Comment: No argument

(See in situ)


No argument

What would be the point?

My response was in agreement with the concept of words being a voluntary agreement to share the meaning of the word that is thereby employed for the purpose or reaching the goal of accurate communication.

My favorite example of the opposite is the word Federalist.

There were these criminals, Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams to name just three. They were covertly and overtly working to enforce a Monopoly of Force or Dictatorship, and to do so they called themselves Federalists and they promised a Free Market of Government arrangement known then as a Confederation. It was proven to work as a voluntary free market version of government, proven in the case that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

So the Usurpers called themselves Federalists, but they were actually the despots, monarchists, consolidated government monopolists, seeking the power of legal extortion and the legal money monopoly power. They gave themselves the false front label of Federalist.

That was quite a feat, but the real magic done by these criminals, again the 3 notable names being Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams, managed, somehow, to make the opposition gain the false label of Anti-Federalist, when in fact, the opposition to the false Federalists were those people promoting the actual free market government design known as Federalism.

Is that not a prime example of how words are dictated into being and they are false on purpose?

"Because when something didn't exist before, it by definition cannot exist without voluntary active participatory action to form something; a group of individuals physically, consciously, actively HAVE TO DECIDE to come together TO form something. And that 'coming together?' Can only inherently BE voluntary."

I see a competitive viewpoint, but again argument is not the point to me. The goal is a free market of ideas, and let the higher quality one, and the lower cost one, be accepted or rejected in any case.

People forced into spending time defending against the criminals, and especially those criminals with false badges, false licenses, and real aggressive violence, are not gathering together in the strict sense of voluntary cooperation. The defenders cooperate voluntarily, but the cause of the action is driven by fraud, threat, or violence from an involuntary source.

"Can I leave freely?"

If you do then there is one less defender, you are certainly free to go, and if the attackers are very present dangers, you may likely be caught up and enslaved, having freely gone away from the defenders, and then you can ask your company of criminals if you are free to go at that point.

I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
—Samuel Adams

"Now, what later generations do with that initial voluntary compact or social associations, is wholly another matter: ie. the Constitution. Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States..."

That is false in fact. The concept of Consolidating the voluntary association into an involuntary one was well known at the time as proven by those who attended those Secret Proceedings (later to be re-branded as The Constitutional Convention or Con (Job) Con) and furthermore there were many opponents (George Mason, Patrick Henry to name just two) who were blowing the whistle on the Usurpation of out with the voluntary and in with the involuntary con job.

Lysansder Spooner merely broke down the absurdity of Usurpation later on.

"Lincoln's aggression..."

In entertaining conversation that line of thinking may be fun, but to me it misses the point. The Dirty Compromise done during the Usurpation leading to the Involuntary Association take over of the former voluntary association, or The Constitution Fraud, almost made certain that there would be a so called Civil War because soon enough the Slave Traders of the South would realize that they were as duped by the Usurpation as were any other idiot not able to see past the true intentions, the true goal, which was a working Monopoly Extortion Cabal hidden behind a Monopoly Money Fraud.

"And yet, there's nothing more ironic than someone demanding to stick to word definitions, who is not aware of actual word definitions."

Ok, speaking of ironic occurrences. Who claims authority over a so called "actual" word definition?

Many words are claimed by many authorities whereby often is the case that those "actual" words have more than one meaning and often separate meanings are opposite,or contradictory when compared side by side.

Who now is claiming, (for my benifit?) what is or is not an "actual" word, and if I see no benefit, rejecting the quality of actuality, or actualness, of the word having this supposed quality, then is an army going to be referred to whereby this army forces me to accept this quality of accualness or actuality, despite any effort on my part to have nothing to do with the supposed word?

Who, and what army, is offering actualness of which word?

I may accept it, having a use for it, or I may not. What is the point of the offer of actualness, or is it not an offer?

If it is not an offer of some quality of actualness then might it be more along the lines of a dictate?

"Now assuming you read all my words up to this point, and even after reading/at the least perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness, if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles."

Reading does not often reach the goal of accurate communication, in my experience.

I have, and I can again, use the word Collective to convey, accurately, a group of people comprising an entity as such.

I have, and I can again, point to a bee hive, for example, and I can say to someone, look at where I am pointing, do you see that, and the person I intend to accurately communicate to looks past or around where I am pointing.

Suppose we are walking and the intended focus of my effort to communicate is alined where his head may contact the swarm of bees in the bee hive.

I say, look at the collective. Right there, and I get closer and I point more accurately.

In this fictional example I can invent any outcome, but the principle intended to be communicated to you is real, it happens, so your help here is not needed, if you think you are going to help me realize some nebulous "actual" meaning of some word.

I can use the word collective as I please to accomplish the goals I set, and in the example case, if the intended target of may accurate communication is able to get the message intact, as I intend the message to be delivered, then the goal is reached,and the word used serves the purpose.

"if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles."

We will do no such thing. If the words I offer appear to reach a point of diminishing returns, as if my estimate is that there is no use in further efforts to communicate accurately with you, then I will find competitive things to do with my time.

Your experiences with other people do not automatically apply to me, if that is your reasoning for attaching me into your collectivized group of "we," as in "we simply are gonna talk in circles."

If that is what you are doing, collecting me up into some nebulous group of people who, in your experience, "talk in circles," then such an offer is hereby rejected.

No thanks.

Joe