suspect of nebulous terrorism, the aggressive attacker might place an individual suspect into a position from which the target can mount an effective defense. But that is not the purpose of collective punishment, is it?

Some questions must be ignored, for some unstated reason.

Those who worship a market can. Those who worship God can. Those who blame everyone for the actions of a few can too, at will; so as to benefit someone, I suppose.

Honesty is the best policy, for reasons that may be often covered up.

A person wrote this:
___________________________________________
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.”

This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.
____________________________________________

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&sta...

Some might confuse the appreciation of honesty as a form of worship, others may not do so.

Which person is being targeted by the aggressive attacker who picks up and uses the collective punishment routine?

Who ignores the question?

"The market you worship and hold up as the essence of anarchy is a product of the law that protects property and makes economic activity possible."

If the true, demonstrable, and accurately measurable, cause of productivity is honest work, and not a false belief in false authority, whereby a few very effective criminals create this false belief, resorting to often repeated lies, then, who benefits from honest productive work, and who benefits from often repeating the lies?

How about a score board?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If the volunteers are volunteering to pay into that lie, as if worshiping the lie as a God, and they keep volunteering to pay into that investment of lies, despite the laws of diminishing returns setting in, clearly, accurately setting in, in an official manner, those worshipers may eventually realize the need to find a new God, one that pays better.

Those who are honestly working to earn an honest living, despite being under the duress of criminals pretending to be the source of productivity, may find happier days soon, as those criminals run their crime spree to the inevitable conclusion.

The Legal Crime routine is easy to understand, often demonstrated in fact, whereby the criminals claim to be the source of all credit, when in fact the criminals create the concept of DEBT.

The criminals work diligently to confuse the two, as if there was only one, so as to weaken the targeted victims, so as to leave the victims without credit, without defensive power, and to leave the victims with only DEBT, and leave the victims with ideas of the right, and the worship, of aggressive violence instead of the useful, honest, productive, investment in voluntary defense.

1. Debt/Involuntary Association/Lies/Threats/Aggressive Violence posing as authority as if by some miracle handed down by a False God.

2. Credit/Voluntary Association/Honesty/Promises/Defensive Violence being what it is when it is working the way that works that way.

Confuse the two, and what might be the result?

Debt is credited as being worth the investment, and credit is discredited as being unworthy of an honest, and accurate, accounting?

Some questions are willfully ignored so as to benefit someone, for some reason, but don't expect someone to confess, because that would be honest, and that would credit the confessor with an accurate accounting.

"The regularity and predictability of law, the recourse to the courts to uphold private agreements, the protection from antisocial elements and organized violence, this is what allows economic planning, activity and exchange to occur."

Which law?

1. Debt/Involuntary Association/Lies/Threats/Aggressive Violence posing as authority as if by some miracle handed down by a False God.

2. Credit/Voluntary Association/Honesty/Promises/Defensive Violence being what it is when it is working the way that works that way.

Those who willfully work to cause targeted victims confusion of the two forms of law, one being genuine, one being counterfeit, do so for some, un-confessed, but none-the-less, obvious reason.

1. Legal Crime (Monopoly)
2. Liberty (Competition)

One ends up with less things worth stealing at the end of the day compared to the start of the day, the other ends up with more things worth stealing at the end of the day compared to the start of the day. One merely transfers things from those who honestly produce things to those who steal things, and the other manages to avoid that false government routine of making crime legal for the criminals, a monopoly of crime, while the criminals working the monopoly of crime make it a crime for anyone else to perpetrate the same crimes perpetrated by the criminals with badges.

Confusing the two is often a goal of the criminals as the criminals work the get their victims confused about honest, genuine, accurate, responsible, and accountable, law, compared, competitively, with crimes made legal by criminals.

The criminals don't often confess.

Some do.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Confessions-Of-A-Monopolist/dp/127...

"The selective process of competition has elevated societies with states and markets to the place they hold in the world today. It did not elevate societies with stateless arrangements to that place, because, if they ever existed at all for long, they failed."

The credit for productivity is stolen by the producers of aggressive violence, the producers of threats of aggressive violence, and the producers of falsehoods like DEBT, and the Monopoly of CRIME, where the criminals hide their crimes behind a very thin, and thinning, veil of false authority.

The credit for productivity is accurately accountable to the individual people who work honestly, competitively, each day, getting up in the morning with less, and going to bed, each day, with more things produced by them.

This is so obvious as to be beyond the need to prove it, it is self-evident, as in:

"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."

The supposed need for a STATE Legal Fiction, if the honest productive people are fooled by the criminals, is the supposed need of the Legal Fiction to give credit to those honest productive people. That was the lie told by Alexander Hamilton.

Here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

__________________________________________________
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "n countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
__________________________________________________

The criminals tell the same old lie. They are, if not nice, they are, if not good, they are, if not honest, they are, if not productive, they are, the criminals, and they are predictable.

They say that they, the criminals, are the source of all credit for all production while you work and pay them for their lies.

How does that work, that creation by that lie, how does that work, over time?

It works great for the criminals.

How great?

The criminals publish an official National Debt Clock Real Time, so everyone knows just how well that official lie works for the criminals.

The law of diminishing returns sets in, eventually, but the most powerful criminals are well aware of that fact, while the victims are less able to see the self-evident writing on the wall, so the most powerful few of the criminal gang move to greener pastures before the rest of the dupes are left with the empty bag.

"You will claim "true anarchism was never tried" just like the communists lament "true communism was never tried." Without explaining why. Why isn't this most natural, true and just order of things pre-eminent? Why has it never been tried? Why has it not spread and succeeded?"

Equitable Commerce works, as proven.

A Democratic Federated Republic works, as proven.

Equitable Commerce still works, here and there, despite crime made legal, despite the costs of working honest, productively, under the duress of crime made legal at the False Federal Level, where the National Criminals work their National Debt Fraud and Extortion Racket.

What is left of a work Republic, still works, as what is left of Trial by Jury still works, here and there, accurately crediting the individual people earning that credit, despite the false authorities stealing that credit, so the lies being told here, by this aggressive attacker are merely more examples of inculpatory evidence of just another credit stealing criminal doing what criminals do best.

Criminals lie.

Note the false association being done by the liar, as the liar obviously intends to create a false connection between one group of innocent people with a group of guilty people, as if the crimes of the guilty people automatically, by fiat, are earned by the innocent people.

Criminals lie.

That is not news. Their lies are, if not nice, their lies are predictable, and self evident.

"You think that pointing to voluntary activity that occurs within the framework of coercive legal order is somehow an example of anarchy. That is as fallacious as socialists who point to economic activity within a system of capitalism, like the military or medicare, as the "success" of socialism."

A named person in the target seat, a person able to defend themselves, all alone, an individual person, is one thing. A number of people working, sharing, giving all they can for the greater good, was once the concept driving a person to volunteer to join the volunteer army. Now the idea of joining the volunteer army as a credit to the good of social order, joining to give all to save innocent children, wives, and the defenseless, is replaced with the concept of DEBT, where often, and I know of a particular person, an offer that can't be refused is offered to the student who owes a nebulous DEBT, and there is a nebulous DEBT "forgiveness" if the student takes the offer to "join" the new version of The Military.

If the liar can name someone, the liar can have someone defending against the liar, and the defendant could ask for specific definitions for words such as The Military and Socialism.

An all volunteer army, such as the one working during the American Revolution, can be compared to any DEBT based, or conscripted, army.

Here are 2 cases:

1.
The Military Defined:

http://mises.org/daily/2885

2.
The Military Defined:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

The first case began as a volunteer army, the second was counterfeit.

Those are working definitions of The Military. If there is a working definition of socialism, something that wasn't merely a false cover for crime made legal, then here is one:

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

_____________________________________
What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all.
______________________________________________

Liars typically steal the names of words that start out good, like Federalist, and then they turn that words up-side-down, like Hamilton did with Federalism, where the good guys, like Patrick Henry and George Mason are called Anti-Federalists, as if the word suddenly reverses meaning, as if by a magic spell, or just a routine of repeating the same lie often.

I may return to this chore, later.

Joe