Comment: No disagreement

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Free market in law (see in situ)

No disagreement

Those who work to avoid crime as victim, or as criminal, agree to do so, and those who don't: don't.

If there is anyone, anywhere, working against a free market of suppliers supplying the demand for "law," so called, they are, in fact, demonstrating a conflict of interests: yes or no?

1.
The demand, and the supply, is produced according to a willful desire to be a criminal, and to make victims victims in fact.

2.
The demand, and the supply, is produced according to a willful desire to avoid any crime and therefore to avoid any production, any supply, of victims.

That is the conflict of interests.

Yes or no?

Someone claims that a free market supplier is outside of the "law," so called, because that supplier is not up to par?

Which par?

Which is the willful goal?

1.
The stated goal, the goal stated to be the goal, by those who desire a ready supply of victims.

2.
The actual goal, which is opposite the stated goal, because criminals lie so much, is a desire to make a ready supply of victims to be victimized by the criminals who define the meaning of crime by their actions, and by their false words.

3.
The stated goal, which is the actual goal, which is to avoid being criminals, to avoid any production of victims whatsoever, and progress toward the goal is measurable over time as there are less criminals, and therefore less victims, because the desired goal is worked toward in an accurately effective manner.

If there is anyone, anywhere, working against a free market of suppliers supplying the demand for "law," so called, they are, in fact, demonstrating a conflict of interests: yes or no?

Is the answer yes, or is the answer no, when dealing with anyone claiming that a free market of "law," so called, is outside of the so called law, whereby that claimant is confessing a desire to be a criminal?

Yes, as an example, yes, I confess, the confessor confesses, my desire is to make my crimes pay well, for me, and therefore my desire is to outlaw the concept of defense against crime, by anyone, ever.

Is that true or not true in demonstrable fact?

Is it demonstrable, factual, to accurately know that anyone claiming that it is against the law to offer, freely, a competitive method of defending against crime, is a crime, and the confessor making that confession produces inculpatory evidence of that crime, as that criminal perpetrates that crime, in fact.

In other words, if criminals were inspired to tell the truth, then criminals would be less able, less powerful, when criminals were working to create a ready supply of victims.

A potential criminal, telling the truth, would announce their intention to injure their targeted victims without any confusion concerning the true motive of the criminal as the victims are then made aware of the clear and present danger of criminals ready to perpetrate crime upon the victims.

Again, the concept of law, is either/or, a desire for work to be done that effectively minimizes crime, or, on the other hand, the concept of law is, in fact, a desire to make crime pay well for the criminals who produce law so as to reach that goal of crime being legal for those criminals who are effectively working to make all their targeted victims precisely victims according to whatever the criminals want at any given time.

Which is it?

1.
Law is work done by those people who desire avoidance of crime, and their work reaches that goal of making crime pay less, and if possible crime pays nothing to anyone.

2.
Law is work done by those criminals who make their crimes legal for them to perpetrate while those criminals make their targeted victims pay whatever the criminals demand at any time once the criminals take over the power of law.

3.
The person in question has no clue that there are 2 versions of law, one is criminal, one is not criminal, and confusion over their being 2 versions, not 1 version, makes crime pay well, since the victims are the one's who are confused, and the criminals are not at all confused.

4.
The person in question is a criminal, and there won't be any confessions concerning the fact that the criminal version of law (monopoly) is criminal, and the non-criminal version of law (free market) will not be acknowledged by the criminal, since the criminal knows that crime pays well only when the victims are powerless to defend against crime.

Example:

The criminal will not acknowledge the non-criminal (free market) version of law that existed between 1776 and 1788 in America, because doing so, acknowledging the fact of defensive law being a fact, will effectively "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" as confessions by criminals that their versions of "law," so called, being criminal versions, ends the POWER of that fraud.

Have a nice day.

Joe